Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Interfaith Group

cbayer

(146,218 posts)

5. Eugenics is about changing (improving) the genetics of a population

Reply to AtheistCrusader (Reply #3)

Mon Sep 1, 2014, 08:38 AM

Sep 2014

by systematically removing, or reducing the reproductive rate of, those you do not want to pass on their genes.

The article states that clearly and does not frame this as a eugenics debate, but notes that what is so morally reprehensible about eugenics is how it decides who is valuable and who is not.

That is the objection to Dawkins statement. He has made a moral judgement about who is valuable and who is not.

You really have to twist this to see it as an argument for personhood of a fetus. The argument is being made about the value of the individual once born, not while in the uterus.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

25 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Nobody is better at being human, Professor Dawkins, least of all you [View all] hrmjustin Aug 2014 OP

If we could all just be more like him, the world would be perfect. cbayer Aug 2014 #1

He does leave a lot to be desired. hrmjustin Aug 2014 #2

Interesting. AtheistCrusader Sep 2014 #3

So you agree with Dawkins that it is "immoral" not to abort a fetus with Downs? Fortinbras Armstrong Sep 2014 #4

I don't know that suggesting a burden on a potential mother is helpful in this discussion/issue. AtheistCrusader Sep 2014 #7

My problem with Dawkins' pronouncement Fortinbras Armstrong Sep 2014 #11

Eugenics is about changing (improving) the genetics of a population cbayer Sep 2014 #5

You said it yourself. AtheistCrusader Sep 2014 #6

That is just twisting words. cbayer Sep 2014 #8

I didn't twist anything. AtheistCrusader Sep 2014 #9

I think you are reading something in to this that is not there. cbayer Sep 2014 #10

Well, we agree on abortion. AtheistCrusader Sep 2014 #14

Again, carrying a down's child to term is entirely up to the person cbayer Sep 2014 #15

If a fetus is not a potential person Fortinbras Armstrong Sep 2014 #12

The key is; potential. AtheistCrusader Sep 2014 #13

You seem to be raising the question as to whether it is moral for a woman cbayer Sep 2014 #16

I am stating that it is morally fine. 100%. AtheistCrusader Sep 2014 #17

What if a woman was being paid to do it cbayer Sep 2014 #18

Sure, i accept the revised hypothetical. AtheistCrusader Sep 2014 #19

Yes, but it doesn't have to do with abortion. cbayer Sep 2014 #20

Well, what I was trying to drive at is: AtheistCrusader Sep 2014 #21

I would insist on a psychiatric evaluation of anyone that wanted to do that, frankly. cbayer Sep 2014 #22

Woah, that may have carried a negative connotation. Let me clarify. AtheistCrusader Sep 2014 #23

Most women who encounter this have one single risk factor - age. cbayer Sep 2014 #24

kicking. hrmjustin Sep 2014 #25