Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > What are the Good Arguments Against "Eugenics?"

Pages: (2) < [1] 2 >

thordaddy Posts: 486 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 11 2006,10:53    It was just stated that if human life were to be defined by conception then it still WOULD NOT present "a good argument against allowing morning-after pills, embryonic stem cell research, therapeutic cloning, in vitro reproduction, etc." That made me think... What are the "good arguments" against eugenics?

Faid Posts: 1143 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 11 2006,11:15    How about "go away, troll"? -------------- A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty: "The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information" "...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

sir_toejam Posts: 846 Joined: April 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 11 2006,11:17    go away troll. yay! finally someone who gets it.

thordaddy Posts: 486 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 11 2006,11:46    More ideologues masked as scientists. Is "eugenics" not a scientific inquiry?   What is "embryonic stem cell research," if not a form of eugenics?

jeannot Posts: 1201 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 11 2006,12:02    Quote (thordaddy @ April 11 2006,15:53) It was just stated that if human life were to be defined by conception then it still WOULD NOT present "a good argument against allowing morning-after pills, embryonic stem cell research, therapeutic cloning, in vitro reproduction, etc." That made me think... What are the "good arguments" against eugenics? Since you obviously cannot make the difference between life and consciousness, faith and facts, science and religion... how could you understand any answer from us?

ericmurphy Posts: 2460 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 11 2006,12:24    Quote (jeannot @ April 11 2006,17<!--emo&) Since you obviously cannot make the difference between life and consciousness, faith and facts, science and religion... how could you understand any answer from us? Thordaddy cannot understand the difference between an adult person and a 20-minute old zygote. There's no way he could possibly understand a complex ethical argument. I think this now makes the fifth thread Thordaddy has started on this topic. Is this a symptom of obsessive-compulsive disorder, I wonder? -------------- 2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity "Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

Faid Posts: 1143 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 11 2006,12:26    It's a symptom of trolling. -------------- A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty: "The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information" "...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

thordaddy Posts: 486 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 11 2006,13:06    ericmurphy opines, Quote Thordaddy cannot understand the difference between an adult person and a 20-minute old zygote. There's no way he could possibly understand a complex ethical argument LOL!  You are all over the place.  I attempt to define the beginning of human life and you pooh-pooh such attempts at clarity.  Then you boldly claim the difference between an "adult person and a 20-minute old zygote."  But what's the difference between a specific zygote and the person it becomes, is the real question? Again, your argument relies on ignorance.  "Eugenics" is fine for "human life" that we remain ambiguous about, but "eugenics" for other human "beings" that we have  arbitrarily defined is off-limits. I want to know how you create this differentiation?

ericmurphy Posts: 2460 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 11 2006,13:29    Quote (thordaddy @ April 11 2006,18<!--emo&) LOL!  You are all over the place.  I attempt to define the beginning of human life and you pooh-pooh such attempts at clarity.   Thordaddy, you mistake consistency for clarity. You consistently fail to make distinctions that everyone else here makes as a matter of course, and then wonder why everyone thinks you're not listening. For absolutely the last time, trying to define the beginning of life is an absolute waste of time. It's a legal nullity, and in the context of the abortion debate, the only important definitions are legal definitions. As Nike pointed out to you, the U.S. Supreme Court has defined personhood unambiguously, which has nothing to do with when human life begins. You don't like this definition, so you try to come up with another entirely irrelevant definition for something that has no legal significance. Quote Then you boldly claim the difference between an "adult person and a 20-minute old zygote."  But what's the difference between a specific zygote and the person it becomes, is the real question? No, that's not the real question. There is no real question here, except why is Thordaddy incapable of making simple distinctions. Quote Again, your argument relies on ignorance.  "Eugenics" is fine for "human life" that we remain ambiguous about, but "eugenics" for other human "beings" that we have  arbitrarily defined is off-limits. How does my argument rely on ignorance? My argument relies on meaningful distinctions as opposed to meaningless distinctions. The real ignorance here is yours. You simply cannot distinguish between a scientific argument and a legal argument, a religious argument and an ethical argument. Quote I want to know how you create this differentiation? What, between an adult an a zygote? If you can't make that distinction without me pointing it out to you, you truly are a lost cause. If you cannot make a distinction beween killing an adult and killing a zygote, I fail to understand why you think you're qualified to discuss an issue as complex as abortion. -------------- 2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity "Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

sir_toejam Posts: 846 Joined: April 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 11 2006,13:59    gees, eric, stop already, would ya? i beginning to wonder exactly who has the obsessive-compulsive disorder; the troll, or the respondents?

Chris Hyland Posts: 705 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 11 2006,14:00    Quote What is "embryonic stem cell research," if not a form of eugenics? Eugenics does not mean killing people, I dont see how stem cell research fits under any description. Screening embryos for genetic defects fits under a very very broad definition, but then the arguments are the same as those for abortion. In short this thread is useless because people are having the exact same arguments on other threads.

thordaddy Posts: 486 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 11 2006,14:00    ericmurphy, You keep avoiding the issue at hand. You say you can make distinctions between a zygote and an adult person while simultaneously stating that conception doesn't represent the beginning of human life.  You are "ambiguous" on this latter point while retaining great clarity on the former issue of differentiating between "zygote and adult person."   On the other hand, I can certainly differentiate between a zygote and an adult person just like I can differentiate Cierra now from Cierra at birth.  This is stating the obvious.  What I can't differentiate is between Cierra as zygote and Cierra NOW.  They are the same unique human entity.  This is undeniable. What I CAN'T ascertain is WHY this effects someone's right to live given the ambiguous nature of when "human life begins" in the context of science.   You are saying that because we (science) can't define when "human life" begins then it is justified to kill the human organism.  But science readily knows that a specific person WAS represented by a specific zygote.  Science recognizes that these are the SAME ENTITY.   You were a zygote, but how are you different from that zygote in any fundamental way? You need the zygote, the zygote doesn't need you.

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 11 2006,14:06    Quote (thordaddy @ April 11 2006,19:00) ericmurphy, You keep avoiding the issue at hand. You say you can make distinctions between a zygote and an adult person while simultaneously stating that conception doesn't represent the beginning of human life.  You are "ambiguous" on this latter point while retaining great clarity on the former issue of differentiating between "zygote and adult person."   On the other hand, I can certainly differentiate between a zygote and an adult person just like I can differentiate Cierra now from Cierra at birth.  This is stating the obvious.  What I can't differentiate is between Cierra as zygote and Cierra NOW.  They are the same unique human entity.  This is undeniable. What I CAN'T ascertain is WHY this effects someone's right to live given the ambiguous nature of when "human life begins" in the context of science.   You are saying that because we (science) can't define when "human life" begins then it is justified to kill the human organism.  But science readily knows that a specific person WAS represented by a specific zygote.  Science recognizes that these are the SAME ENTITY.   You were a zygote, but how are you different from that zygote in any fundamental way? You need the zygote, the zygote doesn't need you. Trippy. You know, they call them 'fingers', but I've never seen them fing! -------------- "Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Faid Posts: 1143 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 11 2006,14:10    Quote (Chris Hyland @ April 11 2006,19:00) In short this thread is useless because people are having the exact same arguments on other threads. Exactly. And that shows what thordad is. In the beginning, I thought he might be another misled ID advocate. Later, he seemed more like an undereducated, arrogant fool who thought he could win internet debates using the oldest tricks in the book. Now I know for sure he's just a troll. -------------- A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty: "The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information" "...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

thordaddy Posts: 486 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 11 2006,14:18    Chris Hyland opines, Quote Eugenics does not mean killing people, I dont see how stem cell research fits under any description. Screening embryos for genetic defects fits under a very very broad definition, but then the arguments are the same as those for abortion. In short this thread is useless because people are having the exact same arguments on other threads. So we do practice eugenics?  Is this your stand?   The thread has a tendency to go in different directions and I don't mind, but the original question was what are the "good arguments" against eugenics." You've already implied the taboo nature of this branch of science when you said, Quote Screening embryos for genetic defects fits under a very very broad definition [of eugenics]...,,

sir_toejam Posts: 846 Joined: April 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 11 2006,14:19    arden: http://www.fing.it/

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 11 2006,14:24    Quote (sir_toejam @ April 11 2006,19:19) arden: http://www.fing.it/ SEE? That proves my whole point! I am the zygote, and the zygote is me. QED. But the zygote isn't you. I don't know what the he11 you guys are.   -------------- "Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Faid Posts: 1143 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 11 2006,14:26    Quote (sir_toejam @ April 11 2006,19:19) arden: http://www.fing.it/ OMG! It seems the ability to use mobile phones was 'front-loaded' in fingers from the beginning! Fingers were intelligently designed! Sorry people, I'm switching sides now. -------------- A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty: "The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information" "...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

Chris Hyland Posts: 705 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 11 2006,14:27    Quote You've already implied the taboo nature of this branch of science About as taboo as abortion, and basically based on the same arguments. Most people i believe think its ok to select embryos to avoid potential birth defects due to in-vitro fertilization. The arguments for and against this are the same as for and against abortion.

ericmurphy Posts: 2460 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 11 2006,15:03    Quote (sir_toejam @ April 11 2006,18:59) gees, eric, stop already, would ya? i beginning to wonder exactly who has the obsessive-compulsive disorder; the troll, or the respondents? Good point. I'm done. :-) -------------- 2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity "Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

thordaddy Posts: 486 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 11 2006,15:10    Chris Hyland, I try and answer your questions.  Will you be kind enough to answer mine? What are the good argument against that branch of science known as eugenics? There good arguments are...? There are no good arguments because...? Please, let's engage.

Seven Popes Posts: 190 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 11 2006,15:17    Quote Chris Hyland, I try and answer your questions.  Will you be kind enough to answer mine? Clearly, Thordaddy is a man with an undeveloped sense of irony. -------------- Cave ab homine unius libri - Beware of anyone who has just one book.

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 11 2006,15:47    Quote (Faid @ April 11 2006,19:26) Sorry people, I'm switching sides now. I hear DaveTard has poker at his house on Wednesday nights. Careful, tho, I heard he doesn't take it well when he loses. -------------- "Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

sir_toejam Posts: 846 Joined: April 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 11 2006,16:03    Davetard pokes who now?

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 11 2006,17:57    Quote (sir_toejam @ April 11 2006,21<!--emo&) Davetard pokes who now? Why, William Dembski, of course! -------------- "Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 11 2006,18:07    A confession here -- there's one thing I've never understood about eugenics -- who is this poor bastard Eugene they keep talking about? And why does Thordaddy want to argue against him? Is he the same person as Big Gay Gene? Is that what this is about? -------------- "Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

BWE Posts: 1902 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 11 2006,20:19    DAD: There are Jews in the world. There are Buddhists. There are Hindus and Mormons, and then There are those that follow Mohammed, but I've never been one of them. I'm a Roman Catholic, And have been since before I was born, And the one thing they say about Catholics is: They'll take you as soon as you're warm. You don't have to be a six-footer. You don't have to have a great brain. You don't have to have any clothes on. You're A Catholic the moment Dad came, Because Every sperm is sacred. Every sperm is great. If a sperm is wasted, God gets quite irate. CHILDREN: Every sperm is sacred. Every sperm is great. If a sperm is wasted, God gets quite irate. GIRL: Let the heathen spill theirs On the dusty ground. God shall make them pay for Each sperm that can't be found. CHILDREN: Every sperm is wanted. Every sperm is good. Every sperm is needed In your neighbourhood. MUM: Hindu, Taoist, Mormon, Spill theirs just anywhere, But God loves those who treat their Semen with more care. MEN: Every sperm is sacred. Every sperm is great. WOMEN: If a sperm is wasted,... CHILDREN: ...God get quite irate. PRIEST: Every sperm is sacred. BRIDE and GROOM: Every sperm is good. NANNIES: Every sperm is needed... CARDINALS: ...In your neighbourhood! CHILDREN: Every sperm is useful. Every sperm is fine. FUNERAL CORTEGE: God needs everybody's. MOURNER #1: Mine! MOURNER #2: And mine! CORPSE: And mine! NUN: Let the Pagan spill theirs O'er mountain, hill, and plain. HOLY STATUES: God shall strike them down for Each sperm that's spilt in vain. EVERYONE: Every sperm is sacred. Every sperm is good. Every sperm is needed In your neighbourhood. Every sperm is sacred. Every sperm is great. If a sperm is wasted, God gets quite iraaaaaate! -------------- Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered When wished on the morning star Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it Look what it's done so far The Daily Wingnut

sir_toejam Posts: 846 Joined: April 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 11 2006,20:33    sexist pig brits, always talking about wasting sperm, but do they ever talk about wasting ova? huh? hmmmm?

BWE Posts: 1902 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 11 2006,20:48    No. Because eggs are worth more to science. They'll maybe give you ten bucks to yank in a cup but they'll give a dame a couple grand to simply lay 'em an egg. -------------- Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered When wished on the morning star Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it Look what it's done so far The Daily Wingnut

sir_toejam Posts: 846 Joined: April 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 11 2006,21:01    so... we need to have the almightly remind us not to waste sperm, but the bucks do just fine for ova, eh? got it.

Pages: (2) < [1] 2 >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard