Very controversial question?

Question

Who here agrees with the eugenics idea?

I meant the eugenics beliefs. Look up eugenics for those who do not know what it is.

I personally am against the idea.

I am trying to get feedback from others to see what other people believe about such a controversial argument. DO NOT BE OFFENDED!!!

Answer 1

not me... if i didn't go thru cancer at age ten i would be a completely different person.

It impacted my life greatly and, even if i was given a chance to, I wouldn't change that part of my life. EVER!!!

Answer 2

You're so right, it is very controversial. There've been some highly placed supporters of the idea, Oliver Wendall Holmes among them. One problem with eugenics is that, while we can be assured that two out of every three children born to a couple with undesirable inherited traits will also inherit those traits, the third child (no matter whether it's the first or last born) will not have those characteristics and indeed may contribute signifigantly to their community. Another problem is the administration of such a program. Eugenic laws in this country in the early 20th century were used unlawfully and inhumanly, often without those who were sterilized understanding what had been done for them. I think the greatest argument against eugenics is its use in the Third Reich to exterminate entire "undesirable" classes of people. You give a government the authority to do this, and they won't be able to resist.

Answer 3

Your question is not sufficiently specific. There are two kinds of eugenics, "positive" and "negative". Positive eugenics is a policy whereby those deemed "fit" are encouraged to have extra children, while negative eugenics is a policy whereby those deemed "unfit" are encouraged to have fewer children.

Many successful women are forced to choose between having a career or a baby. I think this is unfortunate that women have to make this choice, and that the government can help out, for example by providing day care services to mothers who want to work. Likewise, many less educated people do not have sufficient sex education and it leads to unfortunate consequences, such as teen pregnancy and unwed mothers. Better sex education could be a remedy for this

Government implementations of above policies (child care services, sex education) are quite reasonable and have widespread support. But in fact, they do fit the definition of positive and negative eugenics, respectively, in outcome if not in purpose.

Answer 4

It's interesting that Hitler thought it was a pretty good idea, and he had the Hollywood actors of the time agreeing with him.

Not, I do not thing that eugenics would be a good thing, nor would it solve any problems.

Answer 5

Just the thought of messing with our genes is sick to me so I would have to say that I disagree with the idea because it is too close to the idea of cloning.
But here is a link about eugenics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics

Answer 6

Eugenics in Action

These ideas were not merely intellectual exercises. Tens of thousands of “undesirables” were sterilized in both North America and Europe. Of course, the definition of who or what was undesirable depended largely on the views of those making the decisions to force sterilization. In the state of Missouri, U.S.A., for example, legislation was proposed that called for the sterilization of those “convicted of murder, rape, highway robbery, chicken stealing, bombing, or theft of automobiles.” In its misguided effort to achieve a master race in one generation, Nazi Germany went a step further. After the forced sterilization of up to 225,000 people, millions of others—Jews, Romanies (Gypsies), the disabled, and other “undesirables”—were exterminated under the guise of eugenics.

Because of the barbarism of the Nazi era, eugenics took on an ugly connotation, and many hoped that this field of study had been laid to rest, buried with the millions who died in its name. In the 1970’s, however, reports circulated of scientific advances in the fledgling field of molecular biology. Some feared that these advances might fuel a return to the ideas that had seduced Europe and North America earlier in the century. For example, in 1977 a prominent biologist warned his colleagues at a National Academy of Science forum on recombinant DNA: “This research is going to bring us one more step closer to genetic engineering of people. That’s where they figure out how to have us produce children with ideal characteristics. . . . The last time around the ideal children had blond hair, blue eyes and Aryan genes.”

Many today would consider it ludicrous to compare the advances in genetic engineering with Hitler’s eugenic program. Sixty years ago, there were harsh demands for racial purity. Today people talk about improving health and the quality of life. The old eugenics was rooted in politics and fueled by bigotry and hatred. The new advances in genetic research are fueled by commercial interests and consumer desires for better health. But while there are major differences, the goal of shaping people to our own genetic prejudices may sound much like the old eugenics.

Answer 7

that is a tough question, i think the world would definitly see benifets from it, but the problem would be gettting the rest of the world on board. if there were definite solutions to problems they could fix by eugenics then i say go for it. it is, in reality, making the human race better. good question...... we shall see.....enjoy.

Answer 8

What is the Eugenics idea for this question of yours?

Answer 9

My mind is not made up yet.

I start out vehemently on one side, but after reading both sides of the argument, find myself moved by the other side as well.

.

Answer 10

I sure dont. There's a reason we aren't born with those specific traits everyone wants. Humans are too greedy. We want everything we can't have.