Originally posted by whodey"blue-eyed blond"? Well, I suppose I should have seen the predictable nazi allusions coming a mile away- its after all one of your favorite debating tactics to demonize and completely misrepresent those you disagree with.
I think the government utopia would be if you could somehow do screening for cancer, heart disease, mental illness etc, then possibly you could bring into the world a healthy blue eyed blond haired group of people that would not drive up health care costs and be "productive" members of society.
When did I advocate Nazi-style eugenics again?
Originally posted by whodeyI absolutely do not agree with that. Parents who are planning to carry the pregnancy to term no matter what still need to know well in advance about major defects like downs syndrome. There's a lot of planning, preparation and education required to be prepared to care of it.
So in your estimation you would agree that the only reason to have the test would be to have an abortion if the tests came back "bad"?
Originally posted by generalissimoNazi allusions? What on earth are you talking about? Isn't everyone in Denmark blue eyed and blond? 😛
"blue-eyed blond"? Well, I suppose I should have seen the predictable nazi allusions coming a mile away- its after all one of your favorite debating tactics to demonize and completely misrepresent those you disagree with.
When did I advocate Nazi-style eugenics again?
Sorry, just couldn't resist. That aside, do you envision such a utopia? Could we possibly abort away the "sickly"?
1 edit
Originally posted by SleepyguyThere's no such thing as a conservative gene.
God help us if lefty's discover a test for the conservative gene.
To speak of a gene for X trait is to ignore the fact that genes are context-dependent. The relationship between genotype and phenotype is much more complex than that. But thats besides the point.
Anyway, nature, which is in a permanent state of change, would never produce something so contrary to itself as a "conservative gene".
Originally posted by generalissimoDude, I was kidding. Jesus.
There's no such thing as a conservative gene.
To speak of a gene for X trait is to ignore the fact that genes are context-dependent. The relationship between genotype and phenotype is much more complex than that. But thats besides the point.
Anyway, nature, which is in a permanent state of change, would never produce something so contrary to itself as a "conservative gene".
