A few months ago, I saw a post on Tumblr advocating Eugenics. Eugenics, which you may have heard of whilst studying Nazi Germany, is a Social Philosophy aimed at "improving" the genetic quality of humans. This is done through encouraging the reproduction of those with "desirable" human traits and discouraging, or even banning, those with "undesirable" human traits from procreating. In the past, countries have carried out eugenic policies such as banning marriage between "undesirables" and have even forced abortions and sterilizations of these people.
Naturally, I was enraged. Who is to decide who is fit enough to reproduce and who isn't? Indeed, it is often the oppressed minorities whom are subjected to eugenics, being forced out of having a family because they are not seen as worthy of continuing the human race. On the other hand, criminals and deviants have also been subjected to eugenics, with supporters arguing that banning paedophilles, serial killers and alcoholics from procreating will reduce future crime due to the belief that each behaviour is inherited.
Whilst initially shocked that anyone could justify this "movement", today I realised I had engaged in a form of eugenics when I got tested for a heredity disorder which would allow me to decide whether or not to have children and risk passing the painful and life limiting disorder on.
Before you make up your mind on the debate, there may be a few points you wish to consider.
PRO EUGENICS ARGUMENTS
1) Disallowing disabled people to reproduce reduces the number of people born with unnecessary suffering, as well as reducing the amount of families who suffer from having a disabled child. Could opposing eugenics actually be unethical, as doing so causes people to continue to suffer with disabilities they cannot cure?
2) Disabled people take up more resources, such as hospital treatment, reducing the amount of money that can be spent elsewhere.
3) As previously mentioned, if criminals were banned from having children, any genetic predisposition for the behaviour may be eradicated, thus resulting in a safer society.
ANTI EUGENICS ARGUMENTS
1) Not all disabilities and disorders are inherited, therefore is it right to ban someone from having children on the assumption their child will be an "undesirable"? Furthermore, those deemed physically and mentally healthy may still have disabled or ill children, particularly since illnesses can occur within the womb and not through genetics.
2) Not all those born with disabilities are at an advantage in society. Many have a high quality of life and argue that they are happy they were born.
3) As previously mentioned, it can become misused e.g. justifying it as a way to get rid of certain minorities. Indeed, what is deemed "undesirable" depends on those few in a privileged position in society.
Closes 6th September.The debate is now up to you! Good contributions will be rewarded with reputation throughout the thread and the member who makes the best contributions throughout the month win the Debater of the Month award, VIP, as well as rep and/or tokens. Creating interesting member debates will also win you reputation/tokens!
















)

