What about a 3 handed person? Or siamese twins joined at the hip?
Edit: No please don't bring the tax payers in to this topic please!
Edit: No please don't bring the tax payers in to this topic please!
Obviously some common sense is required.
Why not ?
If the care wasn't funded by the NHS, I'm sure a lot of people would choose to abort their affected offspring.
Just the point I was trying to make. You need to take it case by case and that is expensive.
Taxes are there and there is absolutely nothing you nor I can do about them. And the amount you personally pay for that individual baby (horrible story) is? 0.0001 £? Oh what a big spender you are!
Now we both know that this argument could go on for ever and ever but maybe you should go play LFS and I should go make some money to get the S2 license and then play LFS. (Demo servers are full of cracy people.)
see ya
Well its up to them in my eyes, does not make it right but that is my opinion! To me its discusting, but they seem to be very happy so then their life is fulfilled!
Animals have incest, humans are animals!
It should be up to the couple, it does not affect myself so in my eyes let them carry on! Why ruin their lives by separating them?
Animals have incest, humans are animals!
It should be up to the couple, it does not affect myself so in my eyes let them carry on! Why ruin their lives by separating them?
It is not your or my place to impose 'normality' on anyone.
I have no ethical issues with abortion or euthanasia. I do however think they should be a personal decision, made in a fully informed way. Once such things are decided on a financial basis, by someone who isn't even involved, then we are only a few steps away from applying planned obsolescence to people.
Frankly, I'm very happy that my lifespan, or even my right to a chance at life, isn't decided by simracers on an internet forum.
+1 but it's still totally sick and
wow that is just plain madness !!!
It is so easy to say a lot of things about how other people should live but when it comes to your own live you want it strictly private, even if you are breaking the law or doing morally sick things.
Decisions about abortions/euthanasia/death penalties are far more complex than just yes/no/m'kay type of checkboxes flying around in the interwebs. Who are you to say what is right or wrong?
If humans are animals and therefore incest is ok - what about the survival of the fittest then? Getting eaten on the way to bus station just because mr. fittest likes your taste. Limiting the birth right on the basis of diseases and physical limitations. So what is enough then? Deafness? Blindness? Diabetes? Coeliac disease? Child's or parents'?
If you are going to discuss about this, at least think about what you say. Or if you are posting just for a laughs, why post at all?
Decisions about abortions/euthanasia/death penalties are far more complex than just yes/no/m'kay type of checkboxes flying around in the interwebs. Who are you to say what is right or wrong?
If humans are animals and therefore incest is ok - what about the survival of the fittest then? Getting eaten on the way to bus station just because mr. fittest likes your taste. Limiting the birth right on the basis of diseases and physical limitations. So what is enough then? Deafness? Blindness? Diabetes? Coeliac disease? Child's or parents'?
If you are going to discuss about this, at least think about what you say. Or if you are posting just for a laughs, why post at all?
Hehe. Seriously though, we have a system kind of like this but instead of being killed they are relegated to a lower social status. For example look in any school/college/university and there will be the 'popular' people, the 'geeky' people, the 'goth/emo/etc.' people, the 'loners' and any other group. Some people may try to get into one of these groups only to be shoved back out (not literally). Is this not the same kind of behaviour we get with packs of animals?
I dunno
I don't really know enough about biology, animals or even about human psychology to really comment... Ask someone smarter
Hey, what ever happened to George?
Er, yeah, we were going to head out to the bar (pub) last night, but, er, I kind of hadn't eaten all day and, well, he was just there....
Is East Germany to Germany as Florida is to America? In other words, where in Germany would be the most likely place to find Mike Judge's Idiocracy playing out fifty years from now?
Unfortunately, all the above is absolutely true EVERYWHERE. It's also true that humans are still more animal than civillized, constructive intellects. Just a quick look at history will convince anyone with at least half a brain and common sense that what I've said is absoluely true.
Fact is, humans in general are still a bunch of chimpanzees. If any threat is sensed, the first thoughts are kill, annihilate, eradicate and exterminate the preceived "threat". Long term solutions are almost NEVER valued; only the quick, cheap and easy ones that are guaranteed to lead to even more serious problems.
Just take a look at what happened to Germany before Hitler's rise to power and WW2. Germany was the loser of WW1, with it and its people oppressed and left without hope for the mistakes of greedy and self serving leaders(like alpha males in chimpanzee society). Restricting military power wasn't such a bad idea, but as usual with western politics, they just HAD to impose economic sanctions that squeeze the life out of the geramn people. With this kind of exploitation and obscene oppression, it was no wonder that Hitler and the 3rd reich rose to power. As evil as fascist ideas were, they offered hope to a hopeless people, at least before the war which wrecked them all over agian. It was inevitable.
Why all this? Like chimpanzees, the victors of WW1 wanted to impose their revenge on the loser (Germany). Who cares about our humanity and long term future as long as we get our revenge. The result? A MASSIVE backfire that could have destroyed humanity beyond hope.
Of course, this is not fully understandable UNLESS one has seen all major facets of society. It is an understanding that cannot just be taught or learned. It must be lived.
Wow.
I always thought you were a "nice" person but I guess I was wrong.
On the topic of incest, I do not personally agree with it since it is a relatively risky genetic gamble, especially of your family has some defective gene somewhere in your family tree. However, the fact is, it is not that being closely related would magically guarantee genetic inferiority. It is just that there is a higher risk that a faulty and/or recessive gene that would cause problems has a higher chance of expression.
In fact, it is no different for marrying someone with a genetic abnormallity. For instance, you may have sickle cell anemia. Then your spouse (NO family relations whatsoever) happens to be a sickle cell anemia carrier, but doesn't suffer from the condition due to her normal 2nd copy of the X chromosome. Your children would have a 50% chance of suffering from the condition. So should we BAN the marriage and the right to generate offspring on genetic grounds?
All this raises serious social issues. So, do we HAVE to genetically screen our potential spouses? Should it become a legal necessity to ban say, genetically blind people from producing children? When do we draw the line? Do we have to the revert to eugenic ideals of the Nazis on some genetic grounds? These are the REALLY important questions with no simple answers. As some here may have already mentioned, the genetic argument puts us on a slippery slope that those of us with no moral backbone (i.e. sense of responsilbilty) can't even fathom, let alone generating well informed and thought out opinons.
In fact, it is no different for marrying someone with a genetic abnormallity. For instance, you may have sickle cell anemia. Then your spouse (NO family relations whatsoever) happens to be a sickle cell anemia carrier, but doesn't suffer from the condition due to her normal 2nd copy of the X chromosome. Your children would have a 50% chance of suffering from the condition. So should we BAN the marriage and the right to generate offspring on genetic grounds?
All this raises serious social issues. So, do we HAVE to genetically screen our potential spouses? Should it become a legal necessity to ban say, genetically blind people from producing children? When do we draw the line? Do we have to the revert to eugenic ideals of the Nazis on some genetic grounds? These are the REALLY important questions with no simple answers. As some here may have already mentioned, the genetic argument puts us on a slippery slope that those of us with no moral backbone (i.e. sense of responsilbilty) can't even fathom, let alone generating well informed and thought out opinons.
From what I know about genetics it is all about that there are two kinds of genes; dominant and recessive. Genetical deceases usually come from parent's in that both parents have the recessive gene of some illness. Therefore all their children have almost the same recessive and dominant genes. But whether they have the exatcly same genes is the chance of 50%. With two unrelated people this ratio is much smaller.
A good read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recessive_gene
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominant_gene
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_testing
A few years ago, I went to a wedding of an associate of mine, in Louisiana.
He was getting married to a really cute girl. After the wedding reception, I didn't see him for like, I dunno 6 months. Anyways I caught up with him
and asked him How was married life treating him. He said he was no longer married. he was now divorced. I said I was sorry to hear it but was curious to know why. He said she was a virgin on their wedding night. I said, what's wrong with that? He said he was afraid there musta been something wrong with her if her brothers didn't have anything to do with her...............
He was getting married to a really cute girl. After the wedding reception, I didn't see him for like, I dunno 6 months. Anyways I caught up with him
and asked him How was married life treating him. He said he was no longer married. he was now divorced. I said I was sorry to hear it but was curious to know why. He said she was a virgin on their wedding night. I said, what's wrong with that? He said he was afraid there musta been something wrong with her if her brothers didn't have anything to do with her...............
In case you are wondering, I'm already quite famililiar with genetics and the behavior of recessive and domninat genes. The wiki articles are good, but they're just stufff I already know. And yes, what you say about the interactions of dominant and recessive genes is a well known and understood truth.
What I was tyring to say was what if both unrelated parents had the defective and recessive gene? This does happen in real life, unfortunately. So do we have any right to ban them from producing children on genetic grounds? That was the real problem.
I wasn't sure whether you know or not so I just took my chances
I'm basing this all to what I learned at school and I wasn't really good in biology so my facts aren't necessarily true. What I'm trying to say, however, is that in this case where the parents are a brother and a sister, the chance of genetical illness is always 50%. The chance of genetical illness in a case where you don't have siblings is quite a lot lower. I'm not sure whether they completely miss the gene or is it about that the gene must be exactly certain type of to cause a genetical illness or not to cause it, having a gene that kinda negates the chance of certain type of illness.
But as I said, my facts aren't necessary up to date or true at all
EDIT: I'm reading some interesting wiki articles about this atm and I'll update this post if there is false info in this post
EDIT2: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hereditary_disease
For many species, interbreeding of close relatives is risky. That's why evolution created an inhibition: individuals won't mate with the ones they grew up with. In humans, this inhibition grew into a taboo. So, if you're digusted when reading about this couple, you know why.
Note that the inhibition only works if you come from the same family. You don't need to share any genes, you need to share history. The couple in the news item did not grow up together, so they felt free to fall in love.
Ditto.
Note that the inhibition only works if you come from the same family. You don't need to share any genes, you need to share history. The couple in the news item did not grow up together, so they felt free to fall in love.
Ditto.
1
2
Rednecks In Germany.
(45 posts, started )
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG