I can't help to wonder if from Russia's perspective, we have more in common with China than with them. 

I mean - if you put yourself in Russia's perspective, from their culture values - and looked at America - its cancel culture, SJW causes, virtue signaling, focus on equity and the strength of the far Left - even its anti White Western Patriarchy ideologies... 

Wouldn't you go - "Nah... they're nearly as far gone as China, already..." 

Sat Jun 19 2021 21:17:40 MST from TheDave

 

Fri Jun 18 2021 12:38:37 MST from ParanoidDelusions <paranoiddelusions@wallofhate.com>

We do have a lot in common - but in a bizarro way. 

 

Good enough for me, it's more in common than China lol

Definitely food for thought. America IS becoming more like China, especially under the current administration. Not that I don't have a problem with that. With a little luck, this country's politics will swing back to the right, although , I would hope, not too far. I'm middle-of-the-road Conservative, myself. Registered Republican, but not comfortable with some of the more religious folks in the party.

Sun Jun 20 2021 10:51:13 MST from ParanoidDelusions <paranoiddelusions@wallofhate.com>

I can't help to wonder if from Russia's perspective, we have more in common with China than with them. 

I mean - if you put yourself in Russia's perspective, from their culture values - and looked at America - its cancel culture, SJW causes, virtue signaling, focus on equity and the strength of the far Left - even its anti White Western Patriarchy ideologies... 

Wouldn't you go - "Nah... they're nearly as far gone as China, already..." 

 

Sat Jun 19 2021 21:17:40 MST from TheDave

 

Fri Jun 18 2021 12:38:37 MST from ParanoidDelusions <paranoiddelusions@wallofhate.com>

We do have a lot in common - but in a bizarro way. 

 

Good enough for me, it's more in common than China lol

 

The moral majority alliance is 90% of the problem that the GOP struggles with in winning voters. If they just dropped the anti-gay, anti-abortion shit and pushed their economic platform of meritocracy - and then delivered on that - they would do great. 

Thu Aug 26 2021 17:47:25 MST from Jerry Moore

Definitely food for thought. America IS becoming more like China, especially under the current administration. Not that I don't have a problem with that. With a little luck, this country's politics will swing back to the right, although , I would hope, not too far. I'm middle-of-the-road Conservative, myself. Registered Republican, but not comfortable with some of the more religious folks in the party.

Sun Jun 20 2021 10:51:13 MST from ParanoidDelusions <paranoiddelusions@wallofhate.com>

I can't help to wonder if from Russia's perspective, we have more in common with China than with them. 

I mean - if you put yourself in Russia's perspective, from their culture values - and looked at America - its cancel culture, SJW causes, virtue signaling, focus on equity and the strength of the far Left - even its anti White Western Patriarchy ideologies... 

Wouldn't you go - "Nah... they're nearly as far gone as China, already..." 

 

Sat Jun 19 2021 21:17:40 MST from TheDave

 

Fri Jun 18 2021 12:38:37 MST from ParanoidDelusions <paranoiddelusions@wallofhate.com>

We do have a lot in common - but in a bizarro way. 

 

Good enough for me, it's more in common than China lol

 

 

Fri Aug 27 2021 09:19:23 MSTfrom ParanoidDelusions <paranoiddelusions@wallofhate.com>

The moral majority alliance is 90% of the problem that the GOP struggles with in winning voters. If they just dropped the anti-gay, anti-abortion shit and pushed their economic platform of meritocracy - and then delivered on that - they would do great. 

The moral majority were idiots about their packaging and completely right about their message.  Even the gays are pretty aghast at what the left has turned their movement into, and it's turning on them over it.

Abortion is baby murder.  Science is anti-abortion.  More and more people are realizing this undeniable fact.  Every single woman who argues with me about this is horrified when I correctly identify them as having murdered her baby.  It's not even shooting fish in a barrel at this point, it's them confessing without realizing it.  Every. Single. Time.  They need to feel okay with their horrific decision and their guilt over it, so they push the ridiculous narrative that it's somehow not a human life they're ending.  "But what about rape and incest?"  Tell you what.  I'll make you a deal.  I'll allow EVERY rape and incest victim a free abortion at my own personal expense if you agree to outlawing abortions for ANYONE ELSE.  I don't see any takers.  "But what about ectopic pregnancies or spontaneous abortions or what if the baby is dead in the womb?"  Those aren't viable pregnancies.  They don't count.  Nobody on the right will be mad at you about taking care of those medical problems.

You're right about the meritocracy though.  The current right seems to be the left from 20-30 years ago and it sucks.

So, conservative values should be pro-abortion.

As a purely economic, fiscal issue - it is a net gain for society.

Most people who *want* their child are unfit parents who will produce offspring that are generally a net burden for society. The odds of an unwanted child getting what it needs to be a net benefit for society are astronomically unlikely - especially in the communities most likely to engage in abortion. Even among those who are affluent and have resources - abortion is frequently employed in cases where the pregnancy is unwanted and the child will be seen as a burden, likely to be neglected.

As an issue of body autonomy - if the child cannot live without the host parent providing a life support system for it (excluding technological solutions) - then the body autonomy of the HOST usurps the body autonomy of the parasitic party in this scenario.

In fact, abortion should be preferred in places where people cannot manage or afford their OWN daily existence, let alone provide for the well being of the multiple offspring they tend to pop out.

If it is murder or not is an ethical, spiritual question that has nothing to do with actual conservative values. Everything about abortion is actually a net win for conservative values - and we would be in even worse shape if the majority of abortions over the last 40 years had not taken place - because those offspring would almost invariably grow up to be Left leaning.

I do think it is murder. But even with it legal, the idiocracy is out-breeding us.

Wed Sep 22 2021 02:25:43 MST from TheDave

 

Fri Aug 27 2021 09:19:23 MSTfrom ParanoidDelusions <paranoiddelusions@wallofhate.com>

The moral majority alliance is 90% of the problem that the GOP struggles with in winning voters. If they just dropped the anti-gay, anti-abortion shit and pushed their economic platform of meritocracy - and then delivered on that - they would do great. 

The moral majority were idiots about their packaging and completely right about their message.  Even the gays are pretty aghast at what the left has turned their movement into, and it's turning on them over it.

Abortion is baby murder.  Science is anti-abortion.  More and more people are realizing this undeniable fact.  Every single woman who argues with me about this is horrified when I correctly identify them as having murdered her baby.  It's not even shooting fish in a barrel at this point, it's them confessing without realizing it.  Every. Single. Time.  They need to feel okay with their horrific decision and their guilt over it, so they push the ridiculous narrative that it's somehow not a human life they're ending.  "But what about rape and incest?"  Tell you what.  I'll make you a deal.  I'll allow EVERY rape and incest victim a free abortion at my own personal expense if you agree to outlawing abortions for ANYONE ELSE.  I don't see any takers.  "But what about ectopic pregnancies or spontaneous abortions or what if the baby is dead in the womb?"  Those aren't viable pregnancies.  They don't count.  Nobody on the right will be mad at you about taking care of those medical problems.

You're right about the meritocracy though.  The current right seems to be the left from 20-30 years ago and it sucks.

I had wondered how I could consider myself to be Conservative and still be pro-choice. When my wife was pregnant, she came to me to suggest that she abort the child. Since I was thirty-seven, I felt that I was getting too old to become a father, even though I wanted a child to carry on my DNA. I made the selfish decision and convinced my wife to bear our child. That is my definition of pro-choice.

As a middle-of-the-road Conservative who is Agnostic, I'm a bit uncomfortable with the Republican party, since they tend to be religious, while I am spiritual. The more religious ones tend to be autocratic, while I love the balanced Constitutional Democratic Republic that we were gifted with by the first constitutional convention. They are too weak and comfortable with things the way they are, so they don't stand up to Democrats for the values they tell us they have when they ask for our vote. By the way, Donald Trump wasn't a Republican until he started his run for President. He was a registered Democrat because it got him more deals, not because he was liberal. He ran things HIS way, which I appreciated. The powerful politicians of both parties worked against him whenever they could. If all of the Republicans had backed him, he would have accomplished a lot more than he did. Like any rational, non-demented human, he made mistakes, and with the legacy politicians against him, he didn't have a chance. The only reason that he accomplished a lot in his first year, was that he caught them by surprise. They still haven't recovered, but they got rid of him, politically, and are trying to keep him from coming back. Their REAL problem is/was that he is part of PD's twenty percent, business wise, and ran his campaign like a business. Most, if not all of the Legacy Politicians are in the eighty percent, both politically and business wise. The Democrat party, which was always too liberal, has been hijacked by the Progressives, who I believe were originally started by Teddy Roosevelt, but had been hijacked by the American Communists years earlier (I'm too tired to look up dates, so you can figure it out yourself). Since the Democratic leadership became Progressive, they have used the schools to dumb down our children for several generations, which means that the results of their efforts are now the Teachers and Politicians who are training and running our country, so the 80\20 split is likely to get worse.

I don't know how this relates to Russia, but that is the nature of Citadels.

The pro-abortion argument is always identical to a pro-eugenics argument.  I think it's unwise to allow that way of thinking to become prevalent.

The problem with online conversation, is that when you completely agree with something - there really isn't anything to add... 

I agree with all of this pretty much. I mean - basically all of it... but it isn't the kind of thing I'd take a hard line on in mixed company - on Facebook, for example. 

Which is kind of sad. They've basically silenced the truth. 

Mon Oct 04 2021 12:57:17 MST from Jerry Moore

I had wondered how I could consider myself to be Conservative and still be pro-choice. When my wife was pregnant, she came to me to suggest that she abort the child. Since I was thirty-seven, I felt that I was getting too old to become a father, even though I wanted a child to carry on my DNA. I made the selfish decision and convinced my wife to bear our child. That is my definition of pro-choice.

As a middle-of-the-road Conservative who is Agnostic, I'm a bit uncomfortable with the Republican party, since they tend to be religious, while I am spiritual. The more religious ones tend to be autocratic, while I love the balanced Constitutional Democratic Republic that we were gifted with by the first constitutional convention. They are too weak and comfortable with things the way they are, so they don't stand up to Democrats for the values they tell us they have when they ask for our vote. By the way, Donald Trump wasn't a Republican until he started his run for President. He was a registered Democrat because it got him more deals, not because he was liberal. He ran things HIS way, which I appreciated. The powerful politicians of both parties worked against him whenever they could. If all of the Republicans had backed him, he would have accomplished a lot more than he did. Like any rational, non-demented human, he made mistakes, and with the legacy politicians against him, he didn't have a chance. The only reason that he accomplished a lot in his first year, was that he caught them by surprise. They still haven't recovered, but they got rid of him, politically, and are trying to keep him from coming back. Their REAL problem is/was that he is part of PD's twenty percent, business wise, and ran his campaign like a business. Most, if not all of the Legacy Politicians are in the eighty percent, both politically and business wise. The Democrat party, which was always too liberal, has been hijacked by the Progressives, who I believe were originally started by Teddy Roosevelt, but had been hijacked by the American Communists years earlier (I'm too tired to look up dates, so you can figure it out yourself). Since the Democratic leadership became Progressive, they have used the schools to dumb down our children for several generations, which means that the results of their efforts are now the Teachers and Politicians who are training and running our country, so the 80\20 split is likely to get worse.

I don't know how this relates to Russia, but that is the nature of Citadels.

Eugenics are a fact, though. Musk got in all kinds of trouble with the Millennials for admitting this, a while back. Sherpas work better in high altitude because a combination of natural evolution and intentionally selective breeding (those who are more successful in a society are more likely to procreate, and more likely to raise more children to adulthood, before a certain point. Other factors are at play there too...) It is the same reason that Kenyans have bigger, broader noses and more breathing capacity that allows them to be the worlds fastest runners. There are examples of eugenics at play all around us, every day. Americans of black male descent dominate US sports in part because they were *selectively* and intentionally bred for strength, resilience and oddly enough high agreeability in team events. The English and then the Germans screwed eugenics up where it is the one pretty clearly established science that we're *not* allowed to talk about - so we can't talk about the ramifications of what has been *done* with Eugenics - and what might *be* done with them. Instead. 


If we don't get off the planet - there is the probability that we'll come to a place in society where we have to confront both abortion and Eugenics. If we don't do it - nature will step in and do it for us... which is honestly probably the better way. When we try to replicate complex natural systems - we always screw it up. Nature has been doing both intermittent population control and eugenics based evolution since we first decided to try walking upright. 


One of the interesting things I discovered recently, is that Neanderthal man was the only European hominid until the great migration out of Africa by homo-superior occurred. The arrival of homosapiens in Europe bred out the Neanderthals it didn't kill outright through displacement. The first thing that African homosapiens did when they migrated out of Africa was practiced geocide and Eugenics on the indigenious homo-erectus populations they discovered. Not only was it the first case of this - it was the most *effective* genocide of another sentient human species in the history of humanity. This pretty much happened *wherever* homosapiens migrated to. They're all gone. We're here - and we're here by interbreeding with them until they became us, and killing the rest of them. 

I think the hubris is in thinking that we've somehow evolved PAST that natural evolution. "Thanks for getting us this far, nature - we don't like your methods so much. We'll take the wheel from here on out. We think we can do much better." 


Sure we can. 

Tue Oct 05 2021 03:42:47 MST from TheDave

The pro-abortion argument is always identical to a pro-eugenics argument.  I think it's unwise to allow that way of thinking to become prevalent.

Tue Oct 05 2021 19:59:43 MST from ParanoidDelusions <paranoiddelusions@wallofhate.com>

Eugenics are a fact, though. Musk got in all kinds of trouble with the Millennials for admitting this, a while back. Sherpas work better in high altitude because a combination of natural evolution and intentionally selective breeding (those who are more successful in a society are more likely to procreate, and more likely to raise more children to adulthood, before a certain point. Other factors are at play there too...) It is the same reason that Kenyans have bigger, broader noses and more breathing capacity that allows them to be the worlds fastest runners. There are examples of eugenics at play all around us, every day. Americans of black male descent dominate US sports in part because they were *selectively* and intentionally bred for strength, resilience and oddly enough high agreeability in team events. The English and then the Germans screwed eugenics up where it is the one pretty clearly established science that we're *not* allowed to talk about - so we can't talk about the ramifications of what has been *done* with Eugenics - and what might *be* done with them. Instead. 


If we don't get off the planet - there is the probability that we'll come to a place in society where we have to confront both abortion and Eugenics. If we don't do it - nature will step in and do it for us... which is honestly probably the better way. When we try to replicate complex natural systems - we always screw it up. Nature has been doing both intermittent population control and eugenics based evolution since we first decided to try walking upright. 


One of the interesting things I discovered recently, is that Neanderthal man was the only European hominid until the great migration out of Africa by homo-superior occurred. The arrival of homosapiens in Europe bred out the Neanderthals it didn't kill outright through displacement. The first thing that African homosapiens did when they migrated out of Africa was practiced geocide and Eugenics on the indigenious homo-erectus populations they discovered. Not only was it the first case of this - it was the most *effective* genocide of another sentient human species in the history of humanity. This pretty much happened *wherever* homosapiens migrated to. They're all gone. We're here - and we're here by interbreeding with them until they became us, and killing the rest of them. 

I think the hubris is in thinking that we've somehow evolved PAST that natural evolution. "Thanks for getting us this far, nature - we don't like your methods so much. We'll take the wheel from here on out. We think we can do much better." 


Sure we can. 

 

Tue Oct 05 2021 03:42:47 MST from TheDave

The pro-abortion argument is always identical to a pro-eugenics argument.  I think it's unwise to allow that way of thinking to become prevalent.

 

There are advantages to eugenics, but in the meantime I can use the taboo nature of it to show people why their pro abortion arguments are bullshit, which is of advantage to me in my quest to redpill the libs.

I'm torn, because I think that the sort of people who would murder their babies should probably be allowed to remove themselves from the genepool that way, but also it's reprehensible to treat the most innocent people that way.  Who knows how many Teslas and Einsteins we've lost to this stupid system that somehow thinks being dead is better than living a shitty life.  Make suicide legal and ban abortion.  Problem solved.  You really don't want that baby?  Kill yourself and take the kid with you.

The truth is - we've probably missed a lot more Jeffery Dahmers and Lil' XZYtecsay Gangstas than Teslas,Martin Luther Kings, and Einsteins. As a value proposition - the chances are that we catch more serial killers, drug dealers, pimps, rapists and thugs than we catch geniuses who are going to revolutionize society in the abortion net. The demographics of populations that have the most abortions are also the demographics of populations that produce the most criminals. 

This is pretty hard to deny. From a SPIRITUAL morality position, I understand your opposition to abortion. 

From a SECULAR morality position - I think it is probably, in almost all ways, the *most* humane choice to make for most of the children who it happens to - not to mention the already living people who would eventually become their victims. That sounds cruel, but nature is. 

Tue Oct 05 2021 03:42:47 MST from TheDave

The pro-abortion argument is always identical to a pro-eugenics argument.  I think it's unwise to allow that way of thinking to become prevalent.

 

There are advantages to eugenics, but in the meantime I can use the taboo nature of it to show people why their pro abortion arguments are bullshit, which is of advantage to me in my quest to redpill the libs.

I'm torn, because I think that the sort of people who would murder their babies should probably be allowed to remove themselves from the genepool that way, but also it's reprehensible to treat the most innocent people that way.  Who knows how many Teslas and Einsteins we've lost to this stupid system that somehow thinks being dead is better than living a shitty life.  Make suicide legal and ban abortion.  Problem solved.  You really don't want that baby?  Kill yourself and take the kid with you.

My position has the benefit of making liberals very uncomfortable - because they *like* the support for abortion - but they find the implications of my *reasons* for supporting it completely reprehensible. It is a huge "which button do I press, because I want parts of both and none of either at the same time..." meme in real life. 

Wed Oct 06 2021 23:04:13 MST from ParanoidDelusions <paranoiddelusions@wallofhate.com>

The truth is - we've probably missed a lot more Jeffery Dahmers and Lil' XZYtecsay Gangstas than Teslas,Martin Luther Kings, and Einsteins. As a value proposition - the chances are that we catch more serial killers, drug dealers, pimps, rapists and thugs than we catch geniuses who are going to revolutionize society in the abortion net. The demographics of populations that have the most abortions are also the demographics of populations that produce the most criminals. 

This is pretty hard to deny. From a SPIRITUAL morality position, I understand your opposition to abortion. 

From a SECULAR morality position - I think it is probably, in almost all ways, the *most* humane choice to make for most of the children who it happens to - not to mention the already living people who would eventually become their victims. That sounds cruel, but nature is. 

 

Tue Oct 05 2021 03:42:47 MST from TheDave

The pro-abortion argument is always identical to a pro-eugenics argument.  I think it's unwise to allow that way of thinking to become prevalent.

 

There are advantages to eugenics, but in the meantime I can use the taboo nature of it to show people why their pro abortion arguments are bullshit, which is of advantage to me in my quest to redpill the libs.

I'm torn, because I think that the sort of people who would murder their babies should probably be allowed to remove themselves from the genepool that way, but also it's reprehensible to treat the most innocent people that way.  Who knows how many Teslas and Einsteins we've lost to this stupid system that somehow thinks being dead is better than living a shitty life.  Make suicide legal and ban abortion.  Problem solved.  You really don't want that baby?  Kill yourself and take the kid with you.

 

"From a SECULAR morality position - I think it is probably, in almost all ways, the *most* humane choice to make for most of the children who it happens to - not to mention the already living people who would eventually become their victims. That sounds cruel, but nature is. "

Disagree.  I don't think there's anything humane about killing people before they have a chance to prove who they are.

Otherwise, you've made an interesting and amusing point.  As usual.

Statistically, we know who is most likely to have an abortion. 

Statistically, we know who that child will be - as certainly as Facebook and Amazon are statistically accurate enough at predicting what you'll want to buy next that people think that their phone is listening in on them. 

I mean, I know the implications are disturbing about once the State wants to start prosecuting for Pre-Crime based on AI predictive algorithms - but the real unspoken truth is - the algorithms *will* probably be *highly* accurate once they're developed. 

Like most people - I have a problem with the idea that we are not in control of our own fate - that we are predestined - and the idea that if you have a crystal ball into the future that is HIGHLY reliable - you should act on that revelation *before* it has occurred. 

But... Amazon and Facebook illustrate that we *are*. They know what you're going to want to buy next around the same time you're talking about it in a room with no electronic listening devices. 

I'm not killing the kid, either. I'm not standing in the way of the mother killing the child. It is between her and her God. Who am I to interfere with her ability to make the choice to do the wrong thing and prevent another petty criminal from entering the world? She knows she isn't going to raise the child right - that the father isn't going to be around - that the grandparents won't give a shit, and that the child is going to grow up in poverty and neglect with no options but to become hard and hustle to survive. 

I'm certainly not *discouraging* her from making the right choice, though. It makes my society safer. 

Fri Oct 15 2021 02:11:50 MST from TheDave

"From a SECULAR morality position - I think it is probably, in almost all ways, the *most* humane choice to make for most of the children who it happens to - not to mention the already living people who would eventually become their victims. That sounds cruel, but nature is. "

Disagree.  I don't think there's anything humane about killing people before they have a chance to prove who they are.

Otherwise, you've made an interesting and amusing point.  As usual.

Fri Oct 15 2021 08:14:39 MST from ParanoidDelusions <paranoiddelusions@wallofhate.com>

Statistically, we know who is most likely to have an abortion. 

Statistically, we know who that child will be - as certainly as Facebook and Amazon are statistically accurate enough at predicting what you'll want to buy next that people think that their phone is listening in on them. 

I mean, I know the implications are disturbing about once the State wants to start prosecuting for Pre-Crime based on AI predictive algorithms - but the real unspoken truth is - the algorithms *will* probably be *highly* accurate once they're developed. 

Like most people - I have a problem with the idea that we are not in control of our own fate - that we are predestined - and the idea that if you have a crystal ball into the future that is HIGHLY reliable - you should act on that revelation *before* it has occurred. 

But... Amazon and Facebook illustrate that we *are*. They know what you're going to want to buy next around the same time you're talking about it in a room with no electronic listening devices. 

I'm not killing the kid, either. I'm not standing in the way of the mother killing the child. It is between her and her God. Who am I to interfere with her ability to make the choice to do the wrong thing and prevent another petty criminal from entering the world? She knows she isn't going to raise the child right - that the father isn't going to be around - that the grandparents won't give a shit, and that the child is going to grow up in poverty and neglect with no options but to become hard and hustle to survive. 

I'm certainly not *discouraging* her from making the right choice, though. It makes my society safer. 

 

There's part of me that thinks that people who would abort their children should be opting themselves out of the gene pool this way, but again, that's the eugenics argument.

The thing I like about you making this argument is that you KNOW it's the eugenic argument and you're willing to make it anyway.  There's a lot of validity to that "debunked" branch of science.  That doesn't make it less horrific or immoral, but divorced from that it's very reasonable.

They are, they should, and I'm alright with them doing so. It is, and I'm also OK with that. It is like an altruistic thing for them to do - the *best* contribution they can make to humanity as a whole. Deciding that their gene pool should be an evolutionary dead end. 

Part of the problem with society today - is the folks who *should* be opting out are actually breeding the MOST. 

Fri Oct 15 2021 21:35:45 MST from TheDave

  

 

There's part of me that thinks that people who would abort their children should be opting themselves out of the gene pool this way, but again, that's the eugenics argument.

Eugenics itself is not horrible or amoral. The way you *apply* eugenics can be. That is the real problem. Hitler and the Nazis used *terrible* and targeted application of eugenics to justify atrocious things. 

Supporting abortion as an encouraged alternative for people who can't afford and do not have the life skills to successfully raise a contributing member of society really is pretty mild, in comparison. 

"Face it, you're going to fuck this kid up, and *I* am going to end up having to support it. Why don't you do us both a favor, and just not have it." 

That would be my thesis. 

Fri Oct 15 2021 21:36:52 MST from TheDave

The thing I like about you making this argument is that you KNOW it's the eugenic argument and you're willing to make it anyway.  There's a lot of validity to that "debunked" branch of science.  That doesn't make it less horrific or immoral, but divorced from that it's very reasonable.

Sat Oct 16 2021 11:55:11 MST from ParanoidDelusions <paranoiddelusions@wallofhate.com>

Eugenics itself is not horrible or amoral. The way you *apply* eugenics can be. That is the real problem. Hitler and the Nazis used *terrible* and targeted application of eugenics to justify atrocious things. 

Supporting abortion as an encouraged alternative for people who can't afford and do not have the life skills to successfully raise a contributing member of society really is pretty mild, in comparison. 

"Face it, you're going to fuck this kid up, and *I* am going to end up having to support it. Why don't you do us both a favor, and just not have it." 

That would be my thesis. 

 

Fri Oct 15 2021 21:36:52 MST from TheDave

The thing I like about you making this argument is that you KNOW it's the eugenic argument and you're willing to make it anyway.  There's a lot of validity to that "debunked" branch of science.  That doesn't make it less horrific or immoral, but divorced from that it's very reasonable.

Eugenics is amoral, not inherently immoral, but I think that's what you meant to say anyhow.

Not having it would be my choice.  Murdering it after it has been conceived is horrific, and is not the same thing.

I prefer Bene Gesserit eugenics in the positive breeding program sense.

Let the low odds people have their chance.  Some good may come from it.

I'm not sure what I meant to say... 

I don't think eugenics is inherently amoral either. It can be good *or* bad, depending on the situation. 

Murdering it when it still has gills and a tail isn't the same as a late term abortion. Part of the moral dilemma here is absolutely we don't have any real idea of when it goes from being something more like a frog or a mosquito to being something we would recognizably call *human* in its concept of self... in sentience and self-awareness. 

Killing a living thing is not inherently horrific. We do it every day to eat. We do it every time we walk, or drive, nearly. I was thinking about THAT just a few nights ago when a beautiful butterfly decided to be right where the front bumper of my car was. Its life was not worth the risk of trying to avoid hitting it. I get it that your argument is that a human is "different". But... is it? And at what point is a mass of dividing cells a *human*? There is a value of belief and faith in the morality of that - and I think it oversteps the bounds of our Government to allow someone else's basically *religiously or philosophically informed beliefs* about when that life is *human* to limit the freedom of another person's actions. 

That is... regardless of why you believe human life begins at conception - it is disputable that this is the case - absolutely. I'm not saying that I *don't* agree that it begins at conception - but I can absolutely see why other people with different philosophies or religious backgrounds than mine disagree. 

If we had lots of different planets to let the low odds people mine spice on out in the desert - it would be OK. 

We have to share this planet and suffer the consequences of ever growing numbers of low odds people fucking it up for EVERYONE. 

Fri Oct 29 2021 02:43:37 MST from TheDave

 

Sat Oct 16 2021 11:55:11 MST from ParanoidDelusions <paranoiddelusions@wallofhate.com>

Eugenics itself is not horrible or amoral. The way you *apply* eugenics can be. That is the real problem. Hitler and the Nazis used *terrible* and targeted application of eugenics to justify atrocious things. 

Supporting abortion as an encouraged alternative for people who can't afford and do not have the life skills to successfully raise a contributing member of society really is pretty mild, in comparison. 

"Face it, you're going to fuck this kid up, and *I* am going to end up having to support it. Why don't you do us both a favor, and just not have it." 

That would be my thesis. 

 

Fri Oct 15 2021 21:36:52 MST from TheDave

The thing I like about you making this argument is that you KNOW it's the eugenic argument and you're willing to make it anyway.  There's a lot of validity to that "debunked" branch of science.  That doesn't make it less horrific or immoral, but divorced from that it's very reasonable.

Eugenics is amoral, not inherently immoral, but I think that's what you meant to say anyhow.

Not having it would be my choice.  Murdering it after it has been conceived is horrific, and is not the same thing.

I prefer Bene Gesserit eugenics in the positive breeding program sense.

Let the low odds people have their chance.  Some good may come from it.