[pachyderm]

Editorial from the Scientific American magazine in 1911:

The proper attitude to be taken toward the perpetuation of poor types is that which has been attributed to Huxley. "We are sorry for you," he is reported to have said; "we will do our best for you (and in so doing we elevate ourselves, since mercy blesses him that gives and him that takes), but we deny you the right to parentage. You may live, but you must not propagate."

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...the-early-days

[wing]

The Nazis demonstrated the "practical shortcomings of the philosophy"?? So the philosophy is OK, it is just too hard to implement? Yikes!!

[pachyderm]

Eugenics (sterilization) was practiced in the U.S. as well. On mental patients, among others.

I think it is a serious question, what do you do about people who have serious inheritable deficiencies, but I don't know if there is a good answer.

[wing]

I personally know of parents with daughters in group homes who have had birth control prescribed for their minors. I'm fairly sure, with the laws of this land regarding guardianship, that this is possible for incapable adults as well.

[Open Eyes]

I have to be honest with you, I am not sure these birth control medications are very healthy. I cant help but wonder about the ongoing side effects. Playing with hormones can be such an upset to the system, especailly in psycological areas.

I know from experience as I was given an implant for this to stop my period so that I could heal from surgery. It had a side effect that threw me into severe depression, I mean completely disabled.

I really wonder if some women struggle with this not knowing what is really effecting their mental health.

I do agree that somehow we do need to prevent or monitor the terrible genetic issues that some are born with. And, I also feel that there is a great need to monitor the way children are raised by some that should really not be allowed to mishandle the growth and well being of a young human life. While I do not want to take the rights away from people to bear offspring, I do have to consider the mental heal of the offspring and their rights to have a proper envoirnment to grow and become healthy adults.

Open Eyes

[Perna]

It's the old, "survival of the fittest"; we're pretty much the only animal that doesn't have that going on anymore.

[WikidPissah]

I have a male cousin who has been an addict his entire adult life. Just out of highschool he got together with a female addict and together they produced 6 children within a decade. They could not raise a single one of them. They pawned them off within the first 6 mos of their lives to grandparents, parents, aunts...etc. One 86 year old great-grandma was raising a 2 year old. All of those 6 children are in their 20's now. 5 are hell-raising. 3 of the 5 hellraisers have multiple children being raised by relatives. But 1 of those 6 worked hard, went to harvard on scholarship, became an MD and opened a clinic where she treats children of drug addicts. So which kid do you stop from entering the world?

[Open Eyes]

Originally Posted by WikidPissah

I have a male cousin who has been an addict his entire adult life. Just out of highschool he got together with a female addict and together they produced 6 children within a decade. They could not raise a single one of them. They pawned them off within the first 6 mos of their lives to grandparents, parents, aunts...etc. One 86 year old great-grandma was raising a 2 year old. All of those 6 children are in their 20's now. 5 are hell-raising. 3 of the 5 hellraisers have multiple children being raised by relatives. But 1 of those 6 worked hard, went to harvard on scholarship, became an MD and opened a clinic where she treats children of drug addicts. So which kid do you stop from entering the world?

Yes, WikidPissah, I see what your saying. I don't think it is really about not wanting them to enter the world. Look at the statistics in your post.
My point was more about seeing how many children are raised improperly.
This is a perfect example. I wonder how busy that clinic is? Why?
I think its great that one child out of all this is doing something. But maybe all of them could have done something good, if they had the right upbringing.

[Visioneer]

I think the word "Eugenics" by its self holds a negative societal connotation, because of its history and the evil people and evil deeds it has been connected with. I think a better term might be selective breeding. We do this in other animals, but for some reason it is taboo in humans. I don't believe a person's right to reproduce should ever be taken away, but through education, I think people could understand why breeding out certain traits would be of benefit to the species. The problem is, evolution has always decided those traits for us. If we look at the prevalence of sickle cell anemia, as an example, and the way it renders sufferers immune to malaria, the obvious conclusion is that while sickle cell anemia has its own set of problems, it has allowed many people to survive the mass-murderer that is the malaria parasite, for generations. What one person may consider an undesirable trait may be desirable to another, and what most people consider undesirable could be inherent for reasons we are not even aware of at this point, and messing with it could unleash a host of problems that we are currently unprepared to deal with. One of the pitfalls of selective breeding is that people can use it for aesthetic reasons, such as consciously preferring a certain colour of hair or skin or eyes or bone structure, or other things that are related not to a healthy future of our species, but reducing our diversity. Who gets to decide and why are questions that are hard to answer. Part of the point is that it is often frowned upon to choose not to procreate. People are called selfish and made to feel abnormal, that they are missing out on something, that they will never truly reach full adult status, and many more accusations. I choose not to have children because I am mentally ill, and have several genetic health problems that I choose not to pass on to any offspring. The man I was with until recently had also decided against having children because he has type 1 diabetes and didn't want to create a child or grandchild who would suffer the way he has. And I don't think those are ignoble decisions. Do I disagree with Eugenics? No. I believe that we could possibly do some good by not continuing to bring children into the world who will most likely suffer with genetic problems health issues that would cause them to suffer. I think that is the more responsible decision. However, I don't believe in instituting a mandatory or institutionalized way of doing it, nor do I agree that aesthetics are reasonable cause for manipulation. The question, I suppose, is where is the line drawn between what traits are acceptable and unacceptable to out-breed, and who will decide. But as I said earlier, I think people should be made aware and educated to make their own decision. Many children are unplanned to begin with, so there is already a lot of education to be done when it comes to the choice of whether or not to procreate.

[wing]

http://forums.psychcentral.com/showthread.php?t=183464

[Open Eyes]

I wonder if it would be better to just continue to do research and find out what genes are passed on that are responisble for the various mental illnesses that plague mankind. And see if there may be a way of changing that not allowing it to continue to propagate.

Sometimes theses genes are passed to offspring and other times the offspring can be fine and even extremely intelligent. And we don't know why that happens, we are trying.

Do you ever wonder if this may have started because many times in history families
interbread causing a genetic chain reaction that continues within man today? I wonder about that sometimes.

The woods are dark and deep, and miles to go before we sleep, yes miles to go before we sleep.

Open Eyes

[googley]

I did not go and read the article that was in the initial post. But this thread bothers me significantly. The idea that we should be telling individuals if they should have kids or not because of their genetic makeup disgusts me. The idea makes me ill. I am sure many of us here come from families where there is a history of significant mental illness. Does that mean we should not have been born? If you come from such a family, and you are for controlling the reproductive rights of others with genetics that people would think of as less desirable, you are asking for a double standard. My parents had three kids. One of us had a genetic disorder that required recessive genes from both of my parents. I suffer from mental illness. Does that mean we should not have been born? While this has made life challenging for both of us, that does not mean that our lives do not have value. We are both successful professionals. Should I not have kids because I might be a carrier of the same disorder my brother has, and the father of my child(ren) could also be a carrier and not know it as it is recessive? Just in case it might happen?

Who decides what children shouldn't be born? Who decides which disorders are "too awful" to be passed on? Is it the one we don't have a cure for or a treatment for today, but may have a treatment for down the road? Where does it stop? If we were talking about a physical disorder, would this even be an issue. Who would suggest that families who carry the gene that puts people at risk for Diabetes-Type I or breast cancer shouldn't be allowed to have kids? This idea would be considered barbaric. Illness is part of the human condition. It is something that has to be dealt with. Suggesting that individuals should not have control over their own bodies makes me sick. For all the examples of where there are families where trouble has progressed from generation to generation, there are more where people have been able to succeed. Illnesses that have previously thought to have been death sentences have been treated in the last 30 years, who is to say that in the next 30 years disorders that are considered death sentences today wont be able to be treated?

Why can't we say that the solution to illness and mental disorders is to provide people with the treatment they need in a way that they can access it without worrying about if they are going to be able to pay, and addressing the stigma that is a large barrier to accessing treatment in the first place. If we are a supportive society, there is no need to talk about deciding who is worthy enough to be alive.

If someone came along and decided they didn't like one of your personality characteristics and decided that because of that, they would sterilize you or find some other way to prevent you from procreating, would you feel violated? If so, how can you suggest that this is okay to do to someone else?

[Visioneer]

Googley, I don't think anyone in this thread has meant to be offensive, and I apologize if I have done so. I recall an interesting story I heard a few years ago about a family who all chose to do something because of a genetic disorder. When it was discovered that one family member had a genetic predisposition to a type of gastric cancer, every family member opted to have their stomachs removed and rebuilt using other parts of the intestine. Here is the article, I just found it: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...s-removed.html As I said earlier, I don't think any person should be allowed to decide for another whether or not they have the right to procreate. I don't think anyone in this forum so far has agreed with that idea. But there are many facets of the question of selective breeding to take into account. I just thought this was an interesting example of what others might consider a drastic measure to combat a genetic issue, short of choosing to be sterilized. I don't know whether any of the family members chose to do so, but it raises interesting questions, at least for me.

[Can't Stop Crying]

I would also like to note that there are many in the past who have made great contributions to society inspite of mental or physical disabilities/injuries.

Vincent Van Gogh, John Nash, Christopher Reeves...

I have often felt concerned about passing on "bad" genes to my children. Nature and Nurture both play a role in the outcome. Perhaps we should, like Googley said, work on removing the stigmas and providing the proper treatment to allow those who would be considered "deficient" an opportunity to thrive!

[Open Eyes]

Yes pink lotus,
You are right, no one in this thread is suggesting that people not be allowed to propogate. The main question was that this had been tried and what did we think?
My concern was to try to continue the research into why these genes occur and if there may be a way to have it not occur in offspring.

For example I have seen parents who truely suffer with children that have extreme cases of Autism, which is really on the rise. I have seen it myself. Well, if we can find the real reason, some kind of genetic mutation that can be avoided, I can see why parents would certainly want that to happen. Some of these children really suffer and I have watched the parents suffer as well as they truely want to love the child and don't know what to do. And some were advocates for finding a solution to others who suffer their pain.

We look at all we do know now that we did not know in the past and how much we can now help children with learning disabilites. These children were just put into asylums and other were severely abused. I KNOW MY BROTHER WAS ONE OF THEM.
My parents did not know what to do with my brother and a psychiatrist told them to be very strict and told my mother not to cuddle him or bath him.

I was the youngest and watched my brother get dragged out to a shed and spanked, and guess who really had to run, ME. A child can only take just so much, by parents, school, other children and they blow in anger and will take the weakest victim and even hurt that victim.

We can sit here and base our opinions on what we now know. But there are things that we do not know. I am not saying that we need to stop people from having a choice. However, it would be nice if some of these challenges could be resolved before someone is born.

Yes, we have had people who have suffered afflictions or disorders that made contributions to mankind, but let us not forget they suffered while doing so.

My personal top prioritiy along with this is to ensure that all children are allowed to be raised properly with the care they need to become healthy adults.

No, no child should be left behind, at school or in the home.

Open Eyes

[arcangel]

Originally Posted by Pink_Lotus

I think the word "Eugenics" by its self holds a negative societal connotation, because of its history and the evil people and evil deeds it has been connected with. I think a better term might be selective breeding. We do this in other animals, but for some reason it is taboo in humans.

You might say that those are very good reasons why it is and should remain taboo and why it holds a negative societal connotation. One man's idea of improving society may be another man's idea of genocide? Reading that article and other writings on eugenics gives me the impression that eugenics boosters had some very suspect reasons and ulterior motives for pushing for government eugenics programs. I don't think people have changed so much since 1911 and I believe there is good reason to think that present day supporters of eugenics would have less than noble reasons for the practice of eugenics. But they would wrap their reasons in a pretty package.

Originally Posted by Pink_Lotus

I don't believe a person's right to reproduce should ever be taken away, but through education, I think people could understand why breeding out certain traits would be of benefit to the species.

Agreed but what you seem to be saying is, wouldn't it be nice if we could only do this without doing that?

Originally Posted by Pink_Lotus

Do I disagree with Eugenics? No. I believe that we could possibly do some good by not continuing to bring children into the world who will most likely suffer with genetic problems health issues that would cause them to suffer. I think that is the more responsible decision. However, I don't believe in instituting a mandatory or institutionalized way of doing it, nor do I agree that aesthetics are reasonable cause for manipulation. The question, I suppose, is where is the line drawn between what traits are acceptable and unacceptable to out-breed, and who will decide. But as I said earlier, I think people should be made aware and educated to make their own decision. Many children are unplanned to begin with, so there is already a lot of education to be done when it comes to the choice of whether or not to procreate.

True but you may as well be saying we should all try to be good people. We should...but that's as far as it goes. I'm pretty sure that at this time there are parents who choose abortion when they learn that the child they conceived will have birth defects or serious chronic health problems. And many of us have chosen not to have families for reasons related to our problems whether those problems are organic or the result of environment.
BTW... Apologies for selectively editing your quote but I just wanted to address the points that seemed most important to me. I know you said that you don't advocate eugenics. I'm not trying to start an argument and this topic isn't something I've looked into much. I just seldom talk to anyone and this seemed interesting.

[Can't Stop Crying]

No one wants to see a child suffer. Unfortunately suffering is part of life. Think about the baby girls in China who are left on the mountains to die because the family wanted a son. Would it have been better to be able to manipulate the genes and make that child male? Once you start gene manipulation to "weed out" the "unacceptable" genes, where do you stop? Who decides what is acceptable? I think this whole topic is a bit unnerving. Imperfections are what make us unique!

[splitimage]

Yeah "selective" abortion is a huge issue in countries like India and China where boys are more highly valued than girls - to the point where they're having demographic gender imbalances. In India it's technically illegal to find out the sex of a child prior to birth but it happens all the time, and lots of girls get aborted.

My genetic heritage is pretty crap - clinically depressed Mother, Bi-polar alcoholic father, alcoholic grandfather - but they gave me the best upbringing they could. I struggle with mental illness and addiction, but am I glad I was born yes. And I've made an ok life for myself, and I'm working to make it better.

I've personally chosen to not have children because I don't think I'd be a good mother to them & because I don't want my chidren to be genetically predisposed to experience some of the things I've experienced.

--splitimage

[Visioneer]

As an aside, has anyone here read 'Brave New World'? Genetic manipulation is a form of selective breeding, just as abortion is, though the former seems so much more wholesome than the latter to many people. But since it has been already mentioned, I think abortion is a topic all of its own, and is also a personal choice. I can't decide for anyone what is or isn't a good reason to abort a pregnancy any more than what is or isn't a good reason to choose not to have children, or to manipulate the human genetic code in a lab. I can decide for my self what I consider logically and morally right or wrong, and act based on that. But if we were to look at "sex-selective abortion" from an unemotional and purely logical standpoint, and use China as an example, the gender ratio as of 2006 was 1.13 males to every female, the highest ratio in the world. The issue here is *lack of education*, not the other way around. For cultural and financial reasons, males are preferred. And they are now facing the consequences of bad breeding practice, to put it bluntly. So aside from the obvious horrors of infanticide and our emotional reaction to it, it simply does not make logical sense, for the future of any society, to purposefully and drastically reduce the number of females in their future generations. There are indeed many poor decisions that could be made in selective breeding, but probably also some very good ones. Thankfully, I'm not boss of the baby factory, so it won't ever be up to me Speaking of autism, there are some amazing people who are autistic, and have been able to overcome their difficulties and use traits of autism to their advantage. Temple Grandin is a fantastic example. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_Grandin There is a documentary about her on Youtube.

As in your personal experience Open Eyes, Autism can be incredibly destructive to families and individuals depending on the severity of symptoms. I have a friend who has Aspergers, and had an incredibly rough childhood after misdiagnosis, as well as some physical difficulties. Anyone who knows anything about Autism or Aspergers understands many of the struggles of the individual as well as the family. People didn't understand what was happening to him or why, they didn't know how to deal with his behaviour, and they chose to heavily medicate him. He told me about going on and off the medications, hallucinating, feeling emotionally and physically out of control and being scared. He told me about his social difficulties and bad experiences in school. He told me about how therapy and skills training changed his life, and having positive life experiences as an adult has made him a fairly happy and well-functioning person. When we met he was living in a tiny basement apartment and on disability, literally doing nothing but playing Warhammer. A few years later he has a car, works full time, and has a nice apartment, and lots of friends (we all have our problems so in a lot of ways he's actually doing better than I am right now). We sat down one day and watched the movie Full Metal Jacket. He had never seen it before, but when the movie was over he started taking the dialogue, which he had memorized, and making it into a comedic musical. That's what I mean about taking the strengths into account as much as the weaknesses. Temple Grandin is a fascinating woman, and respected internationally for her contributions to humane animal treatment and farming and slaughtering practices, and is considered the highest expert in her field. If you followed the Wikipedia link, you know "Grandin is listed in the 2010 Time 100 list of the 100 most influential people in the world in the category 'Heroes'." The point I'm making is to assure people that I'm not really biased on this subject, I just think it's an interesting one to think about. Everyone has value. That was never the question. Cant Stop Crying made my point exactly There are some couples who choose not to have children due to the RH factor, and it's very common in some states to do some types of screening before marriage or having children. That's just making an educated decision. Since we have the ability to make educated decisions, I welcome everyone to make their own. I made my decision, similarly to Splitimage, in that along with the genetic factors, I also recognize my likely inability to parent in a practical sense, which unfortunately many people do not. I struggle with issues from my own upbringing, as well as the reality that I am not a stable person, and that I will not remain stable throughout my adulthood, and I choose not to take a stab at caring for another human being with much greater needs than myself when I have trouble managing my own care. These are all excellent reasons that educating people on planned parenthood would be a good first step.

[Visioneer]

Just thought I'd mention as well, our own personal ways of selecting a mate are a form of eugenics. Personality has a large part to play. But we are attracted to physical traits in a partner, some of it unconsciously. And that has a strong genetic basis. Women are attracted to different men at different times of their cycle - stronger jaws when ovulating and more round when not. Both women and men find that people who are genetically similar to themselves smell unattractive, and smell is a way of detecting genetic markers that will produce offspring with particular immunities. We are naturally attracted to symmetry of the body and face, to healthy skin and hair, to people who are easy-going and who demonstrate physical prowess. Some things are overridden by emotional compatibility, but these natural, instinctive markers are all undeniable. Interestingly enough, some traits differ from culture to culture. And a large majority of the traits we find attractive are signs of genetic health and compatability. All that selective breeding does, is that on top of the things we already do naturally, we can use the perspective of current science and technologies to enhance our instinct to have healthy offspring. Racism, classism, sexism, etc. are things that have given selective breeding a bad name. None of those things are logical ways to have an impact on the health of the human species. The scope is much more grand, and somehow more simple than people think at the same time. What people fear is illogical discrimination, and that's what needs to be avoided.

[Can't Stop Crying]

I guess just because we have the ability to do something, doesn't necessarily mean we should do it. As the science of genetics becomes more advanced, I have no doubt we will be able to alter genes. My concern is where do you draw the line? And I personally believe that altering genetic make up will lead to unknown possibilities - creating new gene mutations that have unpredictable outcomes. My younger sister is mentally disabled - there was a time when she would have been institutionalized for this. She will never have capabilities beyond a first grade level, but she is a reminder to enjoy the simple things in life. She is always ready to laugh and absolutely loves children. The world is a better place because she is here! I have suffered severe depression as well as other MH issues my entire life - if nothing else, it has taught me compassion, empathy, and strength.

[Open Eyes]

Yes Pink Lotus I agree,

I know about Temple and her contributions. And there are people who have challenges that do well. But there are autistic people who do very poor inspite of efforts to help them. There are spectrums of high function and very poor function.
And scientists are trying to find out what is the cause. It may not just be a gene that is passed on but a gene that is effected because of an enviornmental condition that we have created.

I often wonder if our food preservatives or something causes some of these issues.
Im not saying all the issues. But I am for the research into the reasons. For example when they think they have discovered the gene that has to do with depression, well, everyone felt, wow, that would be great, cant wait. Wouldnt it be nice to eliminate Lou Garags disease along with other diseases like that. And the gene that is responsible for easy weight gain leading to obesity.

Your right that abortion is another topic on its own, but the partial birth abortion is harendous and many people don't even know about that, and how it happens. I happen to be very pro life and there are many people who would be more than willing to adopt a child. I don't want to see this turn into another topic but it is not much different than putting a baby girl on the side of a mountain to die. And many of these cases have nothing to do with the health of the mother because they are almost full term and sometimes full term and they do go thru the process of being born half way.

I have not suggested that we eliminate or genetically manupulate for gender, color of hair etc. But, I guess I would rather see that happen then children left to die. I have seen some of these little girls that have been adopted, they are so cute and sweet.

I am just for finding ways to improve the lives of children that grow into adults that suffer. I just don't like to see people suffer period. And I don't know about you but I wouldnt want to see everyone look the same in color etc. I like the differences in the way people look.

I myself do not stand in critisizim of various human conditions, but I am an advocate for the end to the pain and suffering that people go thru that could be changed or resolved in some ways.

Open Eyes

[biblioknitter]

The world is so overpopulated now that do we really need to increase it? I fear that the movie Idiocracy is becoming a reality. I personally do not think that having a child should be a right but rather a privilege. Why is it that you need license to drive a car, practice medicine, law, real estate, hair cutting, manicures, yet anyone moron can have a child (out of wedlock, to a teenage Mom, unwanted child, etc) and contribute to the dumbing down of society. I do not want to say the eugenics is a good idea but I think that people need to pass a test and have attained a certain level of education and financial stability in order to raise a child. Yes, I know there will always be exceptions, but there is no population crises and with so many children in foster care, homeless or being raised by parents who do not want them, why bring more into the world. I am very thankful that in my mid-thirties I still have no desire for children and do not have a maternal clock. If I could afford it I would have myself sterilized, though as an over-educated intelligent attractive successful woman I have been told that I should contribute to society, but I would never want to bring an innocent child into the messed up world we have created.

[pachyderm]

Originally Posted by biblioknitter

I think that people need to pass a test and have attained a certain level of education and financial stability in order to raise a child.

And the test is created by... whom?

If we lived in an emotionally healthy society, this might make sense. Since we don't...

Originally Posted by biblioknitter
I think that people need to pass a test and have attained a certain level of education and financial stability in order to raise a child.

ok..my parents were less than wealthy...my father didn't finish 6th grade, mother hs...i am a college graduate, my brother as well. both parents were abusive. brother is as well. my sister is mentally ill..& i as well..brother too.

i think i have done well by the world. i am honest, caring & work to try & be everything they were not. my career involved environmental issues & law enforcement..currently i am involved in animal rescue. i fight for children's rights.

so if i read the posts correctly because my parents were poor & lacked education you feel i should not have been born? really? even my brother who is a jerk (for the lack of a more offensive & certainly to be censored word) is a vet who went to a gov't military academy) & served his country.

just because someone lacks formal education & income does not make them demon spawn...it makes them poor & ill educated. both conditions which can be rectified. there are plenty of parents who are wealthy & educated whose children are world class felons & bastards.

as far as eugenics, the us used it during the heydey of immigration. go back thru the period of ellis island. read thru the records...each ethnic group that was frowned upon was done do by eugenics...there were plenty of noted based upon "sloped foreheads, brows, etc leading to stupidity etc" these were the characteristics inspectors used during those quick once over exams.

i personally would rue the day when i am living in a nation that forces sterilzation upon it's citizens in an effort to produce a more "healthy" (read perfect) population. that was tried once before and i can think of over one group where 6 million people lost their lives.

stumpy