From Newsgroup: alt.tv.star-trek.tos   
   From Address: not@chance.dude   
   Subject: Re: Shatner sick of Star Trek feuds   
      
   Karl Johanson wrote:   
   > "Wickeddoll"   
   >    
   >> 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.   
      
   But we've evolved past racial eugenics. I hope, especially since I'm in    
   an interracial marriage.   
   >    
   >> 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.   
      
   Damn basic requirements of life interfering with net time!   
   >    
   >>>> 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!"   
      
   You got it - that's exactly what I meant. But I do agree that restricts    
   freedoms of otherwise normal people.  I guess I'm more against    
   incestuous conception than marriage.  One of them gets sterilized, I'm    
   good with that, because face it, any child of theirs, even one lucky    
   enough to be completely normal, is going to have an effed up psyche.   
   >    
   >>>> 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.   
      
   They did that for years, it's now still on some states' books, but    
   unenforceable.  The reason they don't just remove them, is that the cost    
   of the process isn't worth it, since it can't be acted on in the first    
   place.   
   >    
   >>> 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.   
      
   I know that, but those are seldom successful, if I can go by the guys    
   who I've seen try to reverse.  They usually end up going in vitro,    
   because, as you said, the sperm count is very low.  It's much easier to    
   put clips on women's tubes, then remove them later, if desired.   
   >    
   >> 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.   
      
   As I've said - I'm for not perpetuating and abnormality, not ferreting    
   out those who are completely healthy, but well, dumb.  That would wipe    
   out lots of folks, I'm afraid :-D   
   >    
   >> 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.   
      
   Wasn't that just sterilizing ALL mentally impaired people, or just those    
   who wish to be sexually active?  I stand by keeping such folks from    
   reproducing, but not to the point of abortion, which I oppose rather    
   vehemently.   
   >    
   >>>> 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*   
   >    
   See above.   
      
   >>>> 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    
   >    
   >    
      
   I don't know that I'm against cousins reproducing - but siblings?  Hell yes.   
      
   There is a *big* difference between wanting to eliminate someone who is    
   healthy, has a low IQ, but is self-sufficient, than avoiding producing    
   people who will never be able to take care of themselves. (mental    
   powers, NOT physical ones)  A person in a wheelchair can take care of    
   his/herself in many cases, but more importantly, they can make their own    
   informed decisions - about everything.   
      
   But I won't debate the eugenics thing further - I think I've made my    
   views clear.   
      
   :-D   
      
   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)