Jae Onasi Posted September 7, 2006 Share Posted September 7, 2006 Reading it, a couple things struck me at the crazy hour of 1:30ish am.... 1. The percentage of termination for anencephaly was lower than for DS, which I thought was a little strange. Even I'd terminate early for anencephaly, since there's 0% survival without a brain and the baby dies soon after birth. However, there weren't as many of those cases so it's far easier to get some funky results looking at that one condition. 2. There's no discussion of the impact of increased use of ultrasonography/amniocentesis in the 90's over the 80's on the research, though the numbers themselves showed a tendency for the earlier studies to have smaller numbers (not exclusively, but not surprisingly, the biggest studies were all in the '90's). However, it is a short article, and I'm a history nut. They acknowledge the rates stayed the same from 80's to '90's but make no other analysis. I have the distinct feeling that not all births/births with abnormalities are reflected in the journals.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nancy Allen`` Posted September 10, 2006 Share Posted September 10, 2006 If we are to go by these guidelines should some of the people that are here today have been killed off? Because there are people that are by definition retarded that are far more intelligent than a lot of people who are meant to be fully functioning adults. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurgan Posted September 13, 2006 Share Posted September 13, 2006 My take (quick response to the OP, didn't read anything past that): Eugenics = unethical pseudoscientific crap. There will always be "imperfections" in people, that's no excuse to use sterilization, killing or selective breeding to try to "purify" or improve the human species. If people want to be selective about whom they marry, fine, but allow them that freedom, rather than forcing them to do something against their will. Technology is such that the human races hardly "suffers" for lack of "natural selection" as some people try to argue. Plus, I think it brings out a certain dignity in the human race by how we care for our "lesser" members. If the best solution we can come up with is to kill those we don't desire, then perhaps we don't deserve to live ourselves (and who gets to decide? always those with means in power, that's hardly fair, plus those in power are often unworthy anyway, just because you have power doesn't mean you earned it or even deserve it). The time and money spent on draconian methods of eliminating these people should go instead to improving their lives and preventing the problems in the first place (and I'm against abortion, I'm talking about gene therapy before birth and such). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nancy Allen`` Posted September 13, 2006 Share Posted September 13, 2006 I have a friend who is, by definition, retarded. He trashed this woman who thought that autism was related to childhood vaccinations, and made her look like a fool by not only disproving her at every turn, but beforehand getting her to agree on a whole range of conspiracies (she finds conspiracies in everything from September 11 to the Gulf War) such as the sickness soldiers felt in Iraq was due to an experiment to create super soldiers (a plotline from Metal Gear). Now having been to college and univertisy, proving that someone with mental disabilities can do it despite this woman's claims, how can you say they are not intelligent or any diffirent to someone who is not deficient and believes they...I dunno, God told him to wage war on Iraq? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.