From Newsgroup: alt.tv.star-trek.tos
From Address: karljohanson@shaw.ca
Subject: Re: Shatner sick of Star Trek feuds
"Wickeddoll" wrote
> Karl Johanson wrote:
>> "Wickeddoll"
>>> GeneK wrote:
>>>> "Brad Filippone" wrote in
>>>>> Ah, but how do we know that isn't what Russian accents
>>>>> sound like in the 23rd century? :)
>>>> If an entire nation of people actually talked like that, they would
>>>> never have been allowed to survive into the 22nd century.
>>>>
>>>> GeneK
>>> I really hope eugenics don't happen, thanks.
>>
>> Some forms of eugenics happen already. Sterilization of people with
>> extreme metal disabilities has happed in some areas. BC (my home
>> province) & Alberta's 'Sexual Sterilization' acts weren't repealed until
>> 1972. I don't know if it's still happening in any specific places around
>> the world. Some people obsessed with the idea of male offspring use sex
>> screening to allow them to abort female foetuses. Some forms of eugenics
>> have huge popular support (including support by some very powerful
>> religions, including yours), such as bans on siblings marrying, allegedly
>> because of genetic concerns (even though the superstitious arguments for
>> the ban predate understandings of genetics by millennia).
>
> Yes, I've heard of that stuff, but it's not being done on a massive
> level - at least not yet.
> I have never seen anything from Catholic doctrine supporting any type of
> manipulation of reproduction, other than no contraception or abortion.
You haven't read the Bible or the Catholic Catechisms? They're against
incestuous reproduction.
Catholic Catechism "2388 Incest designates intimate relations between
relatives or in-laws within a degree that prohibits marriage between
them.180 St. Paul stigmatizes this especially grave offense: ..."
The 180 reference refers to Leviticus 18: 7 - 20
Lev 18: 7 " 'Do not dishonor your father by having sexual relations with
your mother. She is your mother; do not have relations with her.
8 " 'Do not have sexual relations with your father's wife; that would
dishonor your father.
9 " 'Do not have sexual relations with your sister, either your father's
daughter or your mother's daughter, whether she was born in the same home or
elsewhere.
10 " 'Do not have sexual relations with your son's daughter or your
daughter's daughter; that would dishonor you.
11 " 'Do not have sexual relations with the daughter of your father's wife,
born to your father; she is your sister.
12 " 'Do not have sexual relations with your father's sister; she is your
father's close relative.
13 " 'Do not have sexual relations with your mother's sister, because she
is your mother's close relative.
14 " 'Do not dishonor your father's brother by approaching his wife to have
sexual relations; she is your aunt.
15 " 'Do not have sexual relations with your daughter-in-law. She is your
son's wife; do not have relations with her.
16 " 'Do not have sexual relations with your brother's wife; that would
dishonor your brother.
17 " 'Do not have sexual relations with both a woman and her daughter. Do
not have sexual relations with either her son's daughter or her daughter's
daughter; they are her close relatives. That is wickedness.
18 " 'Do not take your wife's sister as a rival wife and have sexual
relations with her while your wife is living.
19 " 'Do not approach a woman to have sexual relations during the
uncleanness of her monthly period.
20 " 'Do not have sexual relations with your neighbor's wife and defile
yourself with her.
Note Leviticus 18: 9 above...
>And there are very good reasons to keep siblings from reproducing!
So now you're supporting a form of eugenics, I.E. preventing siblings from
breeding. You're even shouting the point with an exclamation point.
>I don't know what you've read, but inbreeding really does cause chromosomal
>anomalies.
I'm well aware that inbreeding has dangers, and I've never said or suggested
otherwise. The danger is offspring receiving two copies of a recessive gene
for a disorder. But preventing siblings from marrying, as you and your
church supports, is a form of eugenics as sure as preventing people of
different races from breeding is eugenics.
Similarly, people with chromosomal abnormalities will often produce
offspring with those same abnormalities. Preventing such people from
breeding (as BC and Alberta did for many years) is eugenics as well. Are you
also for banning people with other chromosomal abnormalities, such as Down
Syndrome for example, from breeding as well?
>Does it do that all the time? No, but I think to risk it at all is a
>mistake- not for moral reasons, (though I think it's icky) but sound
>medical research.
And again you are arguing for a form of eugenics, in spite of claiming you
hope it doesn't happen.
>Please, if this is in error, show me where you've heard inbreeding isn't
>usually detrimental?
I never claimed (or suggested) it isn't usually detrimental. I'm not saying
you're in error about that at all. I pointed out
that preventing siblings from breeding is a form of eugenics to and that
your church is for preventing it. Your church is pro eugenics, and you are
arguing for that form of eugenics as well. I'm not even saying if I think
your right or wrong for taking that pro-eugenics position, I'm just pointing
out that that is what it is.
In case your thinking I'm suggesting religious groups are the only ones
supporting eugenics, I noted Stalin (an atheist by most accounts) and his
mandated 'positive eugenics' (he also had an obscene number of people
killed).
Karl Johanson
--- Synchronet 3.15a-Linux NewsLink 1.92-mlp
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Linux
* Origin: telnet & http://cco.ath.cx - Dial-Up: 502-875-8938 (1:2320/105.1)
|
