More Nazi-esque than you know - Hitler's own eugenics program was the baby of scientists inspired by the American Eugenics program.

I recommend the excellent book "War Against the Weak" by Edwin Black for the full story.

"3 generations of imbeciles is enough."

not really too unknown. Or even that shocking.

I'd throw out that people with a genetically inheritable trait that causes problems in their offspring shouldn't reproduce. the state sterilizing them is obviously wrong.

Yet when you're dealing with people who lack mental capacity, and who are at the same time fertile and capable of loving one another, is it wise to condone reproduction? Is it morally justifiable to allow people to reproduce who, if someone of normal faculties had sex with them it would be considered rape (as they by law cannot consent)? Especially when it is virtually certain that their children will be mentally deficient as well.

Tough, tough issue, but surely one we can agree that the state should stay out of

This is all old news the Left trots out every now and then. Too bad we couldn't have created an in-vitro Liberalism test to determine the political views of the unborn. Then perhaps Liberals would be against abortion, what am I saying? They'd have created the Conservative Abotion movement decades ago and many of us wouldn't be here now.

3 generations of imbeciles is enough

How many Kennedys have been in politics?

How many Kennedys have been in politics?

God willing, the current disgusting, drunken, rapist and hero of Chappaquidick will be the last one.

No lesser light than Oliver Wendell Holmes upheld the practice of forcible sterilization in Beck v. Bell

Buck v. Bell.

That's one of the four things I remember from law school.

Just to clarify: It was Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. (not his dad, the doctor/author/founder of Atlantic Monthly).

Let's remember one of the great promoters of eugenics was none other than left-wing heroine Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood.

I'd throw out that people with a genetically inheritable trait that causes problems in their offspring shouldn't reproduce.

I'd submit that a more controversial issue than you suspect, hob.

First, most genetic diseases are side effects of beneficial inheritances. I, for example, have a disorder that increases my chances of dying in a car accident but reduces my chances of dying of a heart attack. Some people carry a gene that helps prevent death from diarrhea... but if a child has two copies of that gene, he'll develop cystic fibrosis. Both of these examples are classified as "diseases," and for good reason: the risks probably outweigh the benefits. But a blanket ban on reproduction for us (even if it's a self-imposed ban) would deprive the species of a lot of useful genetic diversity.

Second, I read somewhere that most people carry between 5 and 12 recessive alleles for harmful genetic diseases. Most people don't have children with close relatives, so these alleles are rarely expressed. But the possibility exists that your spouse might have the same allele as you do, and that your child could have a serious problem. It's easy to say that 1% of the population shouldn't have kids. It's another to say that 40% of the population should remain childless.

This is why I'm a big fan of genetic engineering. We're a long way away from eliminating genetic diseases from the germ line, and even further away from treatment for adults already afflicted. But that technology seems to hold out the only ethical solution to the problems of genetic disease.

I'd agree with all parts except for the oliver wendall jones part...

Everyone knows it was really Oliver Willis Jones

pompous,

I was being deliberately provocative, and I know the whole subject is a Schaivo-level powderkeg.

But my thoughts run along the lines of people who the law considers mentally incompetent, not people who are simply genetically predisposed to create sick kids.

And as far as genetic engineering, unless you can manipulate the germ cells at the production level (i.e. re-order the ovary/teste before it releases the germ cells). Otherwise, you're playing God with potential life, and selecting certain "people" for birth. (this is admittedly a very Catholic perspective, but that's what you'd be facing in the way of opposition in attempting to manipulate germ cells).

But ultimately, it's not the genetic defects that are the core issue, it's about allowing legally incompetent people to reproduce, knowing there's a substantial likelihood of a handicapped child.

pompous

most people carry between 5 and 12 recessive alleles for harmful genetic diseases. (Including Liberalsim)

Most people don't have children with close relatives, so these alleles are rarely expressed. (except between Liberals) But the possibility exists that your spouse might have the same allele as you do, (like Liberalism) and that your child could have a serious problem. It's easy to say that 1% of the population shouldn't have kids. It's another to say that 40% of the population should remain childless.

No, just the Liberals.

I agree wholeheartedly that the state secretly sterilizing people is creepy beyond words.

I think secret sterilization should be perpetrated by private individuals only.
Specifically, by me.

I want a tiny dart with a chemical-sterilizer tip that I can shoot at certain people who I deem unsuitable for reproduction.

Is that so wrong?

If its wrong to cripple the reproductive systems of total strangers who piss me off, than I don't want to live in this crazy old world anymore.

Too late lauraw I've already shot you with it!

Oh, and the Ricin become active in about 2 hours, Bon Voyage!

Hob,

Don't worry, I didn't think you were speaking in malice.

Two points:

I absolutely agree that selecting people for birth is not acceptable. This is why I am extremely dubious about selective abortions. However, even from a Catholic perspective, individual gametes are not people ("Every Sperm is Sacred" notwithstanding). The average male has a sperm load of 300 million, of which 20% or more is obviously defective -- multiple heads, inert, very little genetic material, etc. I don't see any objection to weeding out such gametes from reproduction, because they aren't even potential lives. If they were, I would have a moral duty to provide the best opportunities for life for each of them... i.e., have intercourse with as many fertile women as possible. I'm no expert on Catholic theology, but I don't think that's God's imperative.

By that standard, then, there's nothing wrong with "weeding" so long as it happens prior to fertilization. Perhaps I'm reading Church doctrine wrong, but if so, I'm sure you'll tell me.

The second point is simpler: I don't see that big a problem with incompetent people having incompetent children. Obviously, parents who are unable or unwilling to care for their children should be divested of their rights and responsibilities. However, I don't think that our nation's orphanages are flooded with the retarded children of retarded parents. As for the children themselves, I'm unwilling to say that life as a retarded person is so devoid of value as to be not worth living. Better that the child be born handicapped than not born at all. You can't sue for "wrongful life," can you? Wait, maybe you can. It's been a while since Torts.

pompous, not to sound high&mighty, but yes,you are wrong on RC doctrine.

Gamete selection is wrong. It is seen as a sort of quasi-abortion (gametes aren't human life per se, but selection of gametes is still considered morally wrong, as it allows for sex selection and other such pernicious evils)

"parents who are unable or unwilling to care for their children should be divested of their rights and responsibilities"

my point is more (or really less) subtle than that. It's not that retarded people are unable to care ofr children, it's that they are mentally children themselves. and we don't allow kids to reproduce at will (i.e. marry).

I think there's something to be said for not permitting incompetents from reproducing, and it goes beyond (or is more fundamental) than their care of potential children. It's a question of mental capacityto undertake procreative acts in the first place.

And there IS a "wrongful birth" tort, but only in the UK. Here in the USA, an abortion includes the right to a dead baby, even if it survives the abortion.

pompous

As for the children themselves, I'm unwilling to say that life as a retarded person is so devoid of value as to be not worth living. Better that the child be born handicapped than not born at all.

There was a time in my misspent youth when I knew for certain this was completely wrong. And like the ancient Eskimos, I firmly believed when someone can't pull their own weight they should be "put out on the ice." But though that may be appropriate in ancient societies who lived on the edge of survival (and perhaps not), we can afford to tolerate and support a few retarded people. Sterilization? Who knows.

and pompous, even invitro fertilization is against the law of the church.

gotta run for the day. see ya's

Gee, two hours you say?
I'll never get out in time!

Well, not if I finish my work for the day and then linger over my afternoon coffee and snack. I might have to put something on the back burner for tomorrow.
You're some kind of a criminal mastermind aren't you.

Does everybody here remember the last scene of The Mechanic?

You know, where the hitman protege guy is sitting in his car and he reads the letter from the dead Charles Bronson that says 'By the time you finish reading this letter there will still be 2 hours until this car explodes."?

Yeah me neither.

Right, you'll never leave your job alive!

I was sure I put that Ricin in the gun. Gee, I'm starting to feel a little funny. But I still have two hours to wreack havoc on ACE OF SPADES HQ!

No you don't mutha' fucka' you've been barred again!

Lauraw

Jan Michael Vincent was the apprentice. And he had something like 20 seconds from when he opened his car's door til it blew up..

YES, Iblis, don't make a maniac outta me.