From Newsgroup: alt.tv.star-trek.tos   
   From Address: karljohanson@shaw.ca   
   Subject: Re: Shatner sick of Star Trek feuds   
      
   "Wickeddoll"  wrote in message    
   news:hfgti6.33o.1@news.evilcabal.org...   
   > Karl Johanson wrote:   
      
   > Thanks for all that, Karl, but I was talking about manipulating genes with    
   > *science* not personal partner choices.   
      
   There was no science behind the original bans on mixed race marriages, but    
   it was still eugenics.   
      
   >Great to see you're back, BTW   
      
   My IP has trouble connecting to Usenet sometimes. And working 2 1/2 jobs    
   keeps me pretty busy.   
      
   >>> 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 think there are good reasons to avoid it, but not to ban it. Personal    
   avoidance is a choice. Banning it is eugenics. This comment of yours    
   suggests you're for banning it though: "And there are very good reasons to    
   keep siblings from reproducing!"   
      
   >>> 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.   
      
   I wasn't trying to talk you out of the stance, just pointing out the    
   implications of it (I/E/ that you're pro eugenics). I hope someone else    
   doesn't come up with a scientific (or social or religious) reason to suggest    
   there's someone you or yours shouldn't marry, then implements political    
   power to enforce it.   
      
   >> 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)   
      
   Vasectomy's can be reversed. The longer before the reversal the less likely    
   it is to work & the sperm count is likely to be lower.   
      
   >two mentally impaired people who want to be sexual partners, or in some    
   >cases, marry.   
      
   So your supportive of more than one form of eugenics. I understand.   
      
   > 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.   
      
   That was some of the thinking of those who passed the Sterilization acts in    
   BC & Alberta, that were rescinded in 1972.   
      
   >>> 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.   
      
   *Salute*   
      
   >>> 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.   
      
   You just want to sterilize mentally 'inferior' people, and prevent some    
   people from marrying close relatives. I didn't mention Hitler. I mentioned    
   Stalin not to suggest you were as bad as him (not by quite a long shot) but    
   rather (as I said) to show I wasn't suggesting that eugenics is an issue of    
   religion only. I don't suggest you're as bad as Hitler & Stalin, but the    
   slope you're on, while it may not be very steep at the point you're on, has    
   a surface of oiled Teflon.   
      
   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)