Eugenics in Europe.

Dontico

Atricle 3.2 in the basic European Union rights states:
"the prohibition of eugenic practices, in particular those aiming at the selection of persons."

http://uk.current.com/watch/23221381?s1=topVids&list=topVidsByAssignmentDesk&filterone=&filtertwo=&sid=23221381&fr=0

The only countries that I am aware of that forebids eugenics completely is Ireland and Poland.

Moriarty

.. What?

Zombrex

Dontico wrote:

Atricle 3.2 in the basic European Union rights states:
"the prohibition of eugenic practices, in particular those aiming at the selection of persons."

http://uk.current.com/watch/23221381?s1=topVids&list=topVidsByAssignmentDesk&filterone=&filtertwo=&sid=23221381&fr=0

The only countries that I am aware of that forebids eugenics completely is Ireland and Poland.

And .... ?

brianthebard

Hooray for Ireland then I guess?

Zillah

Heh, that was fun.

GuanYin

Lets have a party to celebrate - invites will be sent based on health, intelligence and breeding suitability.

Sangre

Dontico wrote:

Atricle 3.2 in the basic European Union rights states:
"the prohibition of eugenic practices, in particular those aiming at the selection of persons."

http://uk.current.com/watch/23221381?s1=topVids&list=topVidsByAssignmentDesk&filterone=&filtertwo=&sid=23221381&fr=0

The only countries that I am aware of that forebids eugenics completely is Ireland and Poland.

They should make YOUgenics legal here.

Dontico

Sangre wrote:

They should make YOUgenics legal here.

explain?
is that a threat?

GuanYin

Dontico wrote:

explain?
is that a threat?

The Prosecution rests, your honour.

InFront

What about the topic? The question of imposing ethics upon biology is a huge one. How correct it is to impinge upon the processes of natural selection and heritability over an enormous period of time, with values and systems that are unique to this very short period of time?
We do this already: we bring 24 week old babies into the world (as per the other humanities thread), facilitate CF babies to live and reproduce, etc.

Purely for the sake of argument, how ethical is it, then, to impose our new found ethics upon the vector that is our environment and our gene pool? We are a small spot along a veritable railroad that is the enormous lifetime of the universe; do we have the right to veer 'the train' off of its natural course without looking at the consequences?
What do people think, for example, of disabled people having children where the disability is likely or certain to be carried on? And how easily does the ban on eugenics sit with things like compulsory vaccinations, or gene eradication programs (scrapie in sheep comes to mind, TSD in humans)?

Sangre

Dontico wrote:

explain?

is that a threat?

Dontico

Sangre wrote:

is that a threat?

I dont threaten people on the internet.

your play on words "yougenics", to me implies you wanted to kill me or purge me and my genes. I'm asking you what did you mean by that.

Feral Mutant

Dontico wrote:

your play on words "yougenics", to me implies you wanted to kill me or purge me and my genes.

If you think he's trying to get your DNA then it might be a come on.;)

GuanYin

Dontico wrote:

I dont threaten people on the internet.

your play on words "yougenics", to me implies you wanted to kill me or purge me and my genes. I'm asking you what did you mean by that.

Facinating exchange. Sangre's play on words countered with Dontico's indignant intimidation tactics.

How will Sangre respond? Tune in next time, same website, same forum.

Dontico

psi wrote:

Sangre's play on words countered with Dontico's indignant intimidation tactics.

I dont intimidate people on the internet. Well at least not intentionaly.

Zillah

Dontico wrote:

I dont intimidate people on the internet. Well at least not intentionaly.

Whoah, ease up on the personal comments there.

RandolphEsq

Whats this about being GIVEN a child? That guy in the video is very disillusioned as to how having babies works. A man and a woman make a baby when THEY want, not when god chooses to 'give' them a child.
The parents should have a choice I feel. If the parents knew they were having a severely disabled child,they should be allowed to abort. The amount of heartache and stress looking after the child that the parents will go through is not fair. Ireland needs to stop facing backwards

Dontico

The point i was trying to make is that eugenics is banned in the EU, aborting the handicapped is eugenics.
Why not start killing people with low IQ's? or socialists? Sinn Fein supporters? We just should kill people that have qualities we dont like.
Never again.........

Zillah

Dontico wrote:

Why not start killing people with low IQ's? or socialists? Sinn Fein supporters? We just should kill people that have qualities we dont like.
Never again.........

We should just kill people that have qualities we don't like when those qualities are genetically determined. IQ is largely about education, and is not a good guage of mental faculties in general. Same with all those other things you list; not genetic.

If you're going to do eugenics then do it right.

GuanYin

Zillah wrote:

We should just kill people that have qualities we don't like when those qualities are genetically determined. IQ is largely about education, and is not a good guage of mental faculties in general. Same with all those other things you list; not genetic.

If you're going to do eugenics then do it right.

Exactly, IQ tests constructed by a remote african tribe and IQ tests constructed by rich harvard researchers are likely to be very different.

I'd expect Dontico to do very poorly in at least one of those tests.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Dontico wrote:

The point i was trying to make is that eugenics is banned in the EU, aborting the handicapped is eugenics.
Why not start killing people with low IQ's? or socialists? Sinn Fein supporters? We just should kill people that have qualities we dont like.
Never again.........

Not to start a debate on pro life/choice but a lot of people don't see aborting a foetus in the same light as killing a sinn fein supporter

Is the link broken or something - I'm just getting a vid about a guy making the point that it's somewhat wrong to want a healthy child. Was expecting something along the lines of an article on people having abortions because they found out their child was handicapped.

Anway I see your point - aborting the handicapped could in a way be seen as eugenics, but if abortion is legal in the country where it happens it becomes irrelevant.

Abortion is illegal here - is there any leeway if you have a handicapped foetus - I don't know myself

Dontico

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote:

Not to start a debate on pro life/choice but a lot of people don't see aborting a foetus in the same light as killing a sinn fein supporter

some people may regard the mentally handicapped more usefull than sinn fein supporters.

OTK

Dontico wrote:

The point i was trying to make is that eugenics is banned in the EU, aborting the handicapped is eugenics.
Why not start killing people with low IQ's? or socialists? Sinn Fein supporters? We just should kill people that have qualities we dont like.
Never again.........

Eugenics is practised in every country in the world and by all of us in our selection of a mate for reproduction.

Think of some of these situations where eugenics is at work.

• You sleep with a girl who you think would make a bad mother and you thus choose birth control
• Your country operates immigration procedures that discriminate against countries who citizens are predominantly of a different race to your own
• You go to marry your sister and the police prevent you.
• The various mechanisms used in society to prevent the mentally disabled from reproducing (as extreme as court ordered sterilisation)

When you're pregnant in Ireland you can ask the hospital to carry out a prenatal diagnosis such as chorionic villus sampling, to determine genetic disorders. They say this is to give the parents time to adjust to the idea that their kid has a birth defect but I find this hard to believe. I reckon most people abort following discovery of a defect and then report a miscarriage.

I am surprised that the EU included this line against eugenics in its Charter of Fundamental Rights, but bear in mind that the charter is merely a proclamation with no legal force. It's not clear to me that eugenics is a good or a bad thing, nor clear that our medical advances are not having a dysgenic effect.

Nick_oliveri

OTK wrote:

The various mechanisms used in society to prevent the mentally disabled from reproducing (as extreme as court ordered sterilisation)

Seen a french film about that, twas fúcking horrible.

humbert

OTK wrote:

Think of some of these situations where eugenics is at work.

• You sleep with a girl who you think would make a bad mother and you thus choose birth control
• Your country operates immigration procedures that discriminate against countries who citizens are predominantly of a different race to your own
• You go to marry your sister and the police prevent you.
• The various mechanisms used in society to prevent the mentally disabled from reproducing (as extreme as court ordered sterilisation)

You chose birth control because you don't want to be a father, however you could argue that what we are innately inclined to find attractive is what is most likely to give healthy offspring. Dunno is this would be eugenics though.

Immigration policies aren't in place to discriminate against people of a different race and to do so wouldn't be eugenics anyway.

The laws against having sexual relations with close relations are there because it's generally considered morally wrong, not because it's genetically unfavourable.

I can't really argue that there aren't mechanisms in society to prevent handicapped people from reproducing, though I was under the impression that that was on the decline since the second world war...which I'd say is a factor as to why that line is in the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

Having said all that I don't think there's anything wrong with not wanting a handicapped child and I would consider abortion if it was detected early enough.

OTK

humbert wrote:

Immigration policies aren't in place to discriminate against people of a different race

Why do you think they are in place?

and to do so wouldn't be eugenics anyway.

Keeping your bloodstock pure looks pretty like eugenics to me. Pedigree dogs and all that.

The laws against having sexual relations with close relations are there because it's generally considered morally wrong, not because it's genetically unfavourable.

How do you know the purpose of these laws? Regardless of the intent, the net effect of prohibiting incestuous children alters the birth defect rate.

GuanYin

OTK wrote:

How do you know the purpose of these laws? Regardless of the intent, the net effect of prohibiting incestuous children alters the birth defect rate.

Not quite - this is a slight misconception popularised by TV and movies. The only increase likely is if both parents carry a defective gene that they can pass on to a child to give a homozygous phenotype. Depending on the gene that may manifest from nothing to something serious.

There were cases within royal families where generations of inbreeding over decades if not centuries eventually led to a high incidence of genetic disorder, but if anyone here were to decide to get it on with their sibling, I'd imagine the child would be perfectly normal and healthy.

OTK

psi wrote:

Not quite - this is a slight misconception popularised by TV and movies. The only increase likely is if both parents carry a defective gene that they can pass on to a child to give a homozygous phenotype. Depending on the gene that may manifest from nothing to something serious.

If only one parent is a carrier for an autosomal recessive disorder like CF, then 50% of the offspring will also be carriers. So two random siblings of such a couple would run a 25% risk of both being carriers

I'd say many people reading this are themselves carriers for some of these defects. In America, 1 in 8 people are carriers for hereditary hemochromatosis, while about 1 in 20 are carriers for CF. I've heard it said that on average we are all carriers for one recognised inherited defect (can't remember where I read that)

This stuff isn't my area, though, so maybe someone could enlighten me if I've gotten the wrong end of the stick?

humbert

The reason I say that that's not the purpose of the laws is because the laws have been around longer than that level of knowledge of genetics has been.

GuanYin

This stuff is my area and you have the wrong end of the stick.

As I said previously - most "hereditary defects" have no major consequence to ill health - it may be a distinguishing characteristic or appearance but most offer no real ill health. You should be very careful about believing what you "hear". I once heard it said that if you say bloody mary in a mirror 3 times a ghost appears. :rolleyes:

As for your statistics. Apart from them being incorrect (1 in 8 of a subset of the US population perhaps, but considering that the frequency of the C282Y/C282Y alleles of HFE that are predictive of HHC is virtually nil in asians, africans and middle eastern populations I think that 1 in 8 is exteremely unlikely - unless you only count caucasians as people).

As for CF, again whats this deal 1 in 20? 1 in 20 who? 1 in 20 asians? I think not. 1 in 20 africans? Nope not a chance - the epidemiological prevelance of CF in non-caucasians runs anywhere from 1:2000 to 1:90,000 (Hawaiian asian population). You have to take a very careful look at where epidemiological studies like this are conducted and for what purpose.

The amount of people who are now of mixed decent blows alot of your statistics wide open too. Remember in the case of HHC, there are 37 different alleles of the HFE gene. Some of these are race-linked which confers greater/lesser susceptability to the disease-phenotype. No look at a multicultural place like the US and take a simple logical step.

As a footnote, places which have in the past shown the greatest incidence of hereditary genetic diseases were places which were generally of shallow gene pools, such as Southern US, Brittany in France. These stereotypes don't really hold anymore. The stigma remains though.

OTK wrote:

If only one parent is a carrier for an autosomal recessive disorder like CF, then 50% of the offspring will also be carriers. So two random siblings of such a couple would run a 25% risk of both being carriers

I'd say many people reading this are themselves carriers for some of these defects. In America, 1 in 8 people are carriers for hereditary hemochromatosis, while about 1 in 20 are carriers for CF. I've heard it said that on average we are all carriers for one recognised inherited defect (can't remember where I read that)

This stuff isn't my area, though, so maybe someone could enlighten me if I've gotten the wrong end of the stick?

OTK

Direct experience with the bad effects of inbreeding may have led to the laws that were then justified after the fact with a 'moral argument'. I for one can't see what's immoral about humping your brother or sister. There is a word for the natural disinclination for falling in love with or shagging your siblings: I can't remember it -anyone?

There maybe some truth to the idea that when you find something instinctively repugnant, this is the result of natural selection. However, how you tell which of your feelings is instinctive and which are learned is beyond me.

Nevyn

Is it still Eugenics if the decisions are being made personally by couples rather then by governement or state policies ? or if state policies allow for terminations on those grounds ?

humbert

By the definition I have it would be:

The study of methods of improving genetic qualities by selective breeding (especially as applied to human mating)

OTK

OTK wrote:

There is a word for the natural disinclination for falling in love with or shagging your siblings: I can't remember it -anyone?

Came to me this morning - The Westermarck effect.

psi wrote:

OTK wrote:

the net effect of prohibiting incestuous children alters the birth defect rate.

Not quite - this is a slight misconception popularised by TV and movies.

Well it either alters the birth defect rate or it doesn't. Which is it?

psi wrote:

The only increase likely is if both parents carry a defective gene that they can pass on to a child to give a homozygous phenotype.

Sibling parents are more likely to both carry the same defective gene, as they have the same parents. I think we must be at cross puposes here because this is very basic stuff.

Thaedydal wrote:

Is it still Eugenics if the decisions are being made personally by couples rather then by governement or state policies ?

I suppose 'eugenics' is associated more with a conscious policy of improving the human stock rather than the various policies we have that have the same effect but are ascribed to some higher ideal like morality.

Dontico

OTK wrote:

Think of some of these situations where eugenics is at work.

• You sleep with a girl who you think would make a bad mother and you thus choose birth control
• Your country operates immigration procedures that discriminate against countries who citizens are predominantly of a different race to your own
• You go to marry your sister and the police prevent you.
• The various mechanisms used in society to prevent the mentally disabled from reproducing (as extreme as court ordered sterilisation)

• Eugenics is targeting a particular trait, wearing condom is preventing pregnancy in general. It is not eugenics.
• Disallowing immigrants has nothing to do with genetics. Nor is it murdering them.
• Being attracked to your sister is widly considered as a mental problem.

OTK

hello op

Dontico wrote:

Eugenics is targeting a particular trait, wearing condom is preventing pregnancy in general. It is not eugenics.

We need a shared definition of eugenics to say what is and isn't eugenics. If you use a contraceptive continually you are preventing pregnancy in general, if you choose not to use your contraceptive whenever you are with a healthy, attractive, successful, mentally stable partner then you are targetting your prevention of pregnancy.

Disallowing immigrants has nothing to do with genetics.

Disallowing immigrants reduces the incidence of their genes entering your national gene pool.

Being attracked to your sister is widly considered as a mental problem.

I think your point here is that because sibling sex is widely considered a mental problem this is why it is illegal, and not because of the high rate of birth defects that result from inbreeding. This may well be true.

GuanYin

OTK wrote:

Well it either alters the birth defect rate or it doesn't.

No, I'm afraid it just isn't that simple, just because reducing something to a simplistic model suits your argument, doesn't mean that it's an intelligent thing to do, quite the contrary.

If you had several generations of inbreeding, yes it would likely alter the birth rate. If you had sporadic cases, then no, probably not.

Sibling parents are more likely to both carry the same defective gene, as they have the same parents.

Which genes? Which disease? You're basing your argument on a highly selective assumption that any two given parents will have the same inherited genetic disorder. Apart from the fact that this is a stupidly huge leap to base any argument on, there are other factors. Even within the carrier population itself, there are varying genotypes that increase or decrease the liklihood of an offsprings genotype conferring a fatal phenotype.

Your leaving cert biology rendition of the scenario is about as apt for arguing this as the knowledge gleamed from an episode of Barney.

OTK

psi wrote:

otk wrote:

Well it either alters the birth defect rate or it doesn't.

No, I'm afraid it just isn't that simple, ... If you had several generations of inbreeding, yes it would likely alter the birth rate. If you had sporadic cases, then no, probably not.

I think I can see where we are at cross purposes. Of course the overall national birth defect rate could not be altered by sporadic instances of siblings having children. This wouild be statistically impossible and I am not trying to argue this. However, the birth defect rate for sibling children would be higher when compared to the rate for the general population. I presume you agree with that.

Which genes? Which disease?

Well, let's take any autosomal recssive gene such as PKU, CF, or Tay-Sachs disease.

You're basing your argument on a highly selective assumption that any two given parents will have the same inherited genetic disorder.

No, any two given parents are unlikely to be carriers for the same inherited genetic disorders. But, any one parent has a high chance of being a carrier for some inherited disorder. 50% of the children of a carrier parent will themselves be carriers. Thus the children of siblings have a high chance of birth defects compared to the average rate of birth defects in the population.

Nevyn

OTK wrote:

I suppose 'eugenics' is associated more with a conscious policy of improving the human stock rather than the various policies we have that have the same effect but are ascribed to some higher ideal like morality.

and the test for downs syndrome and the subsequent termination of such a pregnancy or the policies supporting such testing and the terminations of such
effect fetuses would not be considered eugenics ?

It was commented on during the special olyamics the numbers of downs syndrome people here and that they are younger then in countries that have
such policies and proceedures.

OTK

Thaedydal wrote:

and the test for downs syndrome and the subsequent termination of such a pregnancy or the policies supporting such testing and the terminations of such
effect fetuses would not be considered eugenics ?

In my book that is definitely eugenics.

It was commented on during the special olyamics the numbers of downs syndrome people here and that they are younger then in countries that have
such policies and proceedures.

As I mentioned above, Ireland does allow such screening such as CVS tests and these are available in public hospitals.

Nevyn

Yes, the screening is possible but an expectant mother has to push to have one,
are often discouraged and often they are delayed until they are in thier 5 month which then affects any choices they may have about continuing the pregnancy.

Tigrrrr

Thaedydal wrote:

and the test for downs syndrome and the subsequent termination of such a pregnancy or the policies supporting such testing and the terminations of such
effect fetuses would not be considered eugenics ?

Eugenics in a very personal sense, in that a woman is making a statement about what kind fo children she wants (with her husband) but it's not as dangerous as a social policy towards what kind of children the society wants - or doesn't - or can't afford.

Both are selective breeding though, there's nothing very nice about either of them imo.

Nevyn

I do get the pseronal aspect of such a situation and I would not be judgemental of anyobe going down that route but in having the test made advailible and with
other coutnries allowing it as grounds for even a late term abortion is that not a social policy and there for socitey sponsoured eugenics ?

Tigrrrr

Yeah, I see how that could be argued.

Interestingly enough, the OP mentioned that Ireland and Poland are the two countries with specific anti-eugenics legislation. They are also two of the most anti-abortion countries in Europe (Spain and Portugal would be the other two), where abortion is only sanctioned to preserve the mother's health.
Any legislation with regard to eugenics in a country where abortion is available upon request would perhaps be slightly contradictory.
You could possibly(?) be refused an abortion for not wanting to pass on a hereditary disease, but granted one because you don't want a Gemini for a son

Nevyn

There are nut jobs who will try and juggle thier dates when they have thier first appointment in a materinty hospital to say they are less futher along or further alond then they are to try and push and pull their possible due date to adviod the child being born on certain days or who will opt for a c section on certain day when they stars are 'favourible' .

GuanYin

OTK wrote:

I think I can see where we are at cross purposes. Of course the overall national birth defect rate could not be altered by sporadic instances of siblings having children. This wouild be statistically impossible and I am not trying to argue this. However, the birth defect rate for sibling children would be higher when compared to the rate for the general population. I presume you agree with that.

No, not initially. Statistically, the odds of any two random siblings plucked from having a carrier gene would be no higher than maybe 5-10% which is about equal to the statistical chance of a birth defect for a woman over 40 having a child. When you factor in such things as smoking, excessive drinking and the rest of the problems with modern social life that increase the risk of brith defects, the odds of two siblings producing an offspring with a birth defect due to the fact that they are siblings are unlikely to be statistically significantly higher than any two non-sibling couple from the general population as whole, producing an offspring with a defect due to an age/lifestyle issue.

So if that is your concern, then women over 40, smokers and alcoholics should also be prohibited from having sex leading to offspring by law.

Well, let's take any autosomal recssive gene such as PKU, CF, or Tay-Sachs disease. No, any two given parents are unlikely to be carriers for the same inherited genetic disorders. But, any one parent has a high chance of being a carrier for some inherited disorder. 50% of the children of a carrier parent will themselves be carriers. Thus the children of siblings have a high chance of birth defects compared to the average rate of birth defects in the population.

Again, only in the first few generations of incest. It should be noted, that from an anthropological point of view, your argument is ridiculous. The reason for this is that while incest within the first few generations are likely to produce birth defects, in the overall scheme of things it will actually eradicate these defects from any small population engaging in incest. The reason being, that the defect genes will eventually be bred out of the population.

You are arguing genetics based on a plethora of faulty assumptions about population epidemiology and a hypothetical scenario fashioned to meet the needs of your point - which is both unrealistic and inaccurate in a real life setting.

If you are really that concerned about birth defects, campaign to eliminate smokers, heavy drinkers, drug users and pregnancies in the over-40's. THEN worry about incest.