Poll: Do you support Eugenics? (Poll)

[Moonlight Butterfly]

I don't believe selective breeding should be applied to the human race, it's morally wrong. Having children is one of the most basic human rights.

Pretty much this. Also if someone has a genetic disorder THEY should be the one to decide whether they have children or not.

 

[Haukur Isleifsson]

I don't think it is a good Idea in general. But in some very specific cases I could support voluntary "eugenics". That is encouraging people with very serious hereditary defects not to repopulate. In some cases it might even be considered child abuse to willingly doom a child to a short and/or painful life for the sake of reproduction.

 

[ShadowsofHope]

I absolutely support it, without a doubt. Have for many many years, as the IRC folks can attest to. Modern Medicine and science has destroyed natural selection for humanity. We let the sick and damaged people breed, because it's "humane" to do so. As soon as anyone suggests an alternative, they get beaten over the head by the hammer of society and pushed off to the side. I say, if we have the ability to improve the human genome, then we should do it. If something is beneficial, encourage the spread of it through the gene pool. If something is detrimental, weed it out of the gene pool. We do it to our crops, our food, our pets, so why not do it to ourselves? I'm not recommending extermination, mind, but selective breeding, absolutely.

You sir, have a preschool understanding of natural selection. Natural selection never stops acting, simply now with our medicines and technology, natural selection is not as obvious in it's influence of society. The sick and the damaged in our society are a very small minority, most of which do not actually get the chance to reproduce due to complications with the reproductive organs (or any vital organs in general), or excessive pain. Also, passing on those conditions to their children, if they so manage, does also rely on factoring in if any of such sicknesses or damages were genetically hereditary or not.

In other words, someone is attempting to be "edgy" by suggesting eugenics to "save" something that does not need to ever be "saved", because it cannot be destroyed or stopped (slowed, yes, but not stopped). And, well, let's be honest. Natural selection as it exists in nature does not have a mind of it's own to be infected by human bias' and short term fixation, so I do believe I will throw my bet in with it, rather than edgy teenagers whom think they understand genetics.

 

[SinisterGehe]

It can be used for good, but it will most likely used for bad things. It is a great idea only if we got a model/template of a "desirable" or a "perfect" human that we are trying to achieve. Just an example would be that ancient Greece strong naturally muscular men were the ideal humans. In African tribes the idea human is Obese woman and tall agile men. My ideal human being is blond haired naturally strong bit under 180cm. personality: Logical, rational, calm, hard working, non-religious and sexually discreet (Basically sexual interest for breeding purposes not for pleasure). I am sure yours differences from that a lot. In order for us to use eugenics well and for good would mean we would all need to share the same opinions about what is a "human being" in it's essence and appearance.

But we are all human beings. Difference, and different view of "perfection," are inherent within is. There is NO perfect human being. No man is without sin, and I don't just mean from a religious standpoint - we all have vices, angers, loves, hates, and different things about us which are both ugly and beautiful. If you take that away, you're not aiding evolution, you're halting it.

Well... Yeah. With Positive energy there is Negative energy, +10 -10 = 0.
By perfection I do not refer to a human being that would only possess positive traits, we need the negative traits, just like: to light exist as an idea, it needs shadow to point out what it is now, therefor describing what it is.
But I am not used to describe flaws in a picture in order to point out what it is. By this I mean I describe the positive traits of my "perfect" human in order to paint a picture of what it is, not what it isn't, it has it flaws indeed, it is human after all, human a bipolar beings, we have negative and positive, shadow and a light, real world and a utopia.

If we have dinnerware made of glass, china, metal and plastic, but I only allow the use of metal dinnerware, do I destroy the variety of dinnerware from existence, no. I merely limit the base of the dinnerware to metal, but this same metal can be shaped and molded in to any form and variety. If we select a certain base for a new humanity spring on doesn't destroy the variety of the humanity, it merely directs it to a certain direction. Humans' DNA changes, varies and every generation has mix of traits inherited from the past. The variety doesn't disappear it merely changes direction. We can not remove negative traits, they will emerge on every being that exists, even ideas have negative sides and they do not even exist. I am not denying my "perfect" would miss it's negative energy, I just chose not to mention them.

But one thing is a fact, we possess traits from our past that are no longer required and some that are even in our way to evolve to something more advanced*. (* I do not believe that humankind has reached it's peak, yet or ever.)

 

[The Unworthy Gentleman]

But here in Scotland we have the SNP (Scottish National Party)! Who's big want I don't like... but luckily neither does anyone else and everything else they want is pretty sensible (and please don't be confused folks, the SNP are no at all like the BNP, they are in fact very liberal and very socialist.)

That sounds like my kind of political party. I wish socialism was more popular in English government, all the parties are too right wing for my liking. What's this big want that nobody wants?

 

[UnknownGunslinger]

@TheIronRuler
The Gattaca scenario (truly a great film ) can only really exist in a few types of societies.
For instance America (doesn?t have Universal healthcare) is the type of society that can develop such a "Gattaca" culture.
Do you really think this could happen in Europe for example?
The realities are that in time the costs will go down.
It's only natural that the rich and powerful will be on the forefront of such technology, but in a few years the advantage gap will go down as the technology itself becomes cheaper and more viable.
And the gap will start to close, until it's no more different than the advantages the rich possess today over the middleclass!
And even if some societies do not provide the technology free to its citizens because of some misguided capitalistic ideals it by no means spells doom to civilization itself.
The world is a diverse place. Some cultures will more readily try to introduce such technology to their societies.
Others might turn it down - for instance some Middle Eastern Nations.
Some might even use it to more easily control their citizens - South Korea and other Rogue nations.

It's a technology that will be so versatile that its uses will depend solely on the societies that use them.
And this is bio engineering not Eugenics.
Eugenics or selective breeding is only useful if you want to breed cute puppies will health problems
It?s absolutely retarded when done by humans, and honestly ? Racist!
So lets not confuse the two.

 

[GWarface]

Absolutely. I think that eugenics should be enforced. I mean, hell, it works for nature, why shouldn't we make it work for us?

So, if you were in a family less fortunate than others.. Dad is a drunk, mom is a junkie and your sister is a slut.. But YOU are the white sheep among the black, so you choose to do something good for yourself and get yourself and education and a nice little family..

With eugenics You CANT have a nice little family because your family is "bad" and therefore YOU are "bad" and shouldnt be allowed to bring any children into the world..

You could be the next Messiah but your genes are fucked so you are fucked..

And dont say it works in nature.. Nothing in nature resembles eugenics..

Wrong on all counts, I'm afraid. If I don't have any negative traits, such as the alcoholism, or the trait that makes me easily addicted, if I'm an unspoiled gene pool of nothing but good things- then I'd be allowed to reproduce, because I have all the good genes, obviously. They don't check my parents, they check ME, because only half of each of my progenitor's genes are mine. And from your description of the situation, I must have gotten the good ones.

Also, yes, there is such a thing as eugenics in nature, it's called "natural selection". Only the fittest of creatures survive to reproduce, passing on superior genetic material. We're just replacing "the unfit to breed get eaten by predators" with "the unfit to breed are forbidden by the government from reproducing". And it will cut down on overpopulation, too. Less people breeding, fewer babies.

Now its even more annoying that i cant find that old Us pro-eugenics movie, because it is EXACTLY as i say.. If you are from a bad family, it doesnt really matter how good a person you are.. you have the "BAD GENES" from your parents, therefore you are bad..

I know it sounds fucking insane, but thats how it was and i really think it would still be like that if brought back..

And i still cant see how you can compare "animals eating other animals" with "people getting forced sterilised by The Man because he says they are inferior"
But i do like that you compare the government with predators, with that you are spot-on..

Plus, "overpopulation" isnt a problem and never has been.. Food distribution is..

No, no, no, man. You're not hearing me. They don't check your parents' genes, that doesn't mean jack, they check YOUR genes, because if half my father's genes are shit, and half my mother's genes are shit, and I get the two halves of them that AREN'T shit, I'm perfectly fine with warped and imperfect parents.

Each gamete cell, sperm for the male, egg for the female, contains exactly a half set of chromosomes, which varies from cell to cell. So from imperfect parents, a perfect spermatozoon could meet with a perfect ovum and produce a perfect child. So if you're cracking down on this sort of thing, you check the potential breeders, not their family history.

And animals that are weaker being picked off is a sort of more natural way of preventing the infirm from breeding. Imagine if we had a creature that flew at a set speed, and ate people. All the fit people would be able to run away, survive, have sex, and reproduce, carrying their "fit" genes, whereas the infit, disabled, and whatnot would get eaten... and NOT be able to reproduce, because they'd be dead.

And come on, the government isn't "evil", kid, that's the biggest and widest-used load by all the Greenpeace tie-dye types.

Notice anything about "BAD GENES"? Yeah, its not really the genes they care about..
You will have an "predisposition" to whatever bad thing your family is doing and therefore you will be sterilised.. Thats how it was..
And it can easily be enforced with phoney science.. Like how it was..

I dont wanna start a fight over the government being evil, it doesnt sound like you will change your mind..
But im sure you will wake up, when you are ready.. Especially since you are from the States..

Ooh, and dont call me kid.. Im older than you..

 

[Kyle 2175]

I don't support eugenics, at all. As a libertarian any sort of absurdly controlling thing like this angers me, and eugenics in particular is just plain freaking ridiculous. Eugenics is choosing who people can breed with! You like that girl there? Well, sorry about that, she's too good/bad for you so you have to do this one. How could you support this? You're basically saying you would like to have who you can mate with regulated. That is, if you're sexual and not gay, you want to have who you can have sex with chosen by the person who's controlling the eugenics. Freedom, people. Don't you like it?

 

[oktalist]

It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is the most adaptable to change. Charles Darwin

He never actually said that.

From an evolutionary standpoint it makes perfect sense, but it's really about as unethical as it could possibly be.

Probably the most well known Darwinian alive today, Richard Dawkins, put it better than I could: "There is no inconsistency in favouring Darwinism as an academic scientist while opposing it as a human being; any more than there is inconsistency in explaining cancer as an academic doctor while fighting it as a practicing one... Evolution gave us a brain... capable of understanding [how we evolved], of deploring the moral implications and of fighting against them."

Evolution is cruel, clumsy and wasteful. We need not copy it.

Did you know that Darwin was really into stuff like this?

No, he wasn't. Though he was frequently misquoted by eugenicists looking for support for their own ideas.

He explicitly disagreed with it, in The Descent Of Man: [font color=gray]"if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil. We must therefore bear the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely that the weaker and inferior members of society do not marry so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage, though this is more to be hoped for than expected."[/font] So he admitted there might be bad effects caused by less fit individuals reproducing, but that it would be wrong to intervene against it, and that natural selection will continue to be a positive influence on the gene pool.

Yeah, "survival of the fitest" didnt come from nowhere..

No, it was coined by Herbert Spencer, and adopted by Darwin in the 5th edition of On The Origin Of Species. Fitness in the context of natural selection means best adapted to survive in the present environment, so survival of the fittest is essentially nothing more than a tautology.

Darwin writes in The Descent of Man that "a most important obstacle in civilized countries to an increase in the number of men of a superior class" is the tendency of society?s "very poor and reckless", who are "often degraded by vice", to increase faster than "the provident and generally virtuous members".

I see nothing supportive of eugenics in those very selective quotes, not even anything about genetics or race, just socio-economic class. Do you have the full quote, by any chance?

He used terms like civilised peoples and savage races, not to imply that either was intrinsically better than the other, but simply as straightforward descriptive terms to differentiate between them. Those were simply the words that people used in his time to refer to the corresponding groups of people.

He disagreed with the prevailing opinion that blacks, whites, aboriginies and asians were different species. He thought there was no intrinsic difference between races. He thought nothing of sharing physical intimacies with, for example, a black person.

It would've been very easy, though, at that time, to fall into thinking that black people were in some way less intelligent, because many Africans at the time happened to be at an earlier stage in their social-cultural development. Darwin made the point that all civilisations have been arrived at through an intermediate stage of barbarism, white Europeans being no exception.

He did say that the white man would probably wipe out the savages, but that was merely a predition, not a hope. Like when you say it looks like it's going to rain.

Its fun how people forget (or arent told) that forced sterilising was a pretty big deal in the US in the 20's and 30's.. They ONLY stopped doing it because Hitler made it look bad..

Hitler made forced sterilisation look bad? No, it's forced sterilisation, it's obviously bad. You don't need Hitler to tell you that.

It's fun how people forget that most of the western world was pro-Nazi right up until the point when they realised that they themselves might be threatened by German expansion.

Show me that place in nature where animals decide wich species has to die and wich species is the "pure ones"

Simple. Male lions fighting over females. Strongest one wins and passes on favorable genes.

That is different to eugenics.

Samurai wasn't suggesting it was the same. He was just replying to Warface's inquiry.

Since when does Strength = favorable genes? So a strong lion when a genetic desease would get us where?

The lion that wins the fight over who gets to reproduce has got fitter genes, almost by definition.

If it's got a disease then it's not going to be strong. If it's strong then it's not got a relevant disease. They are effectively the same. You seem confused.

Sorry dude, Eugenics and horny lions are not the same..

Eugenics is the attempt to artifically augment or assist natural selection. It's not the same but it is inspired by a misguided reading of the theory of evolution. The perception of the eugenicist is that modern medicine is subverting evolution by allowing too many unfit people to reproduce and therefore evolution needs to be given a helping hand.

 

[fusion_cell]

Eugenics is a great way to fight sickness in the world...just don't go targeting once group of people with it...then build camps...and showers.

I somewhat agree with it, but it also caused the worst section of human history and that should never be forgotten and Eugenics should not be taken lightly as after all something have to come out of circulation and that something might only stem from one area of the population.

 

[Thumper17]

I dont support it, but I understand and respect what Eugenics could do for humanity. It is immoral however to prohibit people from 'breeding' with whoever they choose.

 

[boyvirgo666]

I agree in principle but the obviously negative ways this can go makes it a half and half thing. But i guess i can agree that we really do need to try to limit human population and negative traits. Just dont make it a race thing and stop bringing up nazis.

 

[DanielDeFig]

No.

And it has more to do with people's basic freedom's & rights, and the dangers of mixing law with people's right to be born based on something so relative, rather than the fact that someone with my kind of handicap would be aborted/killed/not allowed to breed.

 

[TheIronRuler]

Load of bollocks if you ask me.
Where does it end?
First they screen out genetic disorders then they will move onto other things. People will be told who can and can't have a child.
It's fucking with the natural order of life.
Hitler also wanted to create the perfect "race". This is the same concept minus the genocide but it's "alright" because this is science?
It can fuck right off.

At the time Hitler WAS backed up by science... *cough*

One of the most common misconceptions ever perpetrated about WW2 was that Hitler was operating based off of what science told him.

He drew his own beliefs which were batshit insane and basically threw what science suggested out the window. He believed in creationism, and compared belief in evolution to treason. Of course, most people pointing fingers wouldn't have bothered to actually read what Hitler wrote, not that I blame them.

Eugenics is a crock, and I'm obligated as someone studying anthropology to say so. It's another product of bigotive scientists looking for hard science to demonstrate the superiority of species and traits and in this case, apply it.

In any case in this age it'd probably be a smaller effort to engineer gene therapy routines that simply remove genetic defects from the human body, rather than trying to enforce breeding restrictions. Historically prohibitions just don't work.

He didn't do it out of science, he used the scientific ""evidence"" at the time and had it as an excuse to have National-Socialism in Germany - One Nationality, superior to all and all of the folk in that nationality would be equal. It was the ultimate ANTI-Communism, trying to gather the lower classes under the banner of a race instead of a banner of a class.
One of the key things he implemented was biolgical racism. He based that off what "science" had discovered as it extended the theories of Darwin. Hitler was religious, but claiming that the aryan race was superior didn't conflict with his faith.
Didn't read Mein Campf, I'm not going to. I know what he believed and what he tried to do.
I should highlight "At the Time" becuase there were these theories about racial supremacy before Hitler and his party became dominent, he just brought it into the center and educated an entire generation with it.

 

[Farther than stars]

No, this is the worst impediment of freedom, meaning it's also undemocratic. For one, we should be able to take full control over our own body and not let the state claim domain over any living one, lest we descend into slavery.
For another reason, you simply cannot know what genes are the best ones for the survival of the human race. Darwin said: ?It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is the most adaptable to change.? So you might want to pick certain genes, which may seem to be advantageous at the time, but really end up dooming humanity instead. For now, I feel we should let mother nature do her work and up until now at least, I feel she's made humanity strongest by our great amount of variety and I feel that thus one "übermensch" would just weaken humanity as a whole per definition.
And then finally there's the fact that this would just cause discrimination, since some people's genes would be considered (not proved to be) more important than someone else's. After all it's not for nothing that term I just mentioned, "übermensch", found its roots in Nazi Germany.

P.S. You mentioned:

Yes, I'm sure several of you first thought a thread of this nature would be better suited for the Politics and Religion forum, but I have a motive for making this topic here in General Discussion.

I'm just wondering what that motive is.

 

[kiwi_poo]

it's one of those things that's great in theory, but just don't work. like communism... and spraycan cheese.

in theory it's awesome but you never know when a gene for some desease might be in the genetic structure of some dude who ends up saving the world or something.

genetic diversity is what made this species what is is today: capable of rapid adaptation to different situations

 

[Pandaman1911]

Absolutely. I think that eugenics should be enforced. I mean, hell, it works for nature, why shouldn't we make it work for us?

So, if you were in a family less fortunate than others.. Dad is a drunk, mom is a junkie and your sister is a slut.. But YOU are the white sheep among the black, so you choose to do something good for yourself and get yourself and education and a nice little family..

With eugenics You CANT have a nice little family because your family is "bad" and therefore YOU are "bad" and shouldnt be allowed to bring any children into the world..

You could be the next Messiah but your genes are fucked so you are fucked..

And dont say it works in nature.. Nothing in nature resembles eugenics..

Wrong on all counts, I'm afraid. If I don't have any negative traits, such as the alcoholism, or the trait that makes me easily addicted, if I'm an unspoiled gene pool of nothing but good things- then I'd be allowed to reproduce, because I have all the good genes, obviously. They don't check my parents, they check ME, because only half of each of my progenitor's genes are mine. And from your description of the situation, I must have gotten the good ones.

Also, yes, there is such a thing as eugenics in nature, it's called "natural selection". Only the fittest of creatures survive to reproduce, passing on superior genetic material. We're just replacing "the unfit to breed get eaten by predators" with "the unfit to breed are forbidden by the government from reproducing". And it will cut down on overpopulation, too. Less people breeding, fewer babies.

Now its even more annoying that i cant find that old Us pro-eugenics movie, because it is EXACTLY as i say.. If you are from a bad family, it doesnt really matter how good a person you are.. you have the "BAD GENES" from your parents, therefore you are bad..

I know it sounds fucking insane, but thats how it was and i really think it would still be like that if brought back..

And i still cant see how you can compare "animals eating other animals" with "people getting forced sterilised by The Man because he says they are inferior"
But i do like that you compare the government with predators, with that you are spot-on..

Plus, "overpopulation" isnt a problem and never has been.. Food distribution is..

No, no, no, man. You're not hearing me. They don't check your parents' genes, that doesn't mean jack, they check YOUR genes, because if half my father's genes are shit, and half my mother's genes are shit, and I get the two halves of them that AREN'T shit, I'm perfectly fine with warped and imperfect parents.

Each gamete cell, sperm for the male, egg for the female, contains exactly a half set of chromosomes, which varies from cell to cell. So from imperfect parents, a perfect spermatozoon could meet with a perfect ovum and produce a perfect child. So if you're cracking down on this sort of thing, you check the potential breeders, not their family history.

And animals that are weaker being picked off is a sort of more natural way of preventing the infirm from breeding. Imagine if we had a creature that flew at a set speed, and ate people. All the fit people would be able to run away, survive, have sex, and reproduce, carrying their "fit" genes, whereas the infit, disabled, and whatnot would get eaten... and NOT be able to reproduce, because they'd be dead.

And come on, the government isn't "evil", kid, that's the biggest and widest-used load by all the Greenpeace tie-dye types.

Notice anything about "BAD GENES"? Yeah, its not really the genes they care about..
You will have an "predisposition" to whatever bad thing your family is doing and therefore you will be sterilised.. Thats how it was..
And it can easily be enforced with phoney science.. Like how it was..

I dont wanna start a fight over the government being evil, it doesnt sound like you will change your mind..
But im sure you will wake up, when you are ready.. Especially since you are from the States..

Ooh, and dont call me kid.. Im older than you..

Whatever, whatever, we've reached the point where debating it isn't going to get anywhere. I call an "agree to disagree" and I say that I respect your opinion and whatnot.

 

[Zeekar]

Despite being a biologist, I fail to see how mankind can do something better than nature, who has been doing the job fairly well I would think for the last however many million years.

Mankind can easily do it better then nature, because nature takes thousands of years, with much trial and error. Mankind can do it much faster and with less failures using selective breeding and genetics.

Less failures? Last time I checked, nature has never "failed". Mankind on the other hand? We've certainly had our ups and downs. Having government step into our bedrooms of all places when they can't even be trusted with our economy would certainly be a significant "down" in our history.

Besides, subjectively, the thought of being seen as livestock to be bred for certain traits by an outside body feels wrong. That has got to be worth something in this argument.

 

[Catalyst6]

Eugenics sounds like a great idea in theory. However, one must consider the problems that can arise from it.

Instead of thinking about people, let's talk about GMOs. Specifically, corn. Let's say that there's a certain gene that makes corn grow a lot better than normal and has no side effects. We modify the corn so that all corn now has this gene and the corn prospers. Then a virus comes along and kills everything with that gene. Now only the corn without that gene survives.

That's a drastic oversimplification, but you get the point. Diversity is good, even if it's not perfect.

 

[GWarface]

Absolutely. I think that eugenics should be enforced. I mean, hell, it works for nature, why shouldn't we make it work for us?

So, if you were in a family less fortunate than others.. Dad is a drunk, mom is a junkie and your sister is a slut.. But YOU are the white sheep among the black, so you choose to do something good for yourself and get yourself and education and a nice little family..

With eugenics You CANT have a nice little family because your family is "bad" and therefore YOU are "bad" and shouldnt be allowed to bring any children into the world..

You could be the next Messiah but your genes are fucked so you are fucked..

And dont say it works in nature.. Nothing in nature resembles eugenics..

Wrong on all counts, I'm afraid. If I don't have any negative traits, such as the alcoholism, or the trait that makes me easily addicted, if I'm an unspoiled gene pool of nothing but good things- then I'd be allowed to reproduce, because I have all the good genes, obviously. They don't check my parents, they check ME, because only half of each of my progenitor's genes are mine. And from your description of the situation, I must have gotten the good ones.

Also, yes, there is such a thing as eugenics in nature, it's called "natural selection". Only the fittest of creatures survive to reproduce, passing on superior genetic material. We're just replacing "the unfit to breed get eaten by predators" with "the unfit to breed are forbidden by the government from reproducing". And it will cut down on overpopulation, too. Less people breeding, fewer babies.

Now its even more annoying that i cant find that old Us pro-eugenics movie, because it is EXACTLY as i say.. If you are from a bad family, it doesnt really matter how good a person you are.. you have the "BAD GENES" from your parents, therefore you are bad..

I know it sounds fucking insane, but thats how it was and i really think it would still be like that if brought back..

And i still cant see how you can compare "animals eating other animals" with "people getting forced sterilised by The Man because he says they are inferior"
But i do like that you compare the government with predators, with that you are spot-on..

Plus, "overpopulation" isnt a problem and never has been.. Food distribution is..

No, no, no, man. You're not hearing me. They don't check your parents' genes, that doesn't mean jack, they check YOUR genes, because if half my father's genes are shit, and half my mother's genes are shit, and I get the two halves of them that AREN'T shit, I'm perfectly fine with warped and imperfect parents.

Each gamete cell, sperm for the male, egg for the female, contains exactly a half set of chromosomes, which varies from cell to cell. So from imperfect parents, a perfect spermatozoon could meet with a perfect ovum and produce a perfect child. So if you're cracking down on this sort of thing, you check the potential breeders, not their family history.

And animals that are weaker being picked off is a sort of more natural way of preventing the infirm from breeding. Imagine if we had a creature that flew at a set speed, and ate people. All the fit people would be able to run away, survive, have sex, and reproduce, carrying their "fit" genes, whereas the infit, disabled, and whatnot would get eaten... and NOT be able to reproduce, because they'd be dead.

And come on, the government isn't "evil", kid, that's the biggest and widest-used load by all the Greenpeace tie-dye types.

Notice anything about "BAD GENES"? Yeah, its not really the genes they care about..
You will have an "predisposition" to whatever bad thing your family is doing and therefore you will be sterilised.. Thats how it was..
And it can easily be enforced with phoney science.. Like how it was..

I dont wanna start a fight over the government being evil, it doesnt sound like you will change your mind..
But im sure you will wake up, when you are ready.. Especially since you are from the States..

Ooh, and dont call me kid.. Im older than you..

Whatever, whatever, we've reached the point where debating it isn't going to get anywhere. I call an "agree to disagree" and I say that I respect your opinion and whatnot.

Dealio.. I dont want to push my opinion on people, i just want them to think about stuff..

Agree to disagree it is..