Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 4 of 6
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Cool Blue





Joined: 21 Sep 2006
Posts: 3130
Reputation: 114.9
votes: 10
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Sun Nov 02, 2008 8:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

FF_Canuck wrote:
I've heard some talk of using genetic profiles to design 'race' specific medications - apparently there can be enough difference that to impact the efficacy of some pharmaceuticals.


Yep. Eventually, the drugs could even be tailored for a specific individual's genetic profile.
Craig
Site Admin




Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 4415
Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8
votes: 36

PostPosted: Sun Nov 02, 2008 10:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Cool Blue wrote:
FF_Canuck wrote:
I've heard some talk of using genetic profiles to design 'race' specific medications - apparently there can be enough difference that to impact the efficacy of some pharmaceuticals.


Yep. Eventually, the drugs could even be tailored for a specific individual's genetic profile.


Interesting concept. Every morning I would take a "Craig Pill".
Cool Blue





Joined: 21 Sep 2006
Posts: 3130
Reputation: 114.9
votes: 10
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Sun Nov 02, 2008 11:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ya, that type of thing is further down the road though.

The reason why "some people may experience side-effects such as...etc.." is because of small genetic variations among the population.

What we'll see over the next few years are different variations of the same drug which are tailored for different genetic profiles. If you have a profile which causes you to experience a certain side-effect, then you'd take a different variation of the drug.

There are already a few examples of this in the USA. I recall reading of a specific version of a certain type of drug which was tailored for Hasidic Jews, who due to genetics tended to have serious side effects with the ordinary version of this drug.
E D





Joined: 30 Oct 2008
Posts: 18
Reputation: -2.5
votes: 1

PostPosted: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

My argument is that all centrally planned subsidies/penalties are wrong, unless we can show why in terms of new circumstances.

To say eugenics is not necessarily centally planned is not so much an argument for medical genetics as it is to legalize murder/suicide. I am not opposed.
Cool Blue





Joined: 21 Sep 2006
Posts: 3130
Reputation: 114.9
votes: 10
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Sun Nov 02, 2008 8:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

How is genetically engineering a child considered murder?

At best, you might be able to describe selective abortions as murder, or selecting which embryo to implant at the expense of others to be murder, but those activities are in the gray area.

People will have to be forced to re-examine their beliefs on abortion. Is it acceptable to put restrictions on abortion? If so, where do we draw the line?

Most would agree that it's wrong to abort due to the gender of the child. What about if the child has Down's Syndrome? What if they're genetically destined to be disabled?

At what point are they considered "disabled enough" to warrant abortion? Mental retardation? Disposition for MS? Blindness? Deafness? Cleft palate? Clubbed foot?

What of those groups which considers their disability to be a part of their culture like some deaf people or those with Autism Spectrum disorder? If we begin screening and eliminating these health issues, does it count as "genocide" because we're trying to destroy their "people and culture"?
Craig
Site Admin




Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 4415
Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8
votes: 36

PostPosted: Mon Nov 03, 2008 12:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Cool Blue wrote:
How is genetically engineering a child considered murder?


I think he is mistakenly assuming that eugenics means "killing those who don't meet the standards". The whole point of this thread was quite the opposite - help those who exceed them.
Habsrwfan





Joined: 04 Oct 2008
Posts: 688
Reputation: 49.8Reputation: 49.8Reputation: 49.8Reputation: 49.8Reputation: 49.8
votes: 5

PostPosted: Mon Nov 03, 2008 4:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

One thing that does concern me is how more and more of our most intelligent, and successful, women are choosing to go childless. The brilliant hard-working woman who facilitates and enjoys a great career for herself - this sort of woman who no doubt has many genetic traits that would be desirable in future generations - this sort of woman is increasingly less and less likely to have children.

In sharp contrast, our generous social safety net has made it financially feasible for many welfare moms to have numerous children.

The net effect of this can't be good. While I most certainly understand why many are adverse to Craig's suggestions in this thread, I do think that he is trying to put forward a solution to a genuine problem - and it's a problem that we'd all do well to consider.

I leave the men out of this, by the way, because "deadbeat dads", at all socioeconomic levels, are increasingly commonplace in our society today. "Deadbeat moms" still remain highly uncommon, to the best of my knowledge.
Mac





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
Reputation: 104
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...

PostPosted: Mon Nov 03, 2008 5:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Habsrwfan wrote:
One thing that does concern me is how more and more of our most intelligent, and successful, women are choosing to go childless. The brilliant hard-working woman who facilitates and enjoys a great career for herself - this sort of woman who no doubt has many genetic traits that would be desirable in future generations - this sort of woman is increasingly less and less likely to have children.

This concerns me as well. I cannot speak for all such women but my wife's best friend is amazing... and has a hard time maintaining relationships. She intimidates many guys as she's very intelligent and very focused on her career.

Habsrwfan wrote:
In sharp contrast, our generous social safety net has made it financially feasible for many welfare moms to have numerous children.

Is this a "cause and effect" thing? Did welfare create welfare moms or ??

Habsrwfan wrote:
The net effect of this can't be good. While I most certainly understand why many are adverse to Craig's suggestions in this thread, I do think that he is trying to put forward a solution to a genuine problem - and it's a problem that we'd all do well to consider.

It appears some folks are mistaking the meaning of what Craig proposed. I suspect that's part of the reason for some of the objections.

Habsrwfan wrote:
I leave the men out of this, by the way, because "deadbeat dads", at all socioeconomic levels, are increasingly commonplace in our society today. "Deadbeat moms" still remain highly uncommon, to the best of my knowledge.

Deadbeat dads are a creation of the liberal court system and they're not nearly as common in Canada as the MSM would like you to believe. I don't know of many cases of deadbeat moms since the courts are heavily slanted for women and even more heavily slanted against men. I know of several men who've gained custody of their kid(s) through the courts. In each case, the court did not order the woman to pay child maintenance . Hard to be a deadbeat mom when the courts don't punish you like they do fathers in broken relationships.

-Mac
Bleatmop





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 953
Reputation: 17.5Reputation: 17.5
votes: 10

PostPosted: Mon Nov 03, 2008 5:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Habsrwfan wrote:
One thing that does concern me is how more and more of our most intelligent, and successful, women are choosing to go childless. The brilliant hard-working woman who facilitates and enjoys a great career for herself - this sort of woman who no doubt has many genetic traits that would be desirable in future generations - this sort of woman is increasingly less and less likely to have children.

In sharp contrast, our generous social safety net has made it financially feasible for many welfare moms to have numerous children.

The net effect of this can't be good. While I most certainly understand why many are adverse to Craig's suggestions in this thread, I do think that he is trying to put forward a solution to a genuine problem - and it's a problem that we'd all do well to consider.

I leave the men out of this, by the way, because "deadbeat dads", at all socioeconomic levels, are increasingly commonplace in our society today. "Deadbeat moms" still remain highly uncommon, to the best of my knowledge.


You've seen Idiocracy as well, I see.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387808/
lucamanfredi





Joined: 31 Dec 1969
Posts: 170
Reputation: 41.3Reputation: 41.3Reputation: 41.3Reputation: 41.3
votes: 2

PostPosted: Mon Nov 03, 2008 10:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I was waiting for someone to quote that movie!!!!

Quote:
We already more then subsidize the smart, it's called Tuition.


Damn right. Scholarships and bursaries do select the smart and gifted. Beef up examinations (and make the grading less lenient) and you'll have an effective measure of who's in the cream.

Healthy individuals may be rewarded with healthcare credit: rewarded for NOT using the system. Publicly funded genetic screening for a few select and highly debilitating genetic anomalies would help.

There are systems to reward people for the use they make of their qualities. We don't want a bunch of super-healthy perfect human beings unable to take a finger out of their backside. rewards should be given not on the basis of nature but on the basis of intelligent and efficient allocation of the resources given to us. Smart and healthy parents teach their children to be smart and healthy.

More rewards = more money = greater security in being able to afford a child the best opportunities in life.
Habsrwfan





Joined: 04 Oct 2008
Posts: 688
Reputation: 49.8Reputation: 49.8Reputation: 49.8Reputation: 49.8Reputation: 49.8
votes: 5

PostPosted: Mon Nov 03, 2008 10:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mac wrote:
Habsrwfan wrote:
One thing that does concern me is how more and more of our most intelligent, and successful, women are choosing to go childless. The brilliant hard-working woman who facilitates and enjoys a great career for herself - this sort of woman who no doubt has many genetic traits that would be desirable in future generations - this sort of woman is increasingly less and less likely to have children.

This concerns me as well. I cannot speak for all such women but my wife's best friend is amazing... and has a hard time maintaining relationships. She intimidates many guys as she's very intelligent and very focused on her career.


I think that more men need to view these attributes (very intelligent, career-focused) as generally desirable in a potential female mate. A marriage/partnership/romance shouldn't be seen as a competition - the stronger one half of the marriage/partnership/romance is, the better things as a whole are.

Good points on deadbeat dads and deadbeat moms.
Mac





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
Reputation: 104
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...

PostPosted: Mon Nov 03, 2008 11:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Habsrwfan wrote:
I think that more men need to view these attributes (very intelligent, career-focused) as generally desirable in a potential female mate. A marriage/partnership/romance shouldn't be seen as a competition - the stronger one half of the marriage/partnership/romance is, the better things as a whole are.

I'm married to an Ivy League educated lady who maintained her career and we have two wonderful kids. Her best friend is great and, had circumstances been different, I might have pursued her instead. Maybe I should start a harem?

Feminists claim they want women should have choice but that's not the truth. Feminists treat any woman who chooses to have kids or to be a "stay-at-home" mom as a second-class citizen, a "sell-out" for buying into what they see as patriarchal traditional values. For feminists, only one choice is acceptable... a selfish choice...

-Mac
Habsrwfan





Joined: 04 Oct 2008
Posts: 688
Reputation: 49.8Reputation: 49.8Reputation: 49.8Reputation: 49.8Reputation: 49.8
votes: 5

PostPosted: Tue Nov 04, 2008 4:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mac wrote:


Feminists claim they want women should have choice but that's not the truth. Feminists treat any woman who chooses to have kids or to be a "stay-at-home" mom as a second-class citizen, a "sell-out" for buying into what they see as patriarchal traditional values. For feminists, only one choice is acceptable... a selfish choice...

-Mac


Good point. It's not just the attitudes of some men - it's also the attitude of some feminists. That attitude really can be discouraging to many women when it comes to seeking out a lifelong partner.
Bleatmop





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 953
Reputation: 17.5Reputation: 17.5
votes: 10

PostPosted: Wed Nov 05, 2008 7:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mac wrote:
Habsrwfan wrote:
I think that more men need to view these attributes (very intelligent, career-focused) as generally desirable in a potential female mate. A marriage/partnership/romance shouldn't be seen as a competition - the stronger one half of the marriage/partnership/romance is, the better things as a whole are.

I'm married to an Ivy League educated lady who maintained her career and we have two wonderful kids. Her best friend is great and, had circumstances been different, I might have pursued her instead. Maybe I should start a harem?

Feminists claim they want women should have choice but that's not the truth. Feminists treat any woman who chooses to have kids or to be a "stay-at-home" mom as a second-class citizen, a "sell-out" for buying into what they see as patriarchal traditional values. For feminists, only one choice is acceptable... a selfish choice...

-Mac


I've never heard a feminist say anything of the kind.
Mac





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
Reputation: 104
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...

PostPosted: Wed Nov 05, 2008 7:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bleatmop wrote:
I've never heard a feminist say anything of the kind.

and....? :?:

I just re-read the second paragraph of my most recent post on this thread... Holy Lousy Sentence Structure, Batman! I must have been tired when I rambled that!

-Mac
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 4 of 6

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Eugenics

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB