[js1138]

the same type of question could be presented to scientist...why did they treat humans as just another animal, that could be selected for “desirable” or against “undesirable” traits..

The argument to apply animal breeding techniques to humans was first put forward by Plato, a couple of thousand years before modern science.

The knowledge of selective breeding is thousands of years old. Its application is a political issue, not a scientific one.

But let me ask if you favor or disfavor selective breeding: do you care whom your children marry?

If you do care, then the only remaining issue is whether you have the power to enforce your preference. And whether such preferences are enforced by the church or state.

I would say that such parental preferences have been the rule rather than the exception throughout history.

[flevit]

actually I was talking more on the selectiveness of death,killing,removal from the survival and reproduction. like putting down a horse (any animal) that doesn’t preform upto expectations...and the “science/tist” that “studied” and categorized people as “life unworthy of life” or “morally unfit”. not “selective breeding.”

so the better question to you, is morality an inherited “trait” that is a result of
direction-less changes over time?
or is there and independent cause of morality out side of human programming codes?

I accept an objective external cause of morality independents of human programming.

thus I care to whom my children marry, based on integrity, humility,love and kindness not programmed traits.

if one makes no distinction, and morality is only a product of programmed traits (genetics) (that change over time) then a liar has no more “will” to control his deceit than some has the ability to “will” oneself tall (or short)
this is the premise for eugenics. viewing the TOTALITY of human as being nothing more than inherited traits, all behaviors included..eliminate the “undesirable” the “painful” and to usher in/create a “more” perfect world.