🚀 go-pugleaf

Everybody say it with me:  co.endless.content-free.rhetorical.wars.  But not
co.general.  Thanks.


Melissa wrote in message <36635501.0@news.mho.net>...
>In article <36632a55.134752879@news.dimensional.com>,
>   weiser@dimensional.com (Scott Weiser) wrote:
>[...]
>>>What about tobacco smokers?
>>
>>Their conduct just kills them, it doesn't really affect their
>>judgement or their ability to function in society.  No, I'd just
>>relegate them to only smoking in their own homes.
>
>In the closet with the lights out. :)  Remember, smoking around others isn't
>exactly victimless. 5 year olds in smoking households have been found to have
>impaired lung function, and are much more likely to get asthma later, so that
>makes it a form of child abuse.
>
>..
>>It's such a shame that Hitler gave eugenics such a bad name.   There's
>>nothing intrinsically wrong with trying to improve the human genome or
>>with trying to prevent the spread of inherited genetic faults.
>
>Like maybe homosexuality or transsexualism? Not to deny that it may have been
>much more convenient to society, had I been snuffed in the womb.
>
>> We
>>still do it to some small extent by requiring blood tests before
>>marriage so that obvious and well known faults like hemophillia which
>>are certain to create ill children are detected early.
>
>There's a difference between filtering for real known diseases and some of the
>other uses such techniques could be put to.
>
>>Indeed, it's Nature's mandate that we do so, whether we do it
>>conciously or not.   Evolution is intended to weed out the unfit.
>
>And it's one thing when nature does it, and quite another when people start
>dinking around.
>
>I'm concerned that someday soon, some Nazi loon will cook up an airborn version
>of ebola, which only affects blacks and Jews. That's scary!
>
>>  We,
>>as sentient beings however, have found far too many ways to frustrate
>>natural selection.   This may be a philosophically attractive thing to
>>do, but it may also be species suicide in the long run.
>
>Context is everything, eh?
>
>>I think that such genetic counseling should be mandatory for those
>>wishing to procreate.  I don't suggest that they should be forbidden
>>to do so, but few rational adults would choose to create a child
>>doomed to a short, unpleasant life from some genetic flaw in the
>>parents.
>
>True, but when you get into dictating things like sexual orientation, or other
>things that some may consider less than desirable, and others may not, it
>really gets to be playing with fire. You could wind up with a world of nice
>"normal" zombies.
>
>>As we learn more about genetics, and how to predict the grosser
>>abnormalities, we should indeed do what we can to eliminate them from
>>the gene pool by making certain that parents are fully informed of the
>>consequences of their choice to procreate.
>
>Stay tuned, eh?
>
>>The difficulty is, of course, ensuring that such programs are not
>>turned to evil, as Hitler did.
>
>And who gets to decide what's evil and what's not?
>
>> That's admittedly a tough job, but if
>>any nation can do it, we can...if we make the choice to do so.
>
>What a thrilling prospect to look forward to. If the ebola doesn't get me
>first.
>
>..
>>It's interesting that Switzerland has been trying the "Getafix
>>Centers" to try and reduce drug crime and violence, with places where
>>addicts can go and get government-approved drugs.   Seems it's not
>>working very well, and they have just voted to do something else.
>
>Why wasn't it working well? I heard something about them voting not to legalize
>all drugs now.
>
>
>That's my opinion  - Melissa
>
>"It's not easy being cute." - The Warner Brothers' sister Dot.
>
>To email me, remove the spam proofing capital letters on each side of the @
>in my email address.