Eugenics

I'm thinking this may be a joke, but I'll take it seriously anyway.There are a multitude of reasons why we should not let the state decide eugenics. I shall specifically address those that are practical, as this seems to be the major contention. 1) Promotion of individuality causes motivation causes better workers. Opposite is also true (removal of choice causes demotivation causes worse workers). Citation : It's so true, I cannot actually find anything to go here, so I'll refer to the Type Y worker dominant society. http://samkostic66.wordpress.com... and http://www.businessballs.com... will explain it best, I think.P1 - Motivated workers work harder.P2 - Happy workers are hard workers (or whatever the saying is)C1 - Therefore, an effective business will want to motivate workers. Now, the state, in your example, is completely totalitarian. Therefore, ignoring the obvious innate problem here (which I will later address), they would wish to motivate people. Therefore, it is not in a State's right mind to do this.2) Requries mass upheaval of Status quo Even the thought of this taking place is sickening, but I shall not address moral arguments, I shall do a pre-fiat argument. That is, the consequences of what you are doing. I shall also criticise the inevitabilities. a) It would require mass upheaval of religious authority.We know many many times that the church is against abortion of all kind. The pope said himself that "For this reason, it is necessary to help all people to be aware that the intrinsic evil of the crime of abortion, which attacks human life at its beginning, is also an aggression against society itself,"[1] and the pressure group UK Life League uses regular citations to other sources to back up their claims, and the current and most prominent one is this[2] referring to house of commons legislation being failed. It is one of four (as of 9th october 2011) sites that refer to a Christian movement, the remainder involving either political movements, or not religious enough to fall under the category as primarily. Religion has a massive role, its dislike of abortion will only be amplified by the view of doing it to people with "genetic diseases such as diabetes" for the goal of "healthy intelligent babies rather than the idiots we have nowadays."b) It requires removal of democracy, free choice, and human dignity.I'll just leave it as one big group, and go through them quickly. 1) It removes Democracy. I do not have a citation yet, but I shall open a poll, because I can, and will cite it later on, about how people here would react to a bill promoting eugencs, to "encourage the production of healthy intelligent babies rather than the idiots we have nowadays." If it is a no, then you are going against the idea that people can decide what is good and bad for themselves.You also remove free choice. Not allowing someone to partake in a having a child because "a human is stupid" is so ludicrous and pitiable that free choice governs that we should not allow such barbaric actions to be allowed to take place. We do not have the right, surprisingly, to force other people to behave in a certain way. Human dignity also becomes a factor. The fact that you said the following:"If a man and a woman are of good genetic stock, and they have children together, they should get tax breaks for every child they produce, this will encourage the production of healthy intelligent babies rather than the idiots we have nowadays."Frightens me. It frightens me to the very core of my being. It frightens me that there are people who would promote the idea of treating people like cattle to be traded and fornicate with each other. I guess the next step is to force different peope to breed with each other to get better matches, regardless of the romantic feelings or human dignity as a whole. Or we should cage up the best genetic stock to produce better human beings. This is just ridiculous, inhumane, and should be struck from minds as it has been done in the 20th century.It requires a complete change to the government procedure. You say we create "state sponsored daycare centers" as well; let's just have state run business and get it over with. But even on a larger level, it creates the ability for government to do as they please, as "stock" is containing "negative genes".Penultimately, it discriminates against the disabled. The procedure itself dehumanises non-perfect human beings, and forces the disabled to become not second class citizens, but dead men walking. Finally, it makes the government absolute and tyrannical. If the government can decide who lives and who dies, it is tyrannical. If the government can decide that "you're genetically unhealthy so we can kill you" on whims, then it is tyrannical. A government that can force abortions, force (via inference) adoptions, and do all of this is ridiculous, insulting and tyrannical.In conclusion, the affirmer of the motion is (via hidden premises) promoting discrimination, antireligious (not irreligious) viewpoints, removal of democracy, and dehumanisation, as well as rejecting all of modern knowledge when it comes to how to motivate others.I await the response.Citations:http://www.catholicnews.com...;http://www.theway.co.uk...;