Did Hitler win?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-10-2014, 06:33 PM (This post was last modified: 01-10-2014 06:59 PM by Reltzik.)
RE: Did Hitler win?
(01-10-2014 12:36 PM)dimaniac Wrote:  Creationist here.
Unlike my last thread this is an abortion debate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Down_syndrome
Quote:About 92% of pregnancies in Europe with a diagnosis of Down syndrome are terminated.
So did Hitler win? Is eugenics good?

Two unconnected questions. In order:

Hitler died in a bunker with his enemies marching on his capital. His dreams of Teutonic-Aryan superiority and dominance of Europe and the world literally lay in rubble. His nationalist ideology ended with his nation conquered a second time and then divided between its conquerors for half a century, and now, after reunification, that nation's repudiation of Naziism is greater than you will find anywhere else in the world, save in Israel. Hitler did not win. Period.

Now on to Eugenics...

First of all, this has little if anything to do with the voluntary abortions of fetuses diagnosed with Downs Syndrome.

From the start of Wikipedia's page on Eugenics, with pronunciation/etymology information and citations removed:

Quote:Eugenics... is the belief and practice of improving the genetic quality of the human population. It is a social philosophy advocating the improvement of human genetic traits through the promotion of higher reproduction of people with desired traits (positive eugenics), and reduced reproduction of people with less-desired or undesired traits (negative eugenics).

Eugenics is defined by a motivation to "improve" the human race (or a particular race of humans) through control over reproduction. Without this motivation, it is not eugenics. Note the differences in the two following thought processes, about a fetus which has been diagnosed as having the genetic markers for Down's, but which has yet to develop to the neurological point of being capable (by any science-based understanding of the terms) of experiencing suffering.

"This fetus has, or will develop, Down's Syndrome. I will therefore terminate my pregnancy via abortion, because I do not wish to undertake the increased responsibility of caring for a child with Down's, and because I do not wish this fetus to develop to the of being able to experience the suffering associated with the condition." Agree with or disagree with this thought process as much as you want, but understand for what it is. This thought process is not about improving the larger species through control of reproduction. Its perspective is entirely about individual difficulties, suffering, and other considerations. There is no contemplation of the larger scale, no motivation connected to the "quality" of humanity as a whole. This is clearly NOT Eugenics.

"This fetus has, or will develop, Down's Syndrome. I will therefore terminate my pregnancy via abortion, and I will do so primarily out of a motivation to improve the species as a large, with any consideration of my personal, individual circumstances being entirely secondary." This WOULD be Eugenics.... if it actually happened.

But I would be surprised if the number of European women who opt to abort a pregnancy with a fetus that has or will develop Down's Syndrome, and do so with a principle motivation of eugenics, or even any consideration of eugenics, exceeded 1%. Greatly surprised if it exceeded 5%. If you can demonstrate otherwise, by all means do so. But otherwise, your stat about abortions and Down's Syndrome seems to be unconnected to a widespread adoption of eugenic philosophy, and claiming otherwise based solely on this stat would be absurd.

But that wasn't your question. It was just the context of your question, along with the questionable and spurious connection with Hitler, and your own creationism. Your question was, is eugenics good?

It's certainly been implemented in horrific ways in the past. Regardless of whether it is good in principle, it has certainly been done bad in practice. Forcible sterilizations.... especially based on race, or traits that are not genetically-determined. Executions. Yeah, there are horrifically bad ways to do it. But are there decent ways of doing this? Let's start by removing the government-dictated element and leaving it up to individual prospective parents. I'll give two examples.

Example 1: Before having children, a married couple has some genetic testing done, and discovers a high chance that any child they have together will have Down's Syndrome. They voluntarily, and entirely on their own initiative, opt for sterilization (specifically, a vasectomy) and adopt instead. They do so having considered both the individual impact on their own lives, and a desire to reduce these genetic traits in the species at large. Because of the latter consideration, this is eugenics. But I challenge you to provide any reasonable grounds for saying that there is anything wrong with what this couple is choosing or doing.

Example 2: In the not-to-distant future, genetic-engineering methods exist for altering the genetic code of a fetus in early stages of development, such as to prevent the development of Down's Syndrome in the future child, and also any of that child's progeny. This procedure is safe, cheap, and effective. A pregnant woman discovers that her fetus has the genetic markers for Down's Syndrome, and her doctor highly recommends this procedure. She eagerly agrees because of her personal desire that her child grow up healthy and with his or her full potential. The doctor wishes this too, but also wants to eliminate as many instances of the genetic markers for Down's Syndrome as possible in the population at large, thus reducing the instances of the illness. Because the doctor is motivated by improving the genetic traits of the species at large, this is eugenics. But is it wrong?

I would say that eugenics is good in its overt motivation. So long as it is done in a moral way (meaning, NO forcible sterilizations, death camps, any form of coercion, etc) and an intelligent way (meaning, actually knowing what "negative" traits are genetically determined before implementing policy, EDIT: AND having examined secondary and tertiary consequences of that policy), I do not believe that eugenics is, in and of itself, bad, and that it can be turned towards good outcomes. But I also think that the dangers of heinous or ill-informed methods, coupled with the bigotry to be found in some world leaders and legislatures, are too great to trust it as part of a deliberate public policy.

Whether a woman's voluntary abortion of her pregnancy is an okay, or heinous, method, is a topic about abortion. Not eugenics, not Hitler, and not creationism.

And speaking of which, should this thread perhaps be moved to a different forum? It's got nothing to do with theism or atheism.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Reltzik's post
01-10-2014, 07:36 PM
RE: Did Hitler win?
Quote:"This fetus has, or will develop, Down's Syndrome. I will therefore terminate my pregnancy via abortion, and I will do so primarily out of a motivation to improve the species as a large, with any consideration of my personal, individual circumstances being entirely secondary." This WOULD be Eugenics....
So if germany claimed that they killed 6 million jews because they wanted their money not because they hated jews and that Hitler was a freak that had nothing to do with general population then Holocaust wouldn't actually happen and Germany wouldn't have to pay reparations to Israel?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-10-2014, 07:40 PM
RE: Did Hitler win?
(01-10-2014 07:36 PM)dimaniac Wrote:  
Quote:"This fetus has, or will develop, Down's Syndrome. I will therefore terminate my pregnancy via abortion, and I will do so primarily out of a motivation to improve the species as a large, with any consideration of my personal, individual circumstances being entirely secondary." This WOULD be Eugenics....
So if germany claimed that they killed 6 million jews because they wanted their money not because they hated jews and that Hitler was a freak that had nothing to do with general population then Holocaust wouldn't actually happen and Germany wouldn't have to pay reparations to Israel?

You are deranged. Yes

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
01-10-2014, 07:41 PM
RE: Did Hitler win?
(01-10-2014 07:36 PM)dimaniac Wrote:  
Quote:"This fetus has, or will develop, Down's Syndrome. I will therefore terminate my pregnancy via abortion, and I will do so primarily out of a motivation to improve the species as a large, with any consideration of my personal, individual circumstances being entirely secondary." This WOULD be Eugenics....
So if germany claimed that they killed 6 million jews because they wanted their money not because they hated jews and that Hitler was a freak that had nothing to do with general population then Holocaust wouldn't actually happen and Germany wouldn't have to pay reparations to Israel?

It would still be one of the most heinous acts of genocide in human history, as well as one of the most heinous war crimes.

But it wouldn't be eugenics, any more than stabbing someone to death would be an example of garotting someone.

"If I ignore the alternatives, the only option is God; I ignore them; therefore God." -- The Syllogism of Fail
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Reltzik's post
01-10-2014, 07:54 PM
RE: Did Hitler win?
I call Poe.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheBear's post
01-10-2014, 08:10 PM (This post was last modified: 01-10-2014 09:38 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Did Hitler win?
Until or unless you produce a peer-reviewed poll of women/parents stating the reasons, (which anyone in their right mind and not a 12 year-old, knows are varied, complex, and arrived at after much anguish and thought), your question is fatuous and insulting.

How dare you think you can presume to know why parents chose to end their pregnancies. I seem to remember someone telling you idiots not to judge, "lest ye be judged".

Shame on you.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
01-10-2014, 09:33 PM
RE: Did Hitler win?
(01-10-2014 12:41 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(01-10-2014 12:36 PM)dimaniac Wrote:  Creationist here.
Unlike my last thread this is an abortion debate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Down_syndrome
So did Hitler win? Is eugenics good?

Creationists are hardly worth paying attention to. Drinking Beverage

it is worth paying attention to.................. when it starts to creep into places it shouldn't and doesn't belong and indoctrinating lil kids Drinking Beverage (I was actually drinking tea as I wrote this:thumbsupSmile
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-10-2014, 09:36 PM
RE: Did Hitler win?
I knew someone with down syndrome who went to the same martial arts dojo I did many years ago. Nice guy!

Anyway, I have no idea what OP is trying to say, but this just seems to me like it is just another sad pathetic troll.


My Youtube channel if anyone is interested.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCEkRdbq...rLEz-0jEHQ
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Shadow Fox's post
02-10-2014, 09:07 AM
RE: Did Hitler win?
(01-10-2014 07:40 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(01-10-2014 07:36 PM)dimaniac Wrote:  So if germany claimed that they killed 6 million jews because they wanted their money not because they hated jews and that Hitler was a freak that had nothing to do with general population then Holocaust wouldn't actually happen and Germany wouldn't have to pay reparations to Israel?

You are deranged. Yes

Well... I was trying to think of a nice way to say it but uh... I think that's about as good as it gets. Shy

A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes kim's post
08-10-2014, 01:43 PM
RE: Did Hitler win?
(01-10-2014 01:46 PM)dancefortwo Wrote:  Did Hitler win? The God inspired Nazi belt buckles translates "God is With US"

[Image: gottMitUns.png]

It's funny, I heard about the Nazi belt buckle "live in person" from someone only yesterday. They must read this forum.

Gott mit uns was in use by German unification troops way back--it appeared on WWI emblems before there was a German Nazi party! A Nazi wore one as likely to hold up his pants or obey his superiors (you gotta wear the uniform in the army!) as to proclaim his devout theist beliefs.

American atheists have bills in their wallet today that say IN GOD WE TRUST. What's in your wallet? If what you wear is what you are STOP USING PAPER BILLS, my secularist friends.

The Q asks, "Are you consistent?"

My point is this--you can say the Nazis were a theist group, I can say the Gott mit uns was traditional gear that carried over from the German unification period--but religion, as most religious people would agree, is about individuals. Maybe instead of being worried about a theist state you should take a stand and no longer carry American paper money.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: