PDA

View Full Version : Would you?



Spartacus
October 14th, 2004, 11:02 AM
If you knew a woman who already had 8 kids, three were blind, two were deaf, and one was mentally retarded...and the woman had syphillis, would you advise she get an abortion?

Yes, No and why...please

Dionysus
October 14th, 2004, 11:04 AM
I would THINK she should get an abortion but I would not ADVISE her to do so because it's none of my beeswax.

Spartacus
October 14th, 2004, 11:08 AM
I would THINK she should get an abortion but I would not ADVISE her to do so because it's none of my beeswax.


Well, Let's assume she is asking you for your advice...


So your answeris "yes"....

Please tell us "why"

Zhavric
October 14th, 2004, 11:10 AM
If you knew a woman who already had 8 kids, three were blind, two were deaf, and one was mentally retarded...and the woman had syphillis, would you advise she get an abortion?

Yes, No and why...please

My answer is dependent on the woman's situation. If it is the case that she has a caring husband and the two of them are independantly wealthy and providing excellent care for their existing children, then no, I would not advise an abortion.

If the woman is 23 without a husband or education and living on welfare, then she has little business bringing another child into the world.

I'd also like to know why in the world she's getting pregnant.

I've said it several times: I am nothing if not a classist.

Dionysus
October 14th, 2004, 11:11 AM
I didn't say my answer would be "yes" whether she asked me or not. I said I wouldn't advise her because it's none of my business.

tinkerbell
October 14th, 2004, 11:33 AM
yes, everyone other than Beetoven's mommy...

Booger
October 14th, 2004, 11:33 AM
If you knew a woman who already had 8 kids, three were blind, two were deaf, and one was mentally retarded...and the woman had syphillis, would you advise she get an abortion?

Yes, No and why...please

This question is too easy for the pro-lifer. The pro-lifer will assume that the pro-choicer will say "yes" whereupon the pro-lifer will say "no;" she can always give it up for adoption.

Let's reframe the question:

If a poverty-stricken woman who already had 8 kids, three were blind, two were deaf, and one was mentally retarded, had syphillis and was now pregnant as a result of a rape by her drunken uncle, and an amniocentesis analysis showed an extra 21st chromosome (meaning the child would be born with Down's syndrome thereby making an adoption alternative completely unrealistic), should the woman be able to seek an abortion in the first trimester in accordance with Roe v. Wade?

Answer? Yes.

Others?

Apokalupsis
October 14th, 2004, 12:08 PM
ROFL! Good one Boog. ;) But rephrasing doesn't answer the question given, it only creates a NEW scenerio (or new question). However, I'd still be curious to see some of the answers to your new question.

Hats off to Tink for knowing this one. ;)

Sam
October 14th, 2004, 12:21 PM
This question is too easy for the pro-lifer. The pro-lifer will assume that the pro-choicer will say "yes" whereupon the pro-lifer will say "no;" she can always give it up for adoption.

Let's reframe the question:

If a poverty-stricken woman who already had 8 kids, three were blind, two were deaf, and one was mentally retarded, had syphillis and was now pregnant as a result of a rape by her drunken uncle, and an amniocentesis analysis showed an extra 21st chromosome (meaning the child would be born with Down's syndrome thereby making an adoption alternative completely unrealistic), should the woman be able to seek an abortion in the first trimester in accordance with Roe v. Wade?


I am pro-life and the answer is still no abortion. Why is the adoption alternative completely unrealistic? Harder yes. Unrealistic no. Down syndrome would be obvious. But how would one know that the baby was a result of a rape by a drunken uncle unless you were told? That part is a problem the mother has to deal with. There should be support for her to help her deal with the rape. Having an abortion would just add to the problems she has to deal with. Better to deal with one problem not two.

Fyshhed
October 14th, 2004, 12:28 PM
I find it sad that pro-lifers cling so hard to the image of not aborting that they refuse to accept that there might be circumstances in which life is not worth living.

I am of the opinion that people who suffer from serious and fatal diseases and defects (and who will die prematurely anyway) may as well be aborted. I have stated this as my position for abortion from day one:

It is crueller to force them to live than it is to let them die. It's like racing on a horse with a fractured leg. It will try, and it will fail and suffer, and maybe die. Was it worth it just so you could get your race?

If the fetus is disfigured and diseased, and cannot hope to live a quality life of any kind, I would not force it through life.

Zhavric
October 14th, 2004, 12:29 PM
Hats off to Tink for knowing this one. ;)

I actually thought of that after I posted my reply.

I still maintain that financial security has to be a consideration. If you don't have eough money to FEED the new kid, better to abort in the first trimester than to let the baby slowly starve to death.

Also, Beethoven is from an era where child labor was the norm. Back in that time, when you kid was old enough (i.e. think 6 or 7) you sent the littly one out to work somewhere... wether it was in a mine or a mill or making beds. Kids made money for their parents. So, where we, today, look at 8 kids as more mouths to feed, folks in Beethoven's time would have seen it as a greater source of income. Even blind, deaf, and challenged kids can work certain jobs.

Fyshhed
October 14th, 2004, 12:32 PM
There should be support for her to help her deal with the rape. Having an abortion would just add to the problems she has to deal with. Better to deal with one problem not two.
You forget that the child is a constant reminder to the mother of the rape, it is half-uncle, and has a good chance of being inbred.

There is no "two problems" scenario if the fetus is aborted. The mother can be counselled, and not have to deal with raising the child...

Or she can be counselled AND have to deal with raising a child. Keep in mind that this is rape and not planned pregnancy. She could be 16, and not get to go to college or make anything of herself, and instead get to be tormented for the rest of her life by this child who should not have happened.

I honestly think pro-lifers fail to appreciate the suffering that goes on in these scenarios.

Apokalupsis
October 14th, 2004, 12:44 PM
I find it sad that pro-lifers cling so hard to the image of not aborting that they refuse to accept that there might be circumstances in which life is not worth living.

I am of the opinion that people who suffer from serious and fatal diseases and defects (and who will die prematurely anyway) may as well be aborted. I have stated this as my position for abortion from day one:

It is crueller to force them to live than it is to let them die. It's like racing on a horse with a fractured leg. It will try, and it will fail and suffer, and maybe die. Was it worth it just so you could get your race?

If the fetus is disfigured and diseased, and cannot hope to live a quality life of any kind, I would not force it through life.
Well, the problem with this....is that it lets YOU decide, not them. How do you honestly know that they would not prefer life over death? Isn't this subjective? Why not just say "I don't think stupid people really want to live, their life isn't worth living, it is far more better for me to kill them." ? How about we let THEM decide their fate? That's the pro-lifer's position on the issue.

Also, like Kerry, you take the extreme example and wish to apply it to the general (referring to 2nd debate). I don't have a problem with necessary abortion, when it will cause great harm to the mother...but this exception to the rule, doesn't set the standard by which we legislate its use.

Apokalupsis
October 14th, 2004, 12:49 PM
I actually thought of that after I posted my reply.

I still maintain that financial security has to be a consideration. If you don't have eough money to FEED the new kid, better to abort in the first trimester than to let the baby slowly starve to death.
Why not give the baby up for adoption? Also, you are saying that the life of poverty is not worth living. Frankly, if that was the case, my family would not be here. My grandfather lived in a side of hill (that was caved out) as a child. His family was literally, "dirt poor". He later became an influential pathologist (Think Quincy, M.D. here) who has an actual day named after him in the city of Indianapolis, IN. He became fairly wealthy and provided for his family of 6 very comfortably. Yet, he was the most humble man I have never known, never once forgetting where he came from. Money, wasn't "the issue" for him, people, and life were.

We learn much from humble beginnings. Simpy because one is dirt poor, isn't an excuse to end a life. It is also merely chopping away at the branches of the problem, not the root. Simply suggesting that abortions should be done in the case of extreme poverty, is merely an attempt at treating the sympton, not illness. Education and outreach are far superior methods than encouraging abortion.

FruitandNut
October 14th, 2004, 12:51 PM
I actually thought of that after I posted my reply.

I still maintain that financial security has to be a consideration. If you don't have eough money to FEED the new kid, better to abort in the first trimester than to let the baby slowly starve to death.
Here in Europe we have social welfare systems that would not allow the baby to starve through lack of family income.


We have genito-urinary clinics in which cases of syph. are successfully treated.
There are many rape crisis and psycho-trauma type organisations and the issue can also be addressed within the National Health schemes.
Many Down's Syndrome children/ adults live reasonable quality lives over here, they seem happy and appear to enjoy life. There is support available for both them and their families.
If the mother can't cope with the extra child, there are several options. Social Services help and respite arrangements, allowing the child to be fostered - (there are people who 'specialise' in looking after 'handicapped' children and babies). Adoption is also an option, but fewer people would look to adopt a 'handicapped' child.

Booger
October 14th, 2004, 01:46 PM
(Think Quincy, M.D. here)

LOL. You're dating yourself, you old fart. ;) Wait, did I just date myself?

Spartacus
October 15th, 2004, 05:10 AM
I find it sad that pro-lifers cling so hard to the image of not aborting that they refuse to accept that there might be circumstances in which life is not worth living.



FYSH, perhapsyou missed it...but Tink was right. The description of this woman is the same description one would use to describe Beethoven's mother when she was pregnant with him.

So to anyone who would abort such a developing human -- you have killed Beethoven. How many Beethoven's and other great humans have been killed before even being born in the US since since Roe V. Wade. Out of more than 30 million innocent victims, surely there were some bright shining human stars in that group. Anyone who think we are better of with legal abortion, fails to recognize what we have losat in human potential: A cure for cancer? The next Einstein? We will never know what we have lost.

Spartacus
October 15th, 2004, 05:15 AM
Here in Europe we have social welfare systems that would not allow the baby to starve through lack of family income.


Fruit, no one starves in the US despite the rhetoric you might here. In fact quite the opposite. America's poor are among the most obese Americans there are, and are the fatttest poor people in the world.

The US has long had a food stamp and section 8 housing program where anyone who wanted to enroll, can be assured of a roof over their head and food to eat. The homeless in the US are homeless because they usually refuse to enter into these programs, do not know about them, are mentally disturbed, or have just recently become homeless and not enrolled in the programs yet.

Heck...Habitat for Humanity...an NGO...even builds homes for such people that cost them no money. Does anyone in the UK build brand-new suburban homes for your chronicly poor?

Spartacus
October 15th, 2004, 05:19 AM
I honestly think pro-lifers fail to appreciate the suffering that goes on in these scenarios.
No...we just don't see where two wrongs make a right...and except for when the mother's life is in jeopardy...see no cause for killing a developing human because of theis "Suffering" asyou call it.

I think Pro-Abortion people fail to realize:

The human potential that has been lost with the legal killing of 30 million developing humans.

The emotional and psychological trauma caused to the woman getting the developinghuman killed inher uterus. I knwo several woman who have had abortions. Without exception, they think of the child often -- most every day. The guilt they feel is incocnsolabable even decades later.

Zhavric
October 15th, 2004, 05:45 AM
Here in Europe we have social welfare systems that would not allow the baby to starve through lack of family income.


We have genito-urinary clinics in which cases of syph. are successfully treated.
There are many rape crisis and psycho-trauma type organisations and the issue can also be addressed within the National Health schemes.
Many Down's Syndrome children/ adults live reasonable quality lives over here, they seem happy and appear to enjoy life. There is support available for both them and their families.
If the mother can't cope with the extra child, there are several options. Social Services help and respite arrangements, allowing the child to be fostered - (there are people who 'specialise' in looking after 'handicapped' children and babies). Adoption is also an option, but fewer people would look to adopt a 'handicapped' child.

I am well aware that all those things exist TODAY.

Beethoven was born in 1770. Were they around then?

Zhavric
October 15th, 2004, 05:53 AM
I think Pro-Abortion people fail to realize:

The human potential that has been lost with the legal killing of 30 million developing humans.

Did you have sex with your wife last night? Did you use contraception? Think of the human potential that you've just "destroyed". Did you get into the elevator with an ovulating female on your way to the office? You COULD have had random intercourse with her and fertilized one of her eggs which will now just go to waste. Oh, the humanity!

The human potential argument is a really lame one, Spartacus. It's like the "every sperm is sacred" song from Python.


The emotional and psychological trauma caused to the woman getting the developinghuman killed inher uterus. I knwo several woman who have had abortions. Without exception, they think of the child often -- most every day. The guilt they feel is incocnsolabable even decades later.

Thanks for that anecdotal "evidence". I'm sure the women also feel a lot better not having to work three jobs to support the kids they didn't have.

By the way, this...

http://www.birthrightames.org/images/6-weeks-s.jpg

... can't play the piano, lacks sentience, and cannot survive for even a moment outside the womb. So, I'm still not quite sure where you're getting this idea of "potential" from.

Andacanavar
October 15th, 2004, 06:43 AM
Same old argument the pro-lifers have been using for years. The "Beethoven theroy" is ridiculous, and subjective at best.

Let me ask this. If you knew a a 28 year old girl who was going to lose 4 of her 6 children before puberty, was married to her uncle and would die of breast cancer barely after her oldest surviving child became an adult, would you tell her to consider abortion? Especially knowing the son would become a complete failure in his father's eyes and then a tyrannical madman the likes of which humankind had never seen?

:rolleyes:

Zhavric
October 15th, 2004, 06:54 AM
Andacanavar is right. He has mentioned the simple counter to the "Beethoven argument". Yes, the fetus MAY develop into a Beethoven, but it also may develop into a Hitler or a Ted Bundy or a David Koresh or any number of whacked out killers / sociopaths / whack-jobs.

The best argument pro-lifers have is defining where a ball of cells becomes a human life. As I have stated many times, the abortion debate isn't the "abortion" debate. It's the "when does life start" debate.

Spartacus
October 15th, 2004, 10:38 AM
Did you have sex with your wife last night? Did you use contraception? Think of the human potential that you've just "destroyed". Did you get into the elevator with an ovulating female on your way to the office? You COULD have had random intercourse with her and fertilized one of her eggs which will now just go to waste. Oh, the humanity!

The human potential argument is a really lame one, Spartacus. It's like the "every sperm is sacred" song from Python.

Sperm is sperm...An egg is an egg...single cells.

However when the sperm fertilizes the egg and cell begin to diovide and grow then we have life. If the egg and sperm were human...we have human life. This life can be gentically identified as separate from both the egg and sperm donors.

I have never heard of any rational group proclaiming sperms and eggs in and of themselves are "sacred". Ido not know where you get that idea from...Monty Pythion perhaps?




Thanks for that anecdotal "evidence". I'm sure the women also feel a lot better not having to work three jobs to support the kids they didn't have.

By the way, this...

http://www.birthrightames.org/images/6-weeks-s.jpg

... can't play the piano, lacks sentience, and cannot survive for even a moment outside the womb. So, I'm still not quite sure where you're getting this idea of "potential" from.

So it is alright and should remain legal to kill a human, based on the human's:

Size
Level of development
Environal needs
and
Dependency on others

That is what you are claiming afterall.

Please look at the photograph and note:

The developing brain, spinal cord, eye and limbs. At the gentic level we see these are all a human. A separate individual human, who if left unmolested will probably live outside the womb and be able to breath on its own.

But it will still be:
small
not completely developed
have special environmental needs
and
depend on others

Legal abortion, except is some severe cases of choosing between the actual life of the mother and the life of the child, only contribute to our culture where life is held less sacred. By devaluing the most susceptible of all human life, we devalue all human life.

Spartacus
October 15th, 2004, 10:42 AM
The best argument pro-lifers have is defining where a ball of cells becomes a human life. As I have stated many times, the abortion debate isn't the "abortion" debate. It's the "when does life start" debate.

In purely biologocal terms, we only have problems defining when life begins when it comes to humans.

When the sperm fertilizes the egg and cells begin to grow and divide -- cells gentically identifiable as a separate members of the parent's species -- that is the only definitive point at which we can say "There is life".

Spartacus
October 15th, 2004, 10:50 AM
Same old argument the pro-lifers have been using for years. The "Beethoven theroy" is ridiculous, and subjective at best.

Let me ask this. If you knew a a 28 year old girl who was going to lose 4 of her 6 children before puberty, was married to her uncle and would die of breast cancer barely after her oldest surviving child became an adult, would you tell her to consider abortion? Especially knowing the son would become a complete failure in his father's eyes and then a tyrannical madman the likes of which humankind had never seen?

:rolleyes:

Aborting Hitler?

The rise of Nazi Germany can be attributed to many factors. We can also blame the Western world for failing to read his book and understanding what Hitler was all about and not stopping him when he first sent troops to recalim Alsace and Lorraine, and the German Army was so weak they had orders to withdraw if they received any resistance.

If Germany were strapped with heavy reparations debt, if the Deutschmark had retained some of its value, if the German government had dealt with him more severly after the Beer Hall Putsch that ended in 16 deaths...Nazi Germany never would have rose.

You can't blame WWII and all its attrocities on Hitler's mom not aborting him. That is on a par with saying you can justify the continued legalization of abortions in the US because there is a potential Hitler or ther villian among the 30 million victims of the US Holocaust.

Dionysus
October 15th, 2004, 10:53 AM
That is on a par with saying you can justify the continued legalization of abortions in the US because there is a potential Hitler or ther villian among the 30 million victims of the US Holocaust.

How is it different from your stance below?


The human potential that has been lost with the legal killing of 30 million developing humans.

What do you mean by human potential? Human potential for good? For evil?

Zhavric
October 15th, 2004, 10:59 AM
Calling a bit of human deviding cells a "person" is like calling a few random plastic chunks a "car". It's simply not there yet.

Look, it's quite simple, Spartacus. A guy has consentual sex with a condom on to make sure he doesn't impregnate his partner. The condom breaks and sperm is released into the woman. She gets pregnant.

Pregnancy was never the intention. If the condom hadn't broken, there wouldn't have even been an issue. But now, suddenly because a sperm cell got to an egg, suddenly what was going on is falsely considered "murder". Please.

Yes, you can whip out your MIRCROSCOPE and take a cell sample from a six week old fetus and find that it is genetically independant from its host. That's hardly an argument for it being a "person".

Also, none of us are buying your blurring of the word "survive". There is a world of difference between a person on a respirator who has a fully functional epidermis capable of withstanding the sun's radiation, a functional immune system capable of fending off invaders, etc... and a fetus which dies instantly upong being removed from the womb. It's an ridiculous and invalid comparison.

Apokalupsis
October 15th, 2004, 12:47 PM
I am well aware that all those things exist TODAY.

Beethoven was born in 1770. Were they around then?
No...and that's the POINT. The fact that we have them TODAY argues against abortion as a good alternative to generally unwanted pregnancies.

Apokalupsis
October 15th, 2004, 12:49 PM
Let me ask this. If you knew a a 28 year old girl who was going to lose 4 of her 6 children before puberty, was married to her uncle and would die of breast cancer barely after her oldest surviving child became an adult, would you tell her to consider abortion? Especially knowing the son would become a complete failure in his father's eyes and then a tyrannical madman the likes of which humankind had never seen?
Same old argument the pro-choicers have been using for years. The "Extreme, radical example fits the general usage theory" is ridiculous, and subjective at best.

:rolleyes:

Spartacus
October 15th, 2004, 01:27 PM
Calling a bit of human deviding cells a "person" is like calling a few random plastic chunks a "car". It's simply not there yet.


Horrible analogy.

A car is not alive, does not grow, develop or repair itself. It is inanimate.

Let's look at a Chicken.

An egg is an egg.

However once that egg is fertilized, it is no longer just an egg, but is in fact a developing chicken -- not a "potential" chicken. We do not need to wait until it is hatched to call it what it is -- a developing, vulnerable member of the chicken species.

Spartacus
October 15th, 2004, 01:29 PM
Yes, you can whip out your MIRCROSCOPE and take a cell sample from a six week old fetus and find that it is genetically independant from its host. That's hardly an argument for it being a "person".




Person is your word -- NOT MINE.

I never used that word. "Person" is a legal word.

I merely use the more accurate and scientifc word -- (Developing) HUMAN!

Telex
October 15th, 2004, 02:01 PM
You can't blame WWII and all its attrocities on Hitler's mom not aborting him. That is on a par with saying you can justify the continued legalization of abortions in the US because there is a potential Hitler or ther villian among the 30 million victims of the US Holocaust.
Arguing for the legalization of abortion to stop the Baby Hitlers is exactly the same thing as arguing to illegalize abortion to save the Baby Beethovens.

If you're really worried that we're not getting all the Baby Beethovens that the human race is supposed to, then obviously contraception and masturbation should be made illegal as well. All that wasted sperm is really cutting down our chances of getting them made. And women should be forced to get pregnant as much as possible...one of those eggs might be the Golden One.

mrs_innocent
October 15th, 2004, 10:22 PM
Same old argument the pro-choicers have been using for years. The "Extreme, radical example fits the general usage theory" is ridiculous, and subjective at best.

Okay, but how is it any different from the Beethoven theory? :?:

mrs_innocent
October 15th, 2004, 10:27 PM
You can't blame WWII and all its attrocities on Hitler's mom not aborting him. That is on a par with saying you can justify the continued legalization of abortions in the US because there is a potential Hitler or ther villian among the 30 million victims of the US Holocaust.

True enough, but then you'd also have to agree that you cannot attribute Beethoven's achievements to his mother not aborting, as he may well have turned out to be the 18th century Hitler. He may well have had NO interest in music...

The argument is nothing more than circular reasoning, where one side will always insist its correctness and accuracy. Ridiculous lines of thinking, if you ask me.

Out of curiosity, though, I'll ask this (since we're getting all technical over the criteria to qualify as a human): Do you actually believe it is possible to foresee the future of the "child" growing in the womb? ie: his/her personality? If not, the entire argument presented in this thread (both Pro-Life and Pro-Choice) is useless.

Andacanavar
October 16th, 2004, 09:50 PM
Good to see some people got my point, thankfully.


Same old argument the pro-choicers have been using for years. The "Extreme, radical example fits the general usage theory" is ridiculous, and subjective at best.

:rolleyes:

Exactly Apok! It's as bad as the same old argument the pro-lifers have been using for years. And that is what I said in my first post, it's subjective at best.

Nobody knows what their child is going to turn out to be while they're still in the womb. Sure they might become the next great (insert here), but it's just a dream until and if it becomes a reality that they chose.

Only a dream... Or, our worst nightmare.

Inquisitor
October 18th, 2004, 09:41 AM
If you knew a woman who already had 8 kids, three were blind, two were deaf, and one was mentally retarded...and the woman had syphillis, would you advise she get an abortion?

I believe she should had been sterilised after the first child. In this case there wouldn't be the abortion issue.

Even after the first deffective child it's obvious that this woman and/or her husbund are genetically deffective. So why try to fool God?

Trying to breed geniuses in this way has a high price. How many retarded or deffective in other ways are being born per one genius?

Dionysus
October 18th, 2004, 09:50 AM
Even after the first deffective child it's obvious that this woman and/or her husbund are genetically deffective. So why try to fool God?

Huh?


Trying to breed geniuses in this way has a high price. How many retarded or deffective in other ways are being born per one genius?

Good question. How many?

Fyshhed
October 18th, 2004, 09:51 AM
Trying to breed geniuses in this way has a high price. How many retarded or deffective in other ways are being born per one genius?
I can't believe my eyes. A Natural Selectionist Christian!

Inquisitor
October 18th, 2004, 10:45 AM
Incorrect, I am not natural selectionist. I believe that people must obey God. A deffective child is a clear indication that God doesn't want these people ( parents) to reproduce. Yet, he still gives them free will, so they can try and see how stupid it is to attempt to fool God.

In fact God gives us indication of whether we should have children before we even start to reproduce. It's our foolish pride that blinds us and leads to genetic experiments. Go to a prison or a mental institution or a gay bar and you will see results of these experiments.

Dionysus
October 18th, 2004, 11:04 AM
Incorrect, I am not natural selectionist. I believe that people must obey God. A deffective child is a clear indication that God doesn't want these people ( parents) to reproduce. Yet, he still gives them free will, so they can try and see how stupid it is to attempt to fool God.

Along those lines, we can conclude that God did not intend for Beethoven to have been born since there were so many DEFECTIVE children born before him.


In fact God gives us indication of whether we should have children before we even start to reproduce.

Really? What planet does he do this on?


It's our foolish pride that blinds us and leads to genetic experiments. Go to a prison or a mental institution or a gay bar and you will see results of these experiments.

People in prison are the results of genetic experiments? Where is your evidence to support this claim? On what grounds do you base it? Can you show us some actual case studies where this experiementation has occured?

Fyshhed
October 18th, 2004, 11:55 AM
In fact God gives us indication of whether we should have children before we even start to reproduce. It's our foolish pride that blinds us and leads to genetic experiments. Go to a prison or a mental institution or a gay bar and you will see results of these experiments.
This would make some sense if it was proven that defective children only existed in specific couples and said couples always produced nothing but defective children while other couples produce nothing but standard children and still other couples produced nothing but geniuses.

So I guess we can consider that one deflated.
:P

KevinBrowning
October 18th, 2004, 02:35 PM
Incorrect, I am not natural selectionist. I believe that people must obey God. A deffective child is a clear indication that God doesn't want these people ( parents) to reproduce. Yet, he still gives them free will, so they can try and see how stupid it is to attempt to fool God.

In fact God gives us indication of whether we should have children before we even start to reproduce. It's our foolish pride that blinds us and leads to genetic experiments. Go to a prison or a mental institution or a gay bar and you will see results of these experiments.

Quis, you're sounding a bit too much like old Adolf here. What exactly do you mean by defective child? Methinks you're attributing more to God than what you can reasonably know of what He has mandated.

Inquisitor
October 19th, 2004, 09:10 AM
Along those lines, we can conclude that God did not intend for Beethoven to have been born since there were so many DEFECTIVE children born before him.

If God didn't intend for him to be born clearly he wouldn't be born. Yet, to produce one genius, Bethhoven's parents also produced much "waste". I am asking is it morally right to produce deffective kids hoping that one or two would be a genius? I think it's highly immoral.


Really? What planet does he do this on?

Earth for sure. I can usualy with a reasonable degree of accuracy, identify people who will have deffective offspring.


People in prison are the results of genetic experiments? Where is your evidence to support this claim? On what grounds do you base it? Can you show us some actual case studies where this experiementation has occured?

By genetic experiment, I mean the process of reproduction. Noone knows for sure what their offspring will be like. People don't even seek this knowledge. Even when generation after generation deffective offspring is being born, people still reproduce. It is their offspring tha ends up in prisons, mental istitutions and gay bars.


This would make some sense if it was proven that defective children only existed in specific couples and said couples always produced nothing but defective children while other couples produce nothing but standard children and still other couples produced nothing but geniuses.

It's a lot more complex than that. True, normal people will usualy produce normal children. While deffective people will produce deffective children. Yet, a genius is often deffective ( I suggest you watch " Beautiful Mind" ) or better even read Chezare Lombrozo's " Genius and insanity". So when I say I can usualy predict a deffective child, I am not saying I can predict exactly what form his ( child's) abnourmality will take.


Quis, you're sounding a bit too much like old Adolf here. What exactly do you mean by defective child? Methinks you're attributing more to God than what you can reasonably know of what He has mandated.

In no sense what I say here goes against Christianity or dogma of The Orthodox Church. If you can prove this to be the case, please do so.
Also, Christianity has nothing to do with political correctness and a word " tolerance" is not even in the Bible.

Zhavric
October 19th, 2004, 09:24 AM
In no sense what I say here goes against Christianity or dogma of The Orthodox Church. If you can prove this to be the case, please do so.
Also, Christianity has nothing to do with political correctness and a word " tolerance" is not even in the Bible.

Good. Then you won't whine and cry when the rest of us explain to you exactly why you're wrong. Not even the other orthodox member of your church agrees with you.

Or are you one of the types who says a bunch of hateful absurdities and then gets off on the "martyr complex" you feel when people call you on it. "Woa is me! Look how persecuted us Christians are... nobody likes us."

Maybe you should go hang out with Brother Jed.

Your views are utterly lacking in any sort of consistant logic.

mrs_innocent
October 19th, 2004, 09:27 AM
If God didn't intend for him to be born clearly he wouldn't be born. Yet, to produce one genius, Bethhoven's parents also produced much "waste". I am asking is it morally right to produce deffective kids hoping that one or two would be a genius? I think it's highly immoral

Of couse it's moral. Though, I find a couple major flaws in your argument:

1) (I don't know what your exact religious affiliation is, but I'm suspecting Christianity) As a theist, you must know that god loves everyone equally. He intends for all children to be born (at least that's they story I've always heard).

2) It's not immoral to have children.

3) Most people do not conceive and give birth in hopes of bearing the next Einstein. Sure, I'd bet that most parents would be ecstatic if their child did grow up to be a genius, but that is not their purpose behind procreating.



Earth for sure. I can usualy with a reasonable degree of accuracy, identify people who will have deffective offspring.


;? Okay, I'll bite: who are they? If you have said ability, surely you can explain it. :rolleyes:


It is their offspring tha ends up in prisons, mental istitutions and gay bars.


This is a truly frightening outlook you have. Unfortunately, you have no proof of such a ridiculous claim.


Also, Christianity has nothing to do with political correctness and a word " tolerance" is not even in the Bible

I won't even touch it.

Inquisitor
October 19th, 2004, 11:15 AM
Not even the other orthodox member of your church agrees with you.

Since we don't discuss Canon of The Orthodox Church, I don't really expect him to. Besides, I don't believe he actualy said so. Are you predicting what his opinion should be?

I believe Spartacus, was against abortions, so am I. What I talk about is voluntary abstention from reproduction, which is somewhat different.


Or are you one of the types who says a bunch of hateful absurdities and then gets off on the "martyr complex" you feel when people call you on it. "Woa is me! Look how persecuted us Christians are... nobody likes us."

It's not about being martyr, it's about telling the truth. If one can prove that my views are blasphemy, I will repent.


1) (I don't know what your exact religious affiliation is, but I'm suspecting Christianity) As a theist, you must know that god loves everyone equally. He intends for all children to be born (at least that's they story I've always heard).

My exact religious affiliation is Orthodox Christian. The story you always heard is not nessesarily the correct story. I was critisised for quoting The Bible on many occasions, yet it's impossible to prove this point without it, so:
Mt 26:24 it had been good for that man if he had not been born.


2) It's not immoral to have children.

No, it's not. Yet it's immoral to willingly infect children with a desease. Be it infection of a genetic disorder.


3) Most people do not conceive and give birth in hopes of bearing the next Einstein. Sure, I'd bet that most parents would be ecstatic if their child did grow up to be a genius, but that is not their purpose behind procreating.

Some people do ( try to breed artificial geniuses) just that ,( Einstein is a hint).
Would you be ecstatic if your child grew up to be a noble prize winner and schizophrenic at the same time?


Okay, I'll bite: who are they? If you have said ability, surely you can explain it.

Yes, I can. In theological sense these people are possesed by devil. In scientific sense these people are degenerates. There are three groups of traits one has to look for.
1. Sexual perversions
2. Mental disorders
3. Certain physical deformities

Degeneracy comes in stages. For example if one is in the third stage of degeneracy ( has inborn physical deformity) you can be sure that this person also has a mental disorder and is a sexual pervert. And I can assure you that his/her children will also have these.

Obviously this is much more complex than that, but I hope you get the idea.


This is a truly frightening outlook you have. Unfortunately, you have no proof of such a ridiculous claim.

The proof is all around you and even in you. You just select not to look for the proof.
Yes, it is frightening, but does it mean we have to pretend as most do that it doesn't exist?

mrs_innocent
October 19th, 2004, 02:18 PM
Would you be ecstatic if your child grew up to be a noble prize winner and schizophrenic at the same time?

Here's where you touch upon a point very personal to me. I try (*TRY*, though I know I sometimes do) to keep discussions as impersonal as possible, but this one's tough. You see, Inquisitor, I happen to have a mental disorder that has shown to be partly inherited. I also have 3 children. My ex was a Tay-Sachs carrier, meaning my daughter could well have been afflicted and likely be dead by now. Yet, I still had her. Still had all 3 of my girls without a second thought. But, if I went by your logic, they never should have been born, and, somewhat distantly, neither should I.

To my point....YES. I would be thrilled if either of my daughters turned out to be a genius and win a nobel prize (for which "genius" isn't necessarily a criterion), all while battling Schizophrenia, I would be THRILLED.



Degeneracy comes in stages. For example if one is in the third stage of degeneracy ( has inborn physical deformity) you can be sure that this person also has a mental disorder and is a sexual pervert. And I can assure you that his/her children will also have these.


Not only is this absurd, but I find myself thankful you're not writing textbooks or teaching children (.....or are you???...).

AuspiciousFist
October 19th, 2004, 03:05 PM
Yes, I can. In theological sense these people are possesed by devil. In scientific sense these people are degenerates. There are three groups of traits one has to look for.
1. Sexual perversions
2. Mental disorders
3. Certain physical deformities

Degeneracy comes in stages. For example if one is in the third stage of degeneracy ( has inborn physical deformity) you can be sure that this person also has a mental disorder and is a sexual pervert. And I can assure you that his/her children will also have these.


so someone can be born with the Devil already in them?
I thought children were supposed to be pure.

And people with mental disorders have the devil in them?

what if they take medication that cures the disorder, is the devil in them, or has he been destoryed through combinations of earthly materials?

And can you define "certain physical deformity", what basis do you use to judge which deformities come from the devil and which are "natural"


Degeneracy comes in stages. For example if one is in the third stage of degeneracy ( has inborn physical deformity) you can be sure that this person also has a mental disorder and is a sexual pervert.
I'm willing to bet you can't back this up with any sort of proof, at all.

Inquisitor
October 20th, 2004, 06:17 AM
You see, Inquisitor, I happen to have a mental disorder that has shown to be partly inherited.

I complement you on your courage, most people would never admit it, often they wouldn't even admit it to themselves.
Yes, most if not all mental disorders are inherited. The reason there is so little evidence exists for that is because scientists view it as isolated events. For example, if one is a schizophrenic, but none of his ancesyors are, they make conclusion that it's not hereditary. Wrong. Mental disorder is not an abnourmality in itself, it's simply a form abnourmality takes. If we look deeper into a schizoprenic's ancestors we will find that: mother was experimenting with girls in college, father is into masochism and younger than mother, uncle is social-psychopath etc. ( this is purely an example).


I also have 3 children. My ex was a Tay-Sachs carrier, meaning my daughter could well have been afflicted and likely be dead by now. Yet, I still had her. Still had all 3 of my girls without a second thought.

Would I be correct to assume that your ex was a jew? Jewish genes are extremly degenerative. People who have kids with jews seriously endanger their offspring's health ( both mental and physical).
I am not in position to judge you. You did what you thought is best according to information you had.
I just want to bring your attention to the following moral aspect. When one has children knowing that their genes are degenerative, it's not so much that they take the risk. It's their children who suffer the consequences. It's much like gambling with someoneelses money. One has to ask himself, do I have children for my own selfish purposes or do I have their best interest in heart? If latter is the answer, sometimes the best thing you can do for your children is not to have them.


But, if I went by your logic, they never should have been born, and, somewhat distantly, neither should I.

Well it's entirely up to you. I have never advocated forcing people by law. As long as you understand the odds you can make any decision you like.
The biggest problem I have is that people are never told about it, so they make this decision of paramount importance, blindly.


To my point....YES. I would be thrilled if either of my daughters turned out to be a genius and win a nobel prize (for which "genius" isn't necessarily a criterion), all while battling Schizophrenia, I would be THRILLED.

Wouldn't you be more thrilled, had your child been perfectly healthy without the noble prize?


Not only is this absurd, but I find myself thankful you're not writing textbooks or teaching children (.....or are you???...).

No I am not teaching children, nor do I write textbooks. What I discuss here is a taboo subject. With a taboo subject, one has to make huge effort in order to find out the truth. What being taught to children usualy not the truth.
Besides it's cruel to tell children the truth.
Remember?
Eccles 1:18 For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.


so someone can be born with the Devil already in them?
I thought children were supposed to be pure.

They are, because even though devil is in them, they still have chance to battle him and win.


And people with mental disorders have the devil in them?

Of course. Illness affects the body, mental illness affects the soul.
People with certain mental disorders are literally unable to drink Holy Water. I have personally seen it on many occasions.


what if they take medication that cures the disorder, is the devil in them, or has he been destoryed through combinations of earthly materials?

I am afraid, you will find that mental disorders are almost non curable. True there are medications that can supress the illness, but usualy they only supress the symptoms.


And can you define "certain physical deformity", what basis do you use to judge which deformities come from the devil and which are "natural"

Well there are many physical deformities. One criteria though, they must be inborn.
cross eyes, diffirent colored eys, eyes located too far( more than its width), non uniform coloring of iris, lobless ear, lop-eared, harelip, cleft palate, uneven teeth, enlarged fungs, six fingers, limping, gibbosity, large ( larger than a coin) birthmarks, multiple birthmarks or moles, lack of proportion between left and right sides of a body etc.


I'm willing to bet you can't back this up with any sort of proof, at all.

The proof is all around you if you want to see it.

Andacanavar
October 20th, 2004, 07:00 AM
I believe that people must obey God.

I'll do that when he actually gets off his lazy ass and dishes out orders.


I am asking is it morally right to produce deffective kids hoping that one or two would be a genius? I think it's highly immoral.

Of course not. Though, as it's been pointed out. the vast majority don't go that route.



No, it's not. Yet it's immoral to willingly infect children with a desease. Be it infection of a genetic disorder.

Yes, I'm sure every parent who has a mentally defective child has sat down at one point and said to each other, "Honey, let's hump for Gump!!".



Degeneracy comes in stages. For example if one is in the third stage of degeneracy ( has inborn physical deformity) you can be sure that this person also has a mental disorder and is a sexual pervert. And I can assure you that his/her children will also have these.


Wrong. Mental disorder is not an abnourmality in itself, it's simply a form abnourmality takes. If we look deeper into a schizoprenic's ancestors we will find that: mother was experimenting with girls in college, father is into masochism and younger than mother, uncle is social-psychopath etc. ( this is purely an example).

You're serious about this?

It has been well documented that genetic abnormality is what leads to abnormal or degenrative behavior, not the other way around. I don't know where you get your information from, but it seems to me that someone here has already taken a left from Insanity Dr. and is parked firmly on Delirious Lane. ;?

FruitandNut
October 20th, 2004, 07:33 AM
Inquisitor: I like to feel, hope and pray that I am a relatively OK sort of a Christian. But listening to some of your arguement/rant, either I have got it very seriously wrong or you have. (Yes I know Zhavric, you have the alternative viewpoint - we both have it wrong.) You seem at times to express views that lack the charity that Jesus had. You appear to look further back, to the smiting and smegging God of the Old Testament. I prefer to take JC as my exemplar. To link deformity mental illness or homosexuality to evil takes us back to the medaeval mind that said, 'Bless you' when you sneezed, that saw the effects of ergotism(The Witches of Salem.) as satanic influences at work. To say they are the 'will of God' is simplistic, they are an outcome of natural inclinations and bias that is far removed from the 'Garden of Eden' setting. They are a normal part of the world which we inhabit. Adolf Hitler once tried to change things by sending his perception of abnormality and deviancy to the gas chambers - somehow I don't think Jesus is likely to have approved.

ps. I believe that people should, not must, obey God - we have been given an element of free will. God gives us different 'talents', different genes and personal experience, and within that personal 'package' we will be judged.

Spartacus
October 20th, 2004, 07:57 AM
I believe she should had been sterilised after the first child. In this case there wouldn't be the abortion issue.

Even after the first deffective child it's obvious that this woman and/or her husbund are genetically deffective. So why try to fool God?

Trying to breed geniuses in this way has a high price. How many retarded or deffective in other ways are being born per one genius?

QUite an Unchristian stance from someone who professes to be a Christian.

A number of so-called theologians shared similiar views at one time in Europe...Hitler recruited them into the Nazi Party.

Inquisitor
October 20th, 2004, 10:46 AM
It has been well documented that genetic abnormality is what leads to abnormal or degenrative behavior, not the other way around.

You are the first person ever who accused me of ill understanding of theory of degeneracy. Usualy I spent time trying to prove that such a thing even exists.


Inquisitor: I like to feel, hope and pray that I am a relatively OK sort of a Christian.

It's only for God to know. Yet, I wish you salvation with all my heart.


You seem at times to express views that lack the charity that Jesus had.

Jesus himself used violence when he cast out traders from the temple. I on the other hand don't use or advocate violence. I only ask people to question their motives.
Doesn't God take innocent children before they can sin?
Isn't it charitable to prevent a sinner to be born?
Mt 26:24 The Son of man goeth as it is written of him: but woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had not been born.


To link deformity mental illness or homosexuality to evil takes us back to the medaeval mind that said,

Correct me if I am wrong. Do you believe that homosexuality or mental illness is good? If you do, I strongly disagree with you.


Adolf Hitler once tried to change things by sending his perception of abnormality and deviancy to the gas chambers

Gas chambers is a myth invented by children of the devil.


somehow I don't think Jesus is likely to have approved.

Somehow I don't believe you have any right to make assumptions on his behalf.


QUite an Unchristian stance from someone who professes to be a Christian.

It hurts to hear this words not even form a heretic, but from fellow Orthodox. I said before and repeat again if you can prove that what I say goes against any of The Orthodox Canon, I will repent.


A number of so-called theologians shared similiar views at one time in Europe...Hitler recruited them into the Nazi Party.

I cannot be recruted into any party, for a formula of the devil states:
" Devil is party of parties and union of unions".
Seeking knowledge of how to recognise devil is indeed Christian. For how can we oppose something which we cannot even recognise?

mrs_innocent
October 20th, 2004, 11:04 AM
I complement you on your courage, most people would never admit it, often they wouldn't even admit it to themselves.

Thanks. Though I somehow don't feel much sincerity from your compliment. Actually, I've just recently begun to admit it to myself. I've known about it for just over 7 years now; but only now is it really sinking in. I would like to point out, though, that ideas such as those you've expressed here are precisely the reason mental disorders tend to stay beneath the shadows. The mindset of mideival days which ostracized many different groups is long gone; I believe Eugenics is the farthest you'll ever get with your beliefs, and even that's not enough to have your views become common practice. And for that, if I believed in god, I would thank him.

I'd also like to add that your "example" reeks of highly implausible conspiracy-theory.


Would I be correct to assume that your ex was a jew?

No, you would not be correct. Assumptions are dangerous, you know.


You did what you thought is best according to information you had.
I just want to bring your attention to the following moral aspect. When one has children knowing that their genes are degenerative, it's not so much that they take the risk. It's their children who suffer the consequences. It's much like gambling with someoneelses money. One has to ask himself, do I have children for my own selfish purposes or do I have their best interest in heart? If latter is the answer, sometimes the best thing you can do for your children is not to have them.

I did what I KNEW was best, not 'thought'. Strangely, I can see what you're saying here. But I do really believe that your entire worldview (limited, of course, to what you've expressed here) is quite unnerving, and truly hope it will not continue to spread. (This coming from someone who has also been told their worldview is unnerving.)

I have a question for you: Studies have shown that, although one's genetic material may predispose them to a mental condition, said condition usually shows up later on in life. For me, I was 16. For children with ADD/ADHD, it can reveal itself as early as 3 (possibly earlier, I'm just going by cases I'm personally familiar with.). Since it is your opinion that these people probably should not be born in the first place, what should the parents of these children do when they find out? Should my mother have thrown me off the tallest building in the city? (Exaggeration, of course, but you get my point) Or the man whose Schizophrenia shows when he's 40 and has thus far lived a successful life? Should he end it all right then and there?

These are things you need to think about when making claims as you have. Not only do you have NO evidence whatsoever for your claims - which makes them merely beliefs - but you also seem to have no concept of what life really is.



Wouldn't you be more thrilled, had your child been perfectly healthy without the noble prize?

Of course I would. But you play the hand life dealt you. The key thing to remember here, is that YOU don't deal the hand... You're talking about going out and buying a whole new deck.

I don't pretend any of my children will win a nobel prize. Simply because the chances for *anyone* are incredibly slim. I also don't pretend to know whether or not my children will also be plagued by a mental disorder. However, if they were to be afflicted, I'd love them just the same. On the same note, if they were to be afflicted and still turn it around to be immeasurably successful in their lives, I'd be the first one applauding them every step of the way. And, no, not because "I did it to them." Because they're my children, and that's what a parent does.


The proof is all around you if you want to see it.

I feel it necessary (as this is not the first time you've made this statement) to let you know that, here, we provide our own "proof", or evidence to support our claims. You're the one, Inquisitor, making these nearly-outlandish* claims, YOU need to support them.

*They're only "nearly" outlandish, because I know there are a good bit of people whose beliefs are simliar.

Inquisitor
October 21st, 2004, 08:48 AM
Thanks. Though I somehow don't feel much sincerity from your compliment

I don't know why. I really meant it.


The mindset of mideival days which ostracized many different groups is long gone

Egalitarianism prevalent today is much worse an evil.


I believe Eugenics is the farthest you'll ever get with your beliefs, and even that's not enough to have your views become common practice.

I never advocated it as a common practice. Even though eugenics has its merit, I disagree with it on moral ground. Once again what I advocate is, knowledge instead of blindly following our instincts. Because this is what makes humans different to animals, ability to act inspite of instincts.


No, you would not be correct. Assumptions are dangerous, you know.

Yes I do. I apologise for offending you with such an assumption.


I did what I KNEW was best, not 'thought'. Strangely, I can see what you're saying here. But I do really believe that your entire worldview (limited, of course, to what you've expressed here) is quite unnerving, and truly hope it will not continue to spread. (This coming from someone who has also been told their worldview is unnerving.)

Don't worry, it won't spread. Because normal people couldn't relate to it and degenerates will go to any lenghth to prove that it doesn't exist.


I have a question for you: Studies have shown that, although one's genetic material may predispose them to a mental condition, said condition usually shows up later on in life. For me, I was 16. For children with ADD/ADHD, it can reveal itself as early as 3 (possibly earlier, I'm just going by cases I'm personally familiar with.). Since it is your opinion that these people probably should not be born in the first place, what should the parents of these children do when they find out?

Once a child is born he is born. What is left is to carry one's cross and educate you child so he won't repeat your mistake.


Of course I would. But you play the hand life dealt you. The key thing to remember here, is that YOU don't deal the hand... You're talking about going out and buying a whole new deck.
Not exactly. I am talking about not seating with a card-sharper for a game ( using your analogy).

Or the man whose Schizophrenia shows when he's 40 and has thus far lived a successful life? Should he end it all right then and there?

No way! Degeneracy makes it harder to achieve salvation, the more glory is to him if he manages.


I don't pretend any of my children will win a nobel prize. Simply because the chances for *anyone* are incredibly slim. I also don't pretend to know whether or not my children will also be plagued by a mental disorder. However, if they were to be afflicted, I'd love them just the same. On the same note, if they were to be afflicted and still turn it around to be immeasurably successful in their lives, I'd be the first one applauding them every step of the way. And, no, not because "I did it to them." Because they're my children, and that's what a parent does.

Degenerates aren't always bad people. In fact degenerates are divided into good, bad and ugly. You don't choose your genes, but you choose what type of a degenerate to become. The problem is we only control ourselves, not our children.
I refer you to a novel by Lilian Voinich. "The Gadfly"
http://www.lib.ru/INPROZ/WOJNICH/owod_engl.txt
Father was a catholic bishop, son become revolutionary. The story ended in tragedy.


I feel it necessary (as this is not the first time you've made this statement) to let you know that, here, we provide our own "proof", or evidence to support our claims. You're the one, Inquisitor, making these nearly-outlandish* claims, YOU need to support them.

Can perhaps offer you a list of literature? Then if you really are interested you will make the effort.

De Martino, M., ed. - "Sexual Behavior and Personality
Characteristics", New York, 1963
Dunn L. C., prof. & Dobzhansky Th., prof. - "Heredity, Race and
Society", New York, 1957,
Lombroso, Prof. Cesare - "Crime, its Causes and Remedies", New
York, 1918
Lombroso, Prof. Cesare - "The Face of Anarchist"
Lombroso, Prof. Cesare - "Political Crimes & Criminals"
Mannix, Daniel - "The Beast", The Degenerate Life of Aleister
Crowley, the High Priest of Satanism, New York, 1959
Mullins, Eustace - "The Biological Jew", USA, 1968
Possony, Dr. Prof. Stefan - "Lenin, The Compulsive Revolutionary",
Chicago, 1964
Stein, Dr. Leopold, M. D. - "Loathsome Women", The Witches Among Us, New York, 1959

Slipnish
October 21st, 2004, 10:32 AM
I complement you on your courage, most people would never admit it, often they wouldn't even admit it to themselves.
Yes, most if not all mental disorders are inherited. The reason there is so little evidence exists for that is because scientists view it as isolated events. For example, if one is a schizophrenic, but none of his ancesyors are, they make conclusion that it's not hereditary. Wrong. Mental disorder is not an abnourmality in itself, it's simply a form abnourmality takes. If we look deeper into a schizoprenic's ancestors we will find that: mother was experimenting with girls in college, father is into masochism and younger than mother, uncle is social-psychopath etc. ( this is purely an example).

And wrong. Don't forget WRONG. Mental disorders affect about 1% of the population. Speaking as a Qualified Mental Health and Mental Retardation Professional, as in my degree is in psychology, and I have worked both sides of that fence for 15 years, your characterizations here are little more than slander, and a LOT less than truth.

In less than PC terms, this is bull****.

The realm of psychology is fully cognizent of the role heredity takes in mental disorders of all types. The truth of the matter is, most people with mental retardation have NORMAL parents. Its a genetic flaw that causes the problem.

As for schizophrenia, the best I can give this pablum of a post is rounding, Huh? What the hell are you yapping about? award.

If your post presented the faintest inkling of an understanding about genetics, you would know exactly how much hogwash it contains. Schizophrenia, like alcolholism, has a GENETIC component. If your parents, one or both have schizophrenia, then you are MORE LIKELY to have it as well. There is no 100% solution. You may get it, but you MAY NOT. Whether your parents experimented with parafilias during college, or tie each other up to indulge in group donkey sex has absolutely no bearing on the fact.

And BTW, what is your obsession with sexuality in these threads? Is the thought of sexuality that threatening to you for some reason? Methinks I smell a rat.

At any rate, what is a "social-psychopath" for the record?


Would I be correct to assume that your ex was a jew? Jewish genes are extremly degenerative. People who have kids with jews seriously endanger their offspring's health ( both mental and physical).
I am not in position to judge you. You did what you thought is best according to information you had.
I just want to bring your attention to the following moral aspect. When one has children knowing that their genes are degenerative, it's not so much that they take the risk. It's their children who suffer the consequences. It's much like gambling with someoneelses money. One has to ask himself, do I have children for my own selfish purposes or do I have their best interest in heart? If latter is the answer, sometimes the best thing you can do for your children is not to have them.

If only it were that simple. You seem to take it for granted that the question of having children bears the same weight for all people. Obviously not everyone here, even in this small a sample agrees with you.

As for Jewish ancestory bearing ill, I would love to see some actual data on this. Some real numbers from a genetics or sociological study, if you please. Otherwise, I will ignore it as the inflammatory rhetoric, and consign it to the realm of other crap people should shut the hell up about.


No I am not teaching children, nor do I write textbooks. What I discuss here is a taboo subject. With a taboo subject, one has to make huge effort in order to find out the truth. What being taught to children usualy not the truth.
Besides it's cruel to tell children the truth.
Remember?
Eccles 1:18 For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.

You have sorrow set aside in stores then.


Of course. Illness affects the body, mental illness affects the soul.
People with certain mental disorders are literally unable to drink Holy Water. I have personally seen it on many occasions.

And on a similar note, I, having worked in the field for 15 years, have NEVER seen it. So...where does that leave us? I know a number of people with various disorders who attend church regularly, bend their lives around it, and are missed when they don't show up. Mental illness is just that. MENTAL. Nothing about the soul whatsoever. Otherwise, as some wag has already pointed out, why would earthjly medications work? And they do. Been there, done that, bought the T-Shirt, sold it in the garage sale.


I am afraid, you will find that mental disorders are almost non curable. True there are medications that can supress the illness, but usualy they only supress the symptoms.

True. So? Lots of illnesses are treatable in the same manner. We can't cure the cold, but we can treat the symptoms. We don't "suppress" the illness, we treat the symptomology. Medications are used for various things. Leveling of the mood/affect. Decrease anxiety. Increase sleep. Cessation of hallucinations. Etc.




Well there are many physical deformities. One criteria though, they must be inborn.
cross eyes, diffirent colored eys, eyes located too far( more than its width), non uniform coloring of iris, lobless ear, lop-eared, harelip, cleft palate, uneven teeth, enlarged fungs, six fingers, limping, gibbosity, large ( larger than a coin) birthmarks, multiple birthmarks or moles, lack of proportion between left and right sides of a body etc.

Who boy, when you stack it, you stack it. With skills like this you should work as a stable cleaner. It would suit the deed.

How is any of that indicative of anything? I really want to know. And for the record, guess which deformity I have? :)


The proof is all around you if you want to see it.

<b>SHOW ME THE MONEY!</B>

mrs_innocent
October 21st, 2004, 10:53 AM
Lombroso, Prof. Cesare - "Crime, its Causes and Remedies", New
York, 1918
Lombroso, Prof. Cesare - "The Face of Anarchist"
Lombroso, Prof. Cesare - "Political Crimes & Criminals"

I find it ironic that you would use Lombroso's studies as support for your claims. Lombroso's vision of biological determinism is not taken seriously within the field of Criminology anymore. In fact, Lombroso HIMSELF even recongnized later in his career that not all criminals were biological throwbacks. His studies were used only as a basis to develop Biosocial theories; or that biological factors lead to criminality ONLY in conjunction with environmental conditions. Now, you can take that or leave it. One way or another, it's not likely I'll be taking much from the rest of your "sources".

Slipnish
October 21st, 2004, 10:54 AM
Inqy You old devil. Look at this list:
Can perhaps offer you a list of literature? Then if you really are interested you will make the effort.

De Martino, M., ed. - "Sexual Behavior and Personality
Characteristics", New York, 1963
Dunn L. C., prof. & Dobzhansky Th., prof. - "Heredity, Race and
Society", New York, 1957,
Lombroso, Prof. Cesare - "Crime, its Causes and Remedies", New
York, 1918
Lombroso, Prof. Cesare - "The Face of Anarchist"
Lombroso, Prof. Cesare - "Political Crimes & Criminals"
Mannix, Daniel - "The Beast", The Degenerate Life of Aleister
Crowley, the High Priest of Satanism, New York, 1959
Mullins, Eustace - "The Biological Jew", USA, 1968
Possony, Dr. Prof. Stefan - "Lenin, The Compulsive Revolutionary",
Chicago, 1964
Stein, Dr. Leopold, M. D. - "Loathsome Women", The Witches Among Us, New York, 1959

1958 to 1968. That's your reference list? OMG, man. Its 2004, almost 2005! Your books are 40 years out of date. No wonder your views seem so archaic. Try reading something a little more modern to justify your views...

Inquisitor
October 21st, 2004, 11:32 AM
And wrong. Don't forget WRONG. Mental disorders affect about 1% of the population. Speaking as a Qualified Mental Health and Mental Retardation Professional, as in my degree is in psychology, and I have worked both sides of that fence for 15 years, your characterizations here are little more than slander, and a LOT less than truth.

STATISTICS ON MENTAL ILLNESS

SOURCES OF STATISTICS
National Institute of Mental Health; Surgeon General's Report on Mental Health; Congressional Record; USA Today - Health & Behavior "Families wait on the brink for help" by Laura Parker
STATISTICS
The second leading cause of premature death among illnesses is mental disorders.

44.3 million American adults suffer from a diagnosable mental disorder.

10 million American adults have a major depressive disorder.

2.3 million American adults have a bipolar disorder.

2.2. million American adults have schizophrenia.
http://www.schizophrenia.healthyplace2.com/custom.html


Certainly looks like more than 1%, a lot more in fact. Really, my theory is ill supported and I struggle to present suitable evidence as is. Why do you need to use such obvious lies? Don't you realise that you involuntary support my theory?

The rest I will have to address in the near future. Due to lack of time right now.

Fyshhed
October 21st, 2004, 02:22 PM
The second leading cause of premature death among illnesses is mental disorders.

44.3 million American adults suffer from a diagnosable mental disorder.

10 million American adults have a major depressive disorder.

2.3 million American adults have a bipolar disorder.

2.2. million American adults have schizophrenia.

Well according to you theories...
God must not want our population so big then.

That or the devil has control over at least 1/5 of our country.

Vorketh
October 21st, 2004, 06:50 PM
If God didn't intend for him to be born clearly he wouldn't be born. Yet, to produce one genius, Bethhoven's parents also produced much "waste".

Seems to me, that if Jesus were here, he would say that all life is precious, seeing as they are all creations of his father (or himself, whatever is the belief to any who read this).

So who are you, Quis, to call one life "waste" as compared to another?

:P

Vorketh
October 21st, 2004, 07:05 PM
Ok, I'm here, so I may as well plant where I stand.

It's all about responsibility, I feel. If you were having sex, enjoying yourself, using protection, doing all the right things, and they fail, and your partner gets pregnant, guess what? You used that condom knowing that it is only about 91% or so effective is used properly. You had sex, knowing that if your partner is fertile at the moment, there is a 9% chance of getting her pregnant. So, naturally, be a man about it and accept the consequences. Too often people try to shrug off responsibility and put the blame somewhere else. "It's not my fault the condom broke!" Well it sure was your choice to use it! So the consequences belong as well. So for this, abortion is a no-no.

Basically, in all instances where there is a foreseeable probability of impregnation, however slight, if you make a decision to go through with it, you must accept the consequences.

Any instance where there was no consent, ie rape, abortion is a valid choice. However, let me clarify that though it is legally rape to have intercourse with a highly intoxicated woman, I don't feel that abortion is justified there. The woman knew that there was a chance that she could have sex without making a fully conscious decision to do so.

Now, don't blow this out of proportion and say that one should foresee that there is a chance of getting raped while walking down the street at night and try to fight off my point - that's different, because there is no real mistake in that, we have the right to go and do as we please.

However, one exception does allow for abortion under any circumstance, I feel, and that is the life of the mother. Even pro-lifers should realize that a live mother can bear more children if she stays alive.

Well, there's my long-winded speach, and I'll step off my soapbox.

Fyshhed
October 21st, 2004, 07:17 PM
Now, don't blow this out of proportion and say that one should foresee that there is a chance of getting raped while walking down the street at night and try to fight off my point - that's different, because there is no real mistake in that, we have the right to go and do as we please.
Sorry, hole in your logic. I emboldened the problem.

You draw this conclusion:
If the consequences are forseeable, it is your responsibility. If the consequences are imaginable, but not very likely, then it is not your responsibility?

You have to draw a line between what is "forseeable" and what is "imaginable."

As for condoms, a 91% success rate does not qualify as a high enough percentage to expect success? If the intention is not to impregnate, then if Plan A fails, use plan B (morning after pill, birth control, or ultimately, induced menstruation (early abortion)).

If one is to guaruntee intercourse without impregnation, it is ultimately wisest to avoid it during ovulation. If this is somehow "unavoidable" then how much contraception is needed to have a good enough probability for you?

And if I choose to do what it takes to avoid impregnation, why not allow all the options to fulfill that decision?

Liemmaster
October 21st, 2004, 08:40 PM
Fyshhed said this "And if I choose to do what it takes to avoid impregnation, why not allow all the options to fulfill that decision?"

my answer: It ruins the sex.

Fyshhed
October 21st, 2004, 08:42 PM
my answer: It ruins the sex.
Precisely. Which is why it's generally limited to a condom. If that fails (9% is unlikely, but possible) then an alternative (morning after/BC pills) should be considered if the intentions remain.

Andacanavar
October 21st, 2004, 09:06 PM
Don't worry, it won't spread. Because normal people couldn't relate to it and degenerates will go to any lenghth to prove that it doesn't exist.

That's because it's full of crap, and "normal people" can see that.


Degenerates aren't always bad people. In fact degenerates are divided into good, bad and ugly.

Degenerates? You say they're not bad people, but you call them degenerates? I'm assuming that you're going by the biological term of it, but it's also highly insulting as well.

The bottom line is people don't think like you, for good reason. It's false. Thank whatever for that, cause you're rhetoric on this subject is crazy, at best.

Slipnish
October 21st, 2004, 09:20 PM
Over the course of a lifetime the statistics change. Serious, long term, chronic mental disorders are what I am speaking of, not the occasional serious depression a large portion of the population experiences.

A diagnosable mental disorder is not the same as a serious mental illness. Depression is extremely common, and in a LOT of cases short term and treatable. So let me clarify that mistake on my part.

Schizophrenia, bi-polar disorder, and a few others are long term conditions and those are the ones I am talking about.

http://www.nimh.nih.gov/publicat/numbers.cfm

Go there for stats. My numbers may be off by a bit, as I was going from memory instead of fact checking and I see they list schizophrenia as 1.1% and bi-polar disorder at about the same, but not by much. Oddly, this same source never lists sexual preferences as causes.

Also, many people who suffer from one disorder also suffer from another. I wonder if those are counted indepently? I couldn't find anything on it, but I was kind of interested.

I also noted that you did not respond to the actual crux of my post which was the link between "degeneracy" and mental illness, not the actual statistics. Either you have something there, or you are blowing hot air. I am banking the warm breeze is coming from your direction.

Inquisitor
October 23rd, 2004, 05:14 PM
The realm of psychology is fully cognizent of the role heredity takes in mental disorders of all types. The truth of the matter is, most people with mental retardation have NORMAL parents. Its a genetic flaw that causes the problem.

So you saying that mental disorders arehereditary, yet the same genetic flaw that causes it in the offspring, also doesn't affect normal parent? I find it hard to believe. Thousands years ago people knew " Good tree, bears good fruit".


If your post presented the faintest inkling of an understanding about genetics, you would know exactly how much hogwash it contains. Schizophrenia, like alcolholism, has a GENETIC component. If your parents, one or both have schizophrenia, then you are MORE LIKELY to have it as well. There is no 100% solution. You may get it, but you MAY NOT. Whether your parents experimented with parafilias during college, or tie each other up to indulge in group donkey sex has absolutely no bearing on the fact.

Sexual perversions aren't so much the cause but rather a sign. A sexual pervert is a degenerate. A degenerate's offspring will be deffective in some way. Really the only cause of degeneracy which is a 100% certain is inbreeding.


As for Jewish ancestory bearing ill, I would love to see some actual data on this. Some real numbers from a genetics or sociological study, if you please. Otherwise, I will ignore it as the inflammatory rhetoric, and consign it to the realm of other crap people should shut the hell up about.

Judaism encourages inbreeding, moreover, jews have historically abstained from mariage with non-jews. Therefore, being the most inbread ethnicity, jews have the highest incidence of degeneracy. As a result mentall ilness and genetic disorder would also be very prevalent. I am surprised you haven't noticed this working in the field.
Understandable that such facts aren't exactly well known and no researcher will get a grant to look into it. Yet, in late19th early 20th century. Every good psychologist knew this about jews. For example Lombrozo in his " Genius and insanity" says that jews are 4-6 times more likely to have a serious mental disorder as compared to other Europeans.


True. So? Lots of illnesses are treatable in the same manner. We can't cure the cold, but we can treat the symptoms. We don't "suppress" the illness, we treat the symptomology. Medications are used for various things. Leveling of the mood/affect. Decrease anxiety. Increase sleep. Cessation of hallucinations. Etc.

I weren't arguing that this is anyones fault that mental disorders aren't treatable. I just wanted to use it as evidence for genetic nature of such disorders.


Who boy, when you stack it, you stack it. With skills like this you should work as a stable cleaner. It would suit the deed.

How is any of that indicative of anything? I really want to know. And for the record, guess which deformity I have?

looks like I really hit the spot. ;) Once again working in the field you couldn't ignore the fact that physical deformities are more prevalent among mentally ill. Unless of course you try hard no to notice.

I cannot possibly know which particular deformity you might have. Yet, the mere fact that you choose to work with mentally ill shows that you are a degenerate as well ( no offence).


I find it ironic that you would use Lombroso's studies as support for your claims. Lombroso's vision of biological determinism is not taken seriously within the field of Criminology anymore. In fact, Lombroso HIMSELF even recongnized later in his career that not all criminals were biological throwbacks. His studies were used only as a basis to develop Biosocial theories; or that biological factors lead to criminality ONLY in conjunction with environmental conditions. Now, you can take that or leave it. One way or another, it's not likely I'll be taking much from the rest of your "sources".

Lombroso is the father of criminology. I prefer to make my own opinion of the source. The fact that modern PC scientist have discredited him is irrelevant to me. These same PC psychologists would conduct studies and find evidence for whatever it is in fashion these days.
Lombroso on the other hand ( despite being a jew) is an honest person. He was in charge of all the mental institutions in Italy and Germany and thus had plenty of scientific data to analyse. His diciple Max Nordau for example wrote a book that he simply called "Degeneration". So before you disregard Lombrozo and other sources, I suggest you learn about them first hand.


1958 to 1968. That's your reference list? OMG, man. Its 2004, almost 2005! Your books are 40 years out of date. No wonder your views seem so archaic. Try reading something a little more modern to justify your views...

A new idea is not better than an old. What makes an idea correct, is whether it coherently explains the world about us. Modern theories do not. Since there is no hard evidence, I prefer to use older, yet more coherent and less PC theories.


That or the devil has control over at least 1/5 of our country.

Usualy in a developed ountry such as the USA about 37% of population are in different stages of degeneracy ( possesed by devil). This is why it says in the Bible:
Mark 5:9 And he asked him, What is thy name? And he answered, saying, My name is Legion: for we are many.


However, one exception does allow for abortion under any circumstance, I feel, and that is the life of the mother. Even pro-lifers should realize that a live mother can bear more children if she stays alive.

I agree with you here.


That's because it's full of crap, and "normal people" can see that.

Somehow I feel, you consider youself normal? Based on what?


Degenerates? You say they're not bad people, but you call them degenerates? I'm assuming that you're going by the biological term of it, but it's also highly insulting as well.

Degeneracy is a medical term and as such is not offensive. Besides many people who achieved a lot in science were degenerates ( e.g. Einstein).


Go there for stats. My numbers may be off by a bit, as I was going from memory instead of fact checking and I see they list schizophrenia as 1.1% and bi-polar disorder at about the same, but not by much. Oddly, this same source never lists sexual preferences as causes.

This is more likely. Yet, even a non severe mental disorder is little fun.


I also noted that you did not respond to the actual crux of my post which was the link between "degeneracy" and mental illness, not the actual statistics. Either you have something there, or you are blowing hot air. I am banking the warm breeze is coming from your direction.

Degeneracy is accumaleted genetic disorder. You agreed that mental disorders are hereditry, caused by a " genetic flaw". So we both agree on the same thing.

mrs_innocent
October 23rd, 2004, 05:20 PM
Lombroso is the father of criminology. I prefer to make my own opinion of the source. The fact that modern PC scientist have discredited him is irrelevant to me. These same PC psychologists would conduct studies and find evidence for whatever it is in fashion these days.
Lombroso on the other hand ( despite being a jew) is an honest person. He was in charge of all the mental institutions in Italy and Germany and thus had plenty of scientific data to analyse. His diciple Max Nordau for example wrote a book that he simply called "Degeneration".

I've made no mention of the "PC scientist". Reread please. This time, please make special note of "Lombroso himself...". I find it fascinating that, not only do you know more about human nature, genetics, criminality, the human mind, Christianity, Jesus/god, etc...than everyone else, but now you even know Lombroso better than Lombroso himself did. Absolutely amazing.


So before you disregard Lombrozo and other sources, I suggest you learn about them first hand.

Should I have mentioned that I am studying Criminology as we speak? Didn't realize it was relevant... ;?

Fyshhed
October 23rd, 2004, 06:22 PM
So you saying that mental disorders arehereditary, yet the same genetic flaw that causes it in the offspring, also doesn't affect normal parent? I find it hard to believe. Thousands years ago people knew " Good tree, bears good fruit".
Read basic gene inheritance in a biology book. It discusses phenotype gaps in heredity and the criteria for passing them on.





Sexual perversions aren't so much the cause but rather a sign. A sexual pervert is a degenerate. A degenerate's offspring will be deffective in some way. Really the only cause of degeneracy which is a 100% certain is inbreeding.
Insane claim. Prove it.




Judaism encourages inbreeding,
stopped reading after this line.



I weren't arguing that this is anyones fault that mental disorders aren't treatable. I just wanted to use it as evidence for genetic nature of such disorders.
Judaism =/=genetics. I beg of you, how do converts fit in here?




looks like I really hit the spot. ;) Once again working in the field you couldn't ignore the fact that physical deformities are more prevalent among mentally ill. Unless of course you try hard no to notice.



I cannot possibly know which particular deformity you might have. Yet, the mere fact that you choose to work with mentally ill shows that you are a degenerate as well ( no offence).
Jesus was compassionate. Why aren't you? :evil: You must be Jewish too!




Lombroso is the father of criminology. I prefer to make my own opinion of the source. The fact that modern PC scientist have discredited him is irrelevant to me. These same PC psychologists would conduct studies and find evidence for whatever it is in fashion these days.
Old science is always replaced with more accurate science. Prove your claim.


Lombroso on the other hand ( despite being a jew) is an honest person.
Sorry, you can't just change the rules for certain people. You're committing the same opinionated trash logic that you despise so much. Please, help yourself to some more hypocrisy.



A new idea is not better than an old. What makes an idea correct, is whether it coherently explains the world about us. Modern theories do not. Since there is no hard evidence, I prefer to use older, yet more coherent and less PC theories.
/\ /\ /\
This isn't debate. This is poking your eyes out and telling people what they see. I can't find out where to begin on debunking you. Let's start with "Science functions through evolution."





Usualy in a developed ountry such as the USA about 37% of population are in different stages of degeneracy ( possesed by devil). This is why it says in the Bible:
Mark 5:9 And he asked him, What is thy name? And he answered, saying, My name is Legion: for we are many.
Uh oh. Does this mean you have a chance of being demonic too? :evil: :evil: :evil:



Somehow I feel, you consider youself normal? Based on what? I'd like to ask you the same question.




Degeneracy is a medical term and as such is not offensive. Besides many people who achieved a lot in science were degenerates ( e.g. Einstein).
Because he was Jewish? I suspect he accomplished more and better things than you might ever. What does that make you? ;)




Degeneracy is accumaleted genetic disorder. You agreed that mental disorders are hereditry, caused by a " genetic flaw". So we both agree on the same thing.

Hardly. Judiasm not being genetic, degeneracy being opinion, and mental disorders being compound products of heredity and environment, you're pretty much wrong all across the board.

:):):)

Have a nice day, try not to degenerate any more.

PallidaMors
October 24th, 2004, 03:49 PM
A new idea is not better than an old. What makes an idea correct, is whether it coherently explains the world about us. Modern theories do not. Since there is no hard evidence, I prefer to use older, yet more coherent and less PC theories.

FINALLY
someone who agrees with me! Stupid PC theories.

Also, for future reference on ODN:

-The moon is made of cheese
-The earth IS flat
-Santa Claus is real
-The sun revolves around the earth
-NASA never went to the moon, they just went to Wisconsin and made the whole thing up out of FAKE Lunar Cheese (those bastards!)
-all science is fake
-Jews are children of the devil
-Inquisitor is an intelligent, well read debator, and I'll thank you to stop calling him and his theories bad names. By the way did you know he is a respected author as well? He is a humor columnist for Bigots Weekly. His style has been described as a cross between Bombeck, Berry, Manson, and Hitler. Witty and full of hatred! Check your local newsstand....

FruitandNut
October 24th, 2004, 11:31 PM
Well according to you theories...
God must not want our population so big then.

That or the devil has control over at least 1/5 of our country.

Some people have skewed ideas about what is righteous, Fishy. Most depressive illness and a very significant amount of suicides are socially engineered. Selfishness, politics and the way economies are run, are at the centre of much mental anomie.

Abuse. Prejudice. Marginalisation. Lack of employment. Poverty. Stressful employment. Lack of control over one's own life. -And much, much more. Whether God or the Devil, or just human nature (or some king of combo), is behind it all is open to sujective personal appraisal.


PM: We all know the earth is flat and held up by turtles, elephants and Atlas taking shifts.

WHAT no Santee Claus - who is going to look after Rudolph, Prancer and Dancer et al; and who is going to oversee running the toy workshop at the North Pole????

You will be telling us that there is no such thing as fairies next - I have seen a few, honest. -And there is our own Tinkerbell on this site.

Vorketh
October 25th, 2004, 03:35 AM
You will be telling us that there is no such thing as fairies next - I have seen a few, honest. -And there is our own Tinkerbell on this site.

Luckily, Tinkerbell is a pixie, not a fairy. :lol: :*

Inquisitor
October 25th, 2004, 06:48 AM
I've made no mention of the "PC scientist". Reread please. This time, please make special note of "Lombroso himself...". I find it fascinating that, not only do you know more about human nature, genetics, criminality, the human mind, Christianity, Jesus/god, etc...than everyone else, but now you even know Lombroso better than Lombroso himself did. Absolutely amazing.

I have never claimed that I know these subjects better than everyone else. All I am trying to do is to present a theory which I find a lot more consistent than what is being fed to general population by mass media and academia.
As to Lombrozo, I have read his books and found them to be very interesting and informative. This is my statement about him in a nutshell.


Should I have mentioned that I am studying Criminology as we speak? Didn't realize it was relevant...

Excellent. Then, should you choose to work in the field, you would see how relevant this theory is. Do you have to read Lombrozo as part of you studies?


stopped reading after this line.

Well, so did Pavlov's dogs "Dripped Saliva at the Sound of a Bell". The liability to conditioning is not something to be proud of.


Judaism =/=genetics. I beg of you, how do converts fit in here?

"In fact marriages between uncles and nieces are permissible in Jewish canon law and a specific form of cousin marriage between the children of brothers is advocated as a preferred form in certain circumstances. "
http://www.umanitoba.ca/faculties/arts/anthropology/tutor/case_studies/hebrews/marriage.html

What we see here is a religion dedicated to increase degeneracy via encouraging inbreeding. Obviously converts to Judaism are degenerates of the highest order.


Uh oh. Does this mean you have a chance of being demonic too?

Chance? I most certainly am a degenerate.
" It takes a thief to catch a thief", remember?


Because he was Jewish? I suspect he accomplished more and better things than you might ever. What does that make you?

Einstein may be a great scientist, but he was immoral person.
"His unceasing flirtation with women, his disregard for other people's feelings, and his inability to achieve intimacy destroyed both marriages. For the last 22 years of his life he never visited his youngest son, Eduard, who spent most of his adulthood either in mental institutions or under the care of a guardian. "
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/031213147X/103-4367665-7362243?v=glance&vi=reviews

Noticed about son in mental institution? Remember traits of degeneracy ( sexual perversions, mental disorders, physical deformities)?

FruitandNut
October 25th, 2004, 08:50 AM
Luckily, Tinkerbell is a pixie, not a fairy. :lol: :*

In 'Peter Pan' poor old Tinks nearly expired because either Wendy or Peter said something about 'not believing in Fairies'. She nearly lost all her 'fairy dust'!!!!!!

Vorketh
October 25th, 2004, 08:57 AM
In 'Peter Pan' poor old Tinks nearly expired because either Wendy or Peter said something about 'not believing in Fairies'. She nearly lost all her 'fairy dust'!!!!!!

Then I guess Tink is doomed! NOOoooOOOO!!! :(

Slipnish
October 28th, 2004, 10:24 AM
So you saying that mental disorders arehereditary, yet the same genetic flaw that causes it in the offspring, also doesn't affect normal parent? I find it hard to believe. Thousands years ago people knew " Good tree, bears good fruit".

Your failing here is to understand the meaning of the words, "recessive genes" I'm afraid. A person can be a carrier of something, not be affected by it, and pass it on to offspring, or in the cases of some illnesses, the population around them. Pay attention to the "fragile x' and trisomy sections of the article. Mmmm-Kay?

Here's a good link on some of the MANY causes of retardation:

http://specialed.freeyellow.com/YAdaptUse.html

And a so-so link to causes of Mental Illness:

http://www.seorf.ohiou.edu/~xx091/causes.html


Sexual perversions aren't so much the cause but rather a sign. A sexual pervert is a degenerate. A degenerate's offspring will be deffective in some way. Really the only cause of degeneracy which is a 100% certain is inbreeding.

That isn't a certainty either. Genetics has grown a bit since this view was popular. Generations can inbreed several times before any genetic abnormality shows up. Just for the record, and to make sure we are on the same page, define "sexual pervert." What constitutes one? How do you draw the line between simple sex, and perversion? Where do you draw the line? Is it the same for everyone, or does marital status change it, and if so, how?


Judaism encourages inbreeding, moreover, jews have historically abstained from mariage with non-jews. Therefore, being the most inbread ethnicity, jews have the highest incidence of degeneracy.

You ignorance of genetics is inherent in this statement. As long as the population is large enough, you can keep the population going without risk of genetic damage. It doesn't matter that they share a common ancestory, provided it goes far enough back. And the Jewish heritage is long lived indeed.



As a result mentall ilness and genetic disorder would also be very prevalent. I am surprised you haven't noticed this working in the field.

Oddly, I have NEVER seen a Jewish person come through our center. I have counted endless reams of bible thumpers and overly religious zealots who preached Christianity to the heavens, the assembled staff, and anyone else who had to listen.

Fact, not supposition.


Understandable that such facts aren't exactly well known and no researcher will get a grant to look into it. Yet, in late19th early 20th century. Every good psychologist knew this about jews. For example Lombrozo in his " Genius and insanity" says that jews are 4-6 times more likely to have a serious mental disorder as compared to other Europeans.

I suspect bias in the study. For the record, I suspect bias in his work, whoever he is.

<blockquote>Major mental disorders like schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, depression, and panic disorder are found worldwide, across all racial and ethnic groups. They have been found across the globe, wherever researchers have surveyed. In the United States, the overall annual prevalence of mental disorders is about 21 percent of adults and children (DHHS, 1999). <b>This Supplement finds that, based on the available evidence, the prevalence of mental disorders for racial and ethnic minorities in the United States is similar to that for whites.</blockquote></b>
http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/mentalhealth/cre/execsummary-2.html

Bold added for emphasis as relative to the argument.

Here's a Jewish perspective:

<blockquote>The Jewish Perspective. The Bible includes many statements concerning the obligation to maintain one's health. We are urged to preserve life (Deuteronomy, 30:19) and to "Be exceedingly heedful of yourselves..." (Deuteronomy, 4:15). Health maintenance also includes the responsibility to take care of the self: "The soul that I have placed in you, sustain it". Thus, our tradition teaches that good health encompasses not only the physical dimension, but also the mental, and that the obligation to maintain mental health is an important component of the broader obligation to preserve health. </blockquote>

And from further in the article:

<blockquote>The General Perspective. More than 50 million adults - nearly 25% of the U.S. adult population - annually suffer from mental disorders or substance abuse disorders (American Psychiatric Association). Mental illnesses can affect persons of any age, race, religion, or income. These illnesses have a great impact on society. Four of the top ten leading causes of disability are mental illnesses including clinical depression, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia and obsessive compulsive disorder. The estimated cost of mental health care is over $150 billion per year. </blockquote>

http://www.mjccr.org/mentalhealth1.html

This is just a random Jewish Web Site on Mental Health. There are tons. You should check them out.

I find the LACK of attribution of any disorder in the site to be of interest. Since Jews are degenerates, and degernerates have more disorders (according to you) I see no call to arms to stop or pay attention to any particular cause/illness/disorder. Even more interesting is the opening salvo from the Talmud and the Bible.

At any rate, a perusal of Google lead me to the conclusion that your assertions are incorrect. At least as far as the 21st century is concerned.


looks like I really hit the spot. ;) Once again working in the field you couldn't ignore the fact that physical deformities are more prevalent among mentally ill. Unless of course you try hard no to notice.

Uhm, actually I haven't noticed that. I do know that people with mental illness usually fall into poverty categories and that therefore they have less access to medical treatment and so on. I don't know of any studies, but it might be reasonable to assume they are less physically healthy than a "normal" person. I don't know about the rest of this drivel.


I cannot possibly know which particular deformity you might have.

A strawberry birthmrk on the back of one thigh. Its faded over the years, but by your criteria, I am "marked."


Yet, the mere fact that you choose to work with mentally ill shows that you are a degenerate as well ( no offence).

Well ya see, its comments like this that make me want to talk about your mama, but since she treats me so well, I won't do her like that. We'll just leave this one alone, mmmm-Kay? :* (no offence)


A new idea is not better than an old. What makes an idea correct, is whether it coherently explains the world about us. Modern theories do not. Since there is no hard evidence, I prefer to use older, yet more coherent and less PC theories.

So, despite the fact that your source is discredited by more recent research, you cling to whatever you feel comfortable with? Tell me, do you ride a horse to work, assuming you do work, instead of driving a car, or light candles rather than use electricity?


Usualy in a developed ountry such as the USA about 37% of population are in different stages of degeneracy ( possesed by devil). This is why it says in the Bible:
Mark 5:9 And he asked him, What is thy name? And he answered, saying, My name is Legion: for we are many.

And about 67% of all statistics are made up on the spot. Your point? Should that be true, what could be done about it? If it isn't true, and I think it isn't, then so what again? People are just people.


Somehow I feel, you consider youself normal? Based on what?

Well, the more I read your posts, and the more I find myself disagreeing with YOUR particular ideology, continues to convince me that I ain't the one putting my pants on over my head every morning. ;)


Degeneracy is a medical term and as such is not offensive. Besides many people who achieved a lot in science were degenerates ( e.g. Einstein).

It might have been a term used in the 1920s, but in 2004, I would LOVE to see you list a modern text that uses it.


Degeneracy is accumaleted genetic disorder. You agreed that mental disorders are hereditry, caused by a " genetic flaw". So we both agree on the same thing.

No we sure as hell don't. Mental disorders are NOT degeneeracy as YOU put it, nor is heredity the SOLE cause. Genetics certainly plays a role in it, but it is NOT the sole harbinger of doom. Environmental factors, trauma, lots of other things can cause mental illness.

(Any bets on a sock puppet, anyone?)

PallidaMors
October 28th, 2004, 12:40 PM
PM: We all know the earth is flat and held up by turtles, elephants and Atlas taking shifts.

WHAT no Santee Claus - who is going to look after Rudolph, Prancer and Dancer et al; and who is going to oversee running the toy workshop at the North Pole????

You will be telling us that there is no such thing as fairies next - I have seen a few, honest. -And there is our own Tinkerbell on this site.
No worries FN! Santa is REAL! So are fairies, pixies, and Tinkerbells! The reindeer are already well taken care of, but luckily for us, NOT by Jews! Whew! That was a close one! Because by default, if the reindeer are taken care of by Jews, they become Jews too, and subsequently, children of the devil and *GASP* degenerates! Jewish reindeer! Run for the hills!