Stardf29, if you look at the history of AIDs - no, the reason for abstinence that you have provided - it is an objectivist standpoint. There is no higher moral calling, only objectivist reasons. Also, if you don't want to get these diseases the answer is simple - don't have sex, at least not with anybody who may have diseases. I'm not against abstinence, I'm just saying there's not really legitimate reasons for it.

Eugenics at its root is about control.

Not true,

It is quite clear. In order to determine which people have the right to live and don't under any type of eugenics, that person must be alive long enough to see what traits are worth keeping or not. And if not, that person must be killed which == MURDER!!!

Also not true. You don't have to kill off the race, just refuse them the ability to breed. Being somewhat Libertarian, I'm not promoting that, it's just an option.

From your comments, I assume you have never spent any quality time with anyone who has a disability.

Forgive me a moment of laughter here
Of course I'm not blaming you for this mistake, you couldn't have known this: I've lived with one for almost 17 years. My brother is mentally retarded, a 22 year old with the mind of a 6 year old. Someone who will be accepting your tax money to live on, but will never give back to the society from which he takes.

Now, I also believe just about everyone has a talent they're good at. A person with physical or mental problems could be better than a "normal" person at something, but it doesn't mean a "normal" person couldn't be just as good. You're great at video games? That's awesome, I have a friend who's a professional Halo 3 player. Not to demean your abilities or anything, I'm just saying everyone excels at different things, whether "normal" or not. My brother designs and builds some crazy buldings out of K'Nex, stuff I'd never think of, I wouldn't be surprised if he would have been an architect if his other mental abilities weren't so far behind. But such is life, it is what it is, I suppose.

I'm not sure what you're going for exactly, Andrew; I'm just saying that, even from objectivist standpoints, you have better arguments to use against the Biblical mores of your choice than what you used.

That, and I'm not sure what you consider a "legitimate" reason, but I'm pretty sure you know by now that I'm not going to care one bit for whether my reasons are legitimate by your standards.

My brother is mentally retarded, a 22 year old with the mind of a 6 year old. Someone who will be accepting your tax money to live on, but will never give back to the society from which he takes.

You know, you're being rather demeaning to six-year-olds.

To say nothing of your brother. I'm sure he could give quite a bit back to society if you (and other people) help him out a bit.

That, and I'm sure there's someone who likes him enough that, for that person, his very presence on Earth is a gift back to society.

Come on, have some faith in him...

The soul is the function of emotions. I have yet to find a reference to the soul that wasn't with an emotional context. The spirit is the function of intuition and communication. It is the spirit that communicates with God and with each other, when language does not. It is also the spirit that alters us of things that we percieve or normally should not know. But the spirit is never referred to in an emotional context.

And where is the intellect, the mind? I see all of these as but aspects of the same immaterial component of the human being that exists in a conditional unity with the body. My emotions are almost inextricably tied up with my physical existence: in many cases they are a response to physical stimulae and trigger physical reactions.

Also, what of the difference between heart and soul? I just keep finding too many terms that seem to be aspects of the same thing, plus I find no really good or necessary deduction from Scripture to a trichotomous view of man. That, coupled with Occam's razor, leads me to reject this view. Even a brief look at usage of the terms in Scripture leads me to conclude that they are used more or less interchangeably.

My brother is mentally retarded, a 22 year old with the mind of a 6 year old. Someone who will be accepting your tax money to live on, but will never give back to the society from which he takes.

What exactly do you mean by "give back." There seems to be some sort of value system tied up in your assessment, so I would like to know what it is, where you
get it from, and why we should care (given your nihilism).

For myself, I happen to believe that all humans, being made in the image of God, have an inherent dignity that, though damaged by the fall, is still present, even in ruin. I remember once standing in the ruins of an abbey and admiring it, thinking that even in ruin it was truly magnificent.

TBG

I'm just saying that, even from objectivist standpoints, you have better arguments to use against the Biblical mores of your choice than what you used.

Not necessarily, in fact the reason I do not subscribe to objectivism is the same as why I don't subscribe to any set moralism - it assumes there is some standard by which we all should live. Though I must admit, objectivism does make sense.

What exactly do you mean by "give back." There seems to be some sort of value system tied up in your assessment, so I would like to know what it is, where you get it from, and why we should care (given your nihilism).

No, as I have said I am not supporting eugenics or anything. However, I do like to find common ground. From just about any value system other than nihilism, you can base a person's value on what they add to society. Look into your own scriptures: "Go to the ant thou sluggard," and "he who does not work will not eat."

There are a lot of things I disagree with Fencer about , but he's right on the mark (mostly) regarding Eugenics . It's a means of control--politically, economically, and socially--of population groups, and of favoured population groups' genetic futures.

It wasn't simply discredited because of its connection to Nazism, but because Eugenics was eventually debunked as a bogus science--there is no such thing as a "perfect" or "uniform" Human model. And as others on the forum have already pointed out (including Andrew himself), genetic "disorders" do not necessarily condemn people to live "unfit" or "unproductive" lives.

And it IS inherently a means of control because it is NOT something that can be accomplished through Individual Free Choice. It necessarily requires enforcement by the State, or some other Authoritarian means. Who is supposed to determine what constitutes "unfit"? The Rich? White Supremacists? Allegedly "Rational" Medical Professionals working within the current definitions of their day?

Expecting humans to "advance" to the point "morally" (which is implicitly stated in Andrew's views which are already on record here )wherefore they would (collectively or by a group of "elites") be capable of making such choices perfectly ethically is entirely an unrealistic fantasy.

Now for the part where I disagree with BOTH Puddleglum and Andrew:

As far as trotting out Margaret Sanger as the poster child of Eugenics (usually in order to trash the laudable goals of Planned Parenthood); that is also a dead letter.

The fact is, in the 1920's, Eugenics was widely heralded as a breakthrough "science", and endorsed by people across the political spectrum from Left to Right, and there was a wide range of perspectives on what constituted "Eugenics". Sanger opposed the Nazi's "methodology" of mass murder, and mostly endorsed sterilization, birth control, and controlled immigration policies to minimize the reproduction of the "medically unfit" and "feeble-minded" (bad enough in my view, but not in any way equivalent to the Nazis). And if her writings are any indication, she actually dissented from a lot of Eugenicist opinion (for the most part she believed that people should have the freedom of choice regarding reproduction, excepting the "worst" cases of "Medical Unfitness").

She was a complex person who had many laudable goals (including the advancement of women, legalization of birth control, and freedom of speech), and many misguided ones. She believed that birth control should be in the hands of individuals, not the State. She actually opposed the Narniaweb banned topic (hint, it begins with A ).

Accusations of Racism are dubious; quite possibly she harboured racial prejudices as was open and common until the 1970's when it became increasingly "politically incorrect." But "Eugenics" was cross-racial. Kelly Miller was a Eugenicist and one of America's leading black writers in that era.

Margaret Sanger was apparently someone who believed in the betterment of mankind across racial boundaries, and worked with many African Americans. She was heralded by such luminaries as W.E.B. Du Bois, and later Martin Luther King Jr., and the Urban League among other African Americans and their organizations.

Peace and Long Life

GB

Given that this thread has achieved 100 pages, and that this comes at a time when Doc Ransom is not going to be available to reopen it until after the weekend, it will be locked for the time being. Beginning next week the thread will be opened anew, renewed, and old debates can continue at that time.