Simply picking a 'pretty' girl to talk to is practicing eugenics. You (unconciously) choose to spread your genes with someone who will make a useful contribution.
Except that she will reject you for that guy with a symmetrical face. If you subsequently cannot get over your disappointment and
refuse to sire a litter with an unsymmetrical woman, that will be a pathetic example of (negative) eugenics.
The killing or sterilizing of 'undesirables' isn't necesarily a part of eugenics.
I suppose you can kill them without regard to eugenic arguments; but if you justify their deaths according to undesirable genes, it is "necessarily a part of eugenics."
The nazis declared jews to be unfit to live, and thus they killed them. It was fairly circular reasoning.
They declared the Jews "undesirable" and racially impure. Most Germans could see quite clearly that Jews were fit to live to ripe old ages.
To see why this is eugenics, consider the following analogy: girls are fit to live even if you proactively sort them out from human sperm.
Nothing circular about the application of science to improve the population by control of inherited qualities -- it's called eugenics.
Assuming you want to breed healthy long-lived children, weed out the undesirables.
That sounds like an endorsement for negative eugenics, a restriction of reproductive freedom. You seem to have quite good traction running up alleria's so called slippery slope.
Any policy that would restrain or constrain reproductive freedom on the basis of genetic characteristics of either the parents or their potential offspring is unethical and roundly condemned by the American Society of Human Genetics.
But the nazis didn't do this, they practiced ethnic cleansing and merely called it eugenics.
But that doesn't change that is was really ethnic cleansing.
The distinction is political. However, all eugenics must be political because it depends on a decision of what constitutes improvement in a population. Some "improvements" may actually be quite ambiguous and even turn out to be a deterioration because their impact on society is unknown or
because they are being evaluated by different individuals with different ideas and values.
Just because someone doesn't know the term for something doesn't change what that something really is.
German interest in eugenics flourished after the turn of the century when Dr. Alfred Ploetz founded the German Society of Racial Hygiene in 1905. The German term Rassenhygiene (race hygiene) included all attempts at improving the population along hereditary lines. By the 1920s German textbooks had incorporated ideas of heredity and racial hygiene. In 1933 the
Law for the Prevention of Congenitally Ill Progeny
banned marriage or sexual contact between Jews and other Germans and called
for involuntary sterilization for the prevention of a variety of defects including retardation, mental illness, epilepsy and even alcoholism.
The Nazis were also fond of matching hale and hardy soldiers with buxom milk maids.
If Nazis are too slippery, the Albertan Sexual Sterilization Act of 1927 was repealed in 1972 after more than 2800 people deemed unfit to reproduce were sterilized. Fifty-five such sterilizations were carried out in its final year of operation.
Threats of genetic discrimination can come from many directions: economic pressure from private health insurance systems can create an incentive to keep genetic information from patients or even manipulate it without a patient's consent;
earning potential for men over women, blondes over brunettes, etc. Every example of eugenics is a cautionary tale with
consequences for potentially millions of individuals:
... the acceptance of disability, disease testing and termination (pre,postnatal), assisted suicide for the disabled voluntary euthanasia, non/in- voluntary euthanasia (murder) of the disabled is achieved by society perception that disabled people are suffering and that [their] life is not worth living. And [they] have to be relieved of their suffering through termination of their life or life to be as cures are mostly not available. Medicine moves from getting rid of the DISEASE to getting rid of the DISEASED.
In order to regain the control we have to oppose the use of negative pitiful characterisation of disabled people in this society and we have to make clear that disablity is a sociatal problem not a medical one.
[ Parent ]