Two people of amazingly high IQ's could still give birth to a child of very low IQ.
although true it is much less likely.
and alternativa who taught you how to debate, this isn't the sand box, argumentative fallacies will get you nowhere. and why should the average person be allowed to decide what is best for the whole? if that was the case there would be no electoral college, but that is a whole other point.

Two people of amazingly high IQ's could still give birth to a child of very low IQ.
although true it is much less likely.
and alternativa who taught you how to debate, this isn't the sand box, argumentative fallacies will get you nowhere. and why should the average person be allowed to decide what is best for the whole? if that was the case there would be no electoral college, but that is a whole other point.

Two people of amazingly high IQ's could still give birth to a child of very low IQ.
although true it is much less likely.
and alternativa who taught you how to debate, this isn't the sand box, argumentative fallacies will get you nowhere. and why should the average person be allowed to decide what is best for the whole? if that was the case there would be no electoral college, but that is a whole other point.

Like smart people don't have kids that don't do crimes.

While the science of genetics has increasingly provided means by which certain characteristics and conditions can be identified and understood, given the complexity of human genetics, culture, and psychology there is at this point no agreed objective means of determining which traits might be ultimately desirable or undesirable. Eugenic manipulations that reduce the propensity for criminality and violence, for example, might result in the population being enslaved by an outside aggressor it can no longer defend itself against. On the other hand, genetic diseases like hemochromatosis can increase susceptibility to illness, cause physical deformities, and other dysfunctions. Eugenic measures against many of these diseases are already being undertaken in societies around the world, while measures against traits that affect more subtle, poorly understood traits, such as criminality, are relegated to the realm of speculation and science fiction. The effects of diseases are essentially wholly negative, and societies everywhere seek to reduce their impact by various means, some of which are eugenic in all but name. The other traits that are discussed have positive as well as negative effects and are not generally targeted at present anywhere.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics#Criticism

7 make it a privilege to have children not a right. make i.q. a determining factor for birth rights. that way there will be a) less stupid people, which will lead to b) lower crime rate, which will end up at c) a higher standard of living.

<-----wonders what would be said about my son who is a prdoduct of a date rape?

my son's sperm donor is the scum of the earth....drugs, violence and now in prison last I heard. But guess what???? my son is 18 and a great kid. He has a heart, brain and a conscience. next semester, he is going for a criminal justice degree to be a cop because he wants to make a difference and help those in need.

should he not have been born because of his dad and the fact that I was 18 at the time?

like i said greater good

wouldn't you think they reared smarter criminals

The only privilege in life is participating in it

Everything else has to do with the choices we as humans we make

It is a priviledge AND a right. Seriously, I don't want to belittle you, but what is your arguement here? We should have government agencies sterilize people if their IQ is below a certain level? Who chooses the level? What about the fact that IQ shows a correlation to race? Should the Jewish population have a higher curve for their determining factor.

I'm sure that with a little thought you can see my point. If you can't, well; maybe you'll be one of the first ones on the sterilization table.

= )

hey YR - your son is awesome!!!!

Never pose if another person feels whether your son should have or not been born - their opinion doesn't matter

wouldn't you think they reared smarter criminals

The only privilege in life is participating in it

Everything else has to do with the choices we as humans we make

They don't necessarily make smarter criminals.

Humans have enginered plants and animals in this manner, but there is resistance to using this on ourselves.
what's the difference?

1 >” Not necessarily... you're only 26... you said it stopped in the 70's... Just think if they had continued...”

YOU say you’re reasonably intelligent, but who is to say those judging would consider you to be?

i guess that would be up to my aptitude and iq tests

2 > "our past does not define us, what defines us is how we rise after falling"

You think it’s ok to judge another on mistakes, but you’re to be judged on how you do after the mistake.

im judging people on their families mistakes. bad blood that's all it is some people have it some do not.

3 > "and why should the average person be allowed to decide what is best for the whole"


Because we ARE the average person.... this country was made by the average person... because that's what we fight for... the freedom of the AVERAGE PERSON

you might be the average person, but i would not consider my self average, this country was not founded by average people, it was founded by..... extremist who would be considered terrorist by today's standards. what do you fight for? freedom? how?

What about the fact that IQ shows a correlation to race?

you have to be impartial on matters like this you cannot things like race get in the way.

I'm ( sure )with a little thought you can see my point.


should he not have been born because of his dad and the fact that I was 18 at the time?
what does age have to do with anything?

QUOTE:

While the science of genetics has increasingly provided means by which certain characteristics and conditions can be identified and understood, given the complexity of human genetics, culture, and psychology there is at this point no agreed objective means of determining which traits might be ultimately desirable or undesirable. Eugenic manipulations that reduce the propensity for criminality and violence, for example, might result in the population being enslaved by an outside aggressor it can no longer defend itself against. On the other hand, genetic diseases like hemochromatosis can increase susceptibility to illness, cause physical deformities, and other dysfunctions. Eugenic measures against many of these diseases are already being undertaken in societies around the world, while measures against traits that affect more subtle, poorly understood traits, such as criminality, are relegated to the realm of speculation and science fiction. The effects of diseases are essentially wholly negative, and societies everywhere seek to reduce their impact by various means, some of which are eugenic in all but name. The other traits that are discussed have positive as well as negative effects and are not generally targeted at present anywhere.

that might be the most compelling argument your side ahs had in this whole debate