|
Post by goz on Apr 29, 2018 22:11:14 GMT
I was discussing whether the needs of the majority outweigh the needs of the few in terms of procreation, population control, genetic disease, abortion and other moral and ethical issues in society.
Within the discussion a view was expressed advocating stringent measures to 'improve' society for the majority which included
Here is what happened:
So here is the new thread.
Please don't turn it into a homosexual bash a la regulation religious bigotry.
I am genuinely interested in whether homosexuals hold this view in large numbers though it is obvious that many also want to be parents themselves and in fact make use of other people's genetic material.
Also perhaps heterosexuals and parents and potential parents hold this view of 'improving' society by punitive forcing the lesser amongst us to top ourselves or be sterilised, for the 'greater good' of the majority? Has society become too individualistic?
Do individual human rights override those of others?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2018 1:51:48 GMT
I can't speak for Bryce, but empathy is the foundation of my philosophical views (antinatalism). I don't like being forced to live a life that I didn't ask for, consent to or need. Anyone else who feels the same as me, now or in the future has wellbeing that is of equivalent value to my own, and therefore I don't want their wellbeing to be gambled with for something that is desired or needed only by the people who won't be liable for the cost of that gamble.
Bryce has a milder view that people with genetic diseases should be sterilised, and in espousing this view, he shows empathy for those who will be born with devastating disabilities which will impose upon those people a very unpleasant life that he himself would not wish to have to live. Your 'empathy' is with those who want to go to Vegas with money that they've stolen from someone else; our empathy is with the victims of reckless irresponsibility. I don't see that homosexuality has much to do with it, except that it might be somewhat more likely that we'd be able to rationalise imposing those risks on other people if it was in service of something that we wanted for ourselves and which we might feasibly obtain.
I don't want heterosexuals to 'breed a perfect world', I want them to stop breeding, because the only justifications for it are selfish ones, and the bulk of the cost is always paid by someone who didn't consent to pay the bill and received no benefits and only burdens from the entire enterprise.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2018 2:02:44 GMT
I'm not a "breeder" - I'm hetero but have no kids and no particular desire to have kids, partly because I dislike children.
But I think the idea that we should be leaving people to die who don't want to die is monstrous. Sterilising people who don't want to be? Killing children who have genetic diseases? I'll resist that with every means at my disposal.
And anybody who thinks humans are preventing or stifling evolution has badly misunderstood what evolution is or how it works. It is not within our power to do such a thing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2018 2:43:55 GMT
But I think the idea that we should be leaving people to die who don't want to die is monstrous. Sterilising people who don't want to be? Killing children who have genetic diseases? I'll resist that with every means at my disposal. If you don't sterilise people with genetic diseases, then they impose almost certain suffering on others. If you do sterilise them, all that you impose upon them is the lack of ability to impose their condition on someone else. I understand that you don't think that people should be expected to act responsibly if there is a high probability that they could transmit a terrible disease to someone else; but that is just an extreme form of libertarianism wherein only the rights of the procreators matter, and the future welfare of the child who will inherit severe disabilities and be condemned to a life of inescapable pain and indignity that we wouldn't impose upon a beast is an irrelevance. But the idea of responsibility or even sanctions against amoral recklessness is not beyond the pale for civilised society. I wouldn't agree with withholding life-saving treatment from people who want to live. I would agree with post-birth euthanasia of infants with genetic diseases. What you're advocating for, however, is for people with genetic diseases to have absolutely no responsibility to avoid transmitting their disease and causing unnecessary and preventable suffering. I understand that eugenics is unpopular, but to allow people to wantonly abdicate their responsibilities to others due to political sensitivity is absolutely outrageous. Just as society has the responsibility to provide life saving treatment to the afflicted (even if they are an economic burden), there should be some responsibility on the other side as well towards the rest of humanity, which has to include not deliberately imposing a life sentence of severe disability on someone who can't have a say in the matter.
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Apr 30, 2018 7:27:40 GMT
Also perhaps heterosexuals and parents and potential parents hold this view of 'improving' society by punitive forcing the lesser amongst us to top ourselves or be sterilised, for the 'greater good' of the majority? Has society become too individualistic? Do individual human rights override those of others? I wouldn't go with sterilisation option in this age of science. You never know when you get a scientific breakthrough for any genetic disease. The question "Do individual human rights override those of others?" is very complex. It hasn't got a straightforward answer. Probably we should approach it on case by case basis.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2018 11:11:00 GMT
But I think the idea that we should be leaving people to die who don't want to die is monstrous. Sterilising people who don't want to be? Killing children who have genetic diseases? I'll resist that with every means at my disposal. If you don't sterilise people with genetic diseases, then they impose almost certain suffering on others. Tough. You're not doing it, period.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2018 11:58:18 GMT
May all your futures be pleasant ones,
Not like our present ones,
Drink la kayim, to life,
To life, la kayim,
La kayim, la kayim, to life,
It takes a wedding to make us say,
"Let's live another day,"
Drink la kayim, to life!
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Apr 30, 2018 12:10:48 GMT
If this is the actual question and in the context of this discussion, yes.
Meritocracies suck in general and would suck completely if that includes the allowance of killing people for no reason.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Apr 30, 2018 12:23:14 GMT
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Apr 30, 2018 12:27:09 GMT
tpfkar But I think the idea that we should be leaving people to die who don't want to die is monstrous. Sterilising people who don't want to be? Killing children who have genetic diseases? I'll resist that with every means at my disposal. If you don't sterilise people with genetic diseases, then they impose almost certain suffering on others. If you do sterilise them, all that you impose upon them is the lack of ability to impose their condition on someone else. I understand that you don't think that people should be expected to act responsibly if there is a high probability that they could transmit a terrible disease to someone else; but that is just an extreme form of libertarianism wherein only the rights of the procreators matter, and the future welfare of the child who will inherit severe disabilities and be condemned to a life of inescapable pain and indignity that we wouldn't impose upon a beast is an irrelevance. But the idea of responsibility or even sanctions against amoral recklessness is not beyond the pale for civilised society. I wouldn't agree with withholding life-saving treatment from people who want to live. I would agree with post-birth euthanasia of infants with genetic diseases. What you're advocating for, however, is for people with genetic diseases to have absolutely no responsibility to avoid transmitting their disease and causing unnecessary and preventable suffering. I understand that eugenics is unpopular, but to allow people to wantonly abdicate their responsibilities to others due to political sensitivity is absolutely outrageous. Just as society has the responsibility to provide life saving treatment to the afflicted (even if they are an economic burden), there should be some responsibility on the other side as well towards the rest of humanity, which has to include not deliberately imposing a life sentence of severe disability on someone who can't have a say in the matter. One of the many reasons we've got ye olde 2nd amendment. Moreover, it may be possible to spray a chemical in the world's air, or add something to the water supply that would prevent women from becoming pregnant. It wouldn't be necessary to ban sex. Alternatively, we could develop an AI that would peacefully and swiftly wipe out all sentient organisms on Earth, perhaps by releasing some kind of toxin into the air.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2018 15:16:53 GMT
If you don't sterilise people with genetic diseases, then they impose almost certain suffering on others. Tough. You're not doing it, period. So you think procreation should be all rights and no responsibilities, then?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2018 20:33:11 GMT
Tough. You're not doing it, period. So you think procreation should be all rights and no responsibilities, then? Yep. And if you don't like it, then once again : tough.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Apr 30, 2018 21:09:08 GMT
Also perhaps heterosexuals and parents and potential parents hold this view of 'improving' society by punitive forcing the lesser amongst us to top ourselves or be sterilised, for the 'greater good' of the majority? Has society become too individualistic? Do individual human rights override those of others? I wouldn't go with sterilisation option in this age of science. You never know when you get a scientific breakthrough for any genetic disease. The question "Do individual human rights override those of others?" is very complex. It hasn't got a straightforward answer. Probably we should approach it on case by case basis. I have stayed away from this thread for a day to see what range of views will come forth. Thankyou for your concise, measured viewpoint, which I happen to agree with, from what you have covered. Further on the sterilisation option, I agree that the incredibly rapid growth in the knowledge of the human genome and vast strides in medical options for improving the lives of those afflicted with genetic disease, that to me forced sterilisation is draconian, cruel, unethical and increasingly unnecessary. Those who propose it have also not given much thought to the kind of genetic illness which results spontaneously without previous family history such as Down Syndrome where suffers are less the result of hereditary factors than those of age and health of the eggs and sperm of parents. I also wonder just how they propose to euthanase newborn babies and just what effect that will have on parents, let alone the ethical and legal rights that would have to be overturned.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Apr 30, 2018 21:10:29 GMT
If you don't sterilise people with genetic diseases, then they impose almost certain suffering on others. Tough. You're not doing it, period. See my recent response to CoolMax.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Apr 30, 2018 21:22:20 GMT
The other If this is the actual question and in the context of this discussion, yes.Meritocracies suck in general and would suck completely if that includes the allowance of killing people for no reason. Thankyou for your succinct reply. This thread raised many questions, as it is a complex series of issues. The main thrust was whether the individual's rights were more or less important than that of the majority and my opinion on this is unclear though above I have agreed with CoolMax when stated that there is no blanket rule that covers all contingencies so a case by case basis is the wise and prudent view. e.g. Things like immunisation are an example of the majority being more important than the individual and on the other hand we have cases like the little boy in UK who was brain dead and vast resources were spent on him even coming from the Pope, with presumably a massive amount of taxpayers funds being expended over his short life. The other question raised is in the thread title. What role does homosexuality of the proponents have in the more extreme views expressed on these Boards on these difficult questions? Everyone seems to be avoiding that, apart from the protagonists expressing them even more vehemently. Does an inability or unwillingness to procreate and parent play any relevant part in this discussion colouring their views?
|
|
|
Post by goz on Apr 30, 2018 21:29:35 GMT
So you think procreation should be all rights and no responsibilities, then? Yep. And if you don't like it, then once again : tough. I view the right to procreate as a basic human right. I also view the offspring to have the basic human right of care from the parent/s. There will always be good and bad parents and those in between, butt having conceived I believe that there is a definite responsibility on the part of the parent that is lifelong. As I have said above on a case by case basis, each parent should try to do what they perceive to be in the best interest of that child or future child. This, in extreme cases might mean abortion, turning off life support, placing in care or any number of other measures too numerous to mention.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2018 22:34:51 GMT
Yep. And if you don't like it, then once again : tough. I view the right to procreate as a basic human right. I wholly agree. Having the government take control of that is, to my mind, a downside of such magnitude that it utterly overwhelms any possible good that might come from it. It's really the only way to make it work.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2018 23:52:03 GMT
I view the right to procreate as a basic human right. I wholly agree. Having the government take control of that is, to my mind, a downside of such magnitude that it utterly overwhelms any possible good that might come from it. It's easy to say (type) that when you're not the one who will have to spend a lifetime in constant agony and indignity, and completely incapable of doing even the most basic things for yourself, due to someone else's deliberate decision (fully sanctioned, encouraged and supported by the government and people who think that there should be no responsibilities attendant to procreation) to inflict a lifetime of that on you.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2018 23:53:21 GMT
Yep. And if you don't like it, then once again : tough. I view the right to procreate as a basic human right. I also view the offspring to have the basic human right of care from the parent/s. There will always be good and bad parents and those in between, butt having conceived I believe that there is a definite responsibility on the part of the parent that is lifelong. As I have said above on a case by case basis, each parent should try to do what they perceive to be in the best interest of that child or future child. This, in extreme cases might mean abortion, turning off life support, placing in care or any number of other measures too numerous to mention. Why should anyone have a "basic right" to deliberately and knowingly cause someone to have to live with a painful disability that leaves them unable to do anything for themselves, and in constant excruciating pain?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2018 1:07:33 GMT
I wholly agree. Having the government take control of that is, to my mind, a downside of such magnitude that it utterly overwhelms any possible good that might come from it. It's easy to say (type) that when you're not the one who will have to spend a lifetime in constant agony and indignity, and completely incapable of doing even the most basic things for yourself, due to someone else's deliberate decision (fully sanctioned, encouraged and supported by the government and people who think that there should be no responsibilities attendant to procreation) to inflict a lifetime of that on you. To bad, so sad, but you're not sterilising people and you're not murdering people. Make any argument you like about it; the people of the world will do anything, literally anything, to prevent you getting what you want. So tough titties to you.
|
|