Looks as though some people on here think that eugenics is a good policy, based upon my last question. Would you support forcible sterilization of the "less desirables" in this country? Does one's political party fit into that category, as one poster suggested?
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Ai2UHFIUPtm7UiSMvb6d9lLQ7BR.;_ylv=3?qid=20071228123422AAVA5bO
2007-12-28 07:56:04 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Forcible sterilization is legal in the US in some cases now. Most people don't realize that a court can order people with disabilities sterilized against their will, for certain onditions--and teh so-called "Americans with Disabilities Act" doesn't protect them.
"Eugenics" is a code word for racism and Nazism. And that's all it is. And allit has ever been or ever will be. Racists used the same "for the public good" to get away with both forced stereilization and with killing people they considered "defective less than a hundred years ago, right her ein the US.
See Pernick, "The Black Stork" if you want to check any of wha tI siad.
BTW: the Nazis didn't invent eugenics--and for once they gave credit where credit was due: they got the idea from Americans. Oh, yeh, they sort of left that bit out of the sanitized history books you get in high school, didn't they?
Now, here's one more perspective: mine. I am "disabled." If someone decides they want to practice their "eugenics for the public good" on me, they had better move fast. I will not fight fair and I will give no quarter.
2007-12-28 08:37:18 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
The mere subject of eugenics must be taken carefully. It is at best a conflict of morals. Not even the greater good. It is muddied further due to the fact that we do not know the future of us as a species. If eugenics is EVER to be used, it should only be used to stop genetic...uhm...diseases (I'm trying to not look elitist) and not at the cost of any life or convenience. Worst comes to worst and we have do do this, we just let people who have genetic diseases just adopt. But it would have to be a life threatening disease to the children.
I'm against eugenics, but we should chart a moral course in the case we do use it.
2007-12-28 08:41:46 · answer #2 · answered by Mitchell 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't support anything marketed for "the greater good". I want immediate, personal gratification. Me. Right here. Right now. There's no such thing as "the greater good" I would not support forcible sterilization of the "less desirables" because who exactly is to determine who the "less desirables" are? They are probably the most undesirable of all!
2007-12-28 08:25:20 · answer #3 · answered by Estrella E 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I think that anyone getting medicare/food stamps/welfare etc for over 2 years should be sterilized to stop them from having more kids. I also feel that like that lady on the news complaining about how little she gets in welfare while being filmed in front of her 60" projection TV should be euthanized for being a useless mouth/leech on society.
2007-12-28 08:07:27 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Eugenics is better practiced as a personal policy and philosophy. It should be like "affirmitive action". If I know that me reproducing will in high probability create a off spring, that has to suffer his/her life. Should I? Because I very well know what the suffering will be and should take it as a affirmitive action.
2007-12-28 08:11:42 · answer #5 · answered by Think Sane 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Who gets to decide what the "greater good" is?
The US has practiced eugenics for quite some time. Fortunately, in its current form it focuses mainly on prenatal testing.
2007-12-28 08:02:54 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Wasn't that what Hitler was trying to do. Wipe a whole class of people off the face of the earth.Who desides who is worthy and who must go.You could end up on the wrong list,think about it long and hard.
2007-12-28 10:42:21 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Determining who is fit to breed? I dont think thats very American. Sure, I believe that the needs of society as a whole trumps the desires of individuals, but not to the extent where we are trampling on peoples freedom to reproduce.
It's a wierd, sick, sort of communism.
2007-12-28 08:03:48 · answer #8 · answered by justin_I 4 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Anytime someone mentions the "greater good" they are exposing themselves as elitist.
How do you know the next Einstein would not be born to a "less desirable" family?
No, I would not support it. If overpopulation causes the next great plague, so be it.
It's part of this human existence.
2007-12-28 08:01:59 · answer #9 · answered by Chef 6 · 5⤊ 1⤋
Wow i'm suprize anyone in here is saying yes to this outrageous policy lol. Life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness... Seems to me if you are forced to be sterlized, it is unconstitutional. Seems to me if you try to dictate who can be alive, its unethical. The whole thing is against civil liberties. Oh wells.
2007-12-28 08:08:05 · answer #10 · answered by Aintitthetruth 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋