From Newsgroup: alt.tv.star-trek.tos
From Address: not@chance.dude
Subject: Re: Shatner sick of Star Trek feuds
Karl Johanson wrote:
> "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 province) & Alberta's 'Sexual Sterilization' acts weren't repealed until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...
Thanks for all that, Karl, but I was talking about manipulating genes
with *science* not personal partner choices. Great to see you're back, BTW
>
>> 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.
No, I thought John was suggesting there were no good reasons to avoid
inbreeding.
>
>> 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.
Then I accept that doctrine. Do what you will with that stance, it
won't change for me.
>
> 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?
No - some things are more likely with family history, but not assured,
such as dwarfism. I *do* support sterilizing (you can do that
temporarily in women - not sure about men) two mentally impaired people
who want to be sexual partners, or in some cases, marry. I think that's
a good idea, but more because I don't think they're equipped to handle
parenthood, further, the child would (I think) have at least some
impairment as well, which would make it even *more* difficult.
>
>> 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.
You got me, Der Kommissar.
>
>> 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
>
>
>
Very good arguments, and I accept that my views probably are a form of
eugenics. However, I *reject* the idea that I can be tossed into the
category of Stalin, Hitler, and others who sought to eliminate normal,
healthy, but "inferior" people.
Natalie
--
"Wicked little doll, you have no soul"
(David Byrne, 1997)
http://www.supernaturalusa.net
--- 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)
|
