Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!
Controversial Paper
AfroSpatula
Registered User
Registered User
I had to write an Opinion and Persuasion paper for my college class, and I was thinking you guys (and girls) might be interested in my topic:
Genetic Cleansing
There is a disturbing trend happening today. Unhealthy people are reproducing with other unhealthy people and producing children with fatal diseases, and the hospitals will work as hard as possible to keep this child alive; the baby has no working organs, but the doctors will work tirelessly to save its life. There should be a point in society where we say, "This baby has no reason to be saved." A society needs to decide when destroying a child and the disease it carries is worth more than saving it. To better our country, one method is genetic cleansing, or eugenics. It calls for a selective social method of promoting healthy genes for future generations. It requires the elimination of social graces and the evaluation of the present versus the future. If done properly, eugenics can save millions of lives.
There is an alternative to this view, one of hope and love. Human life is precious and shouldn't be eliminated just because the baby might be carrying a fatal disease. Babies are helpless and cannot speak for themselves; if they can't explain their opinion of their state of being then we shouldn't decide for them. The fate of the ill child should be decided by the parent, or ultimately by the illness of the child. If we base our society on one "perfect specimen" we will end up no more well off than the Nazi Party.
But there are reasons for genetic cleansing beyond the parent's plight, the baby's life, that certain view of human life. Those are all noble views, but consider . Cystic fibrosis is a foul disease that affects about 30,000 people in the United States today. It causes the blood to be clogged by mucus and the lungs to be filled to the point of total disuse. It is an inheritable disease that could be be wiped from the current population. Polycystic kidney disease is a painful illness that causes irreversible damage to several major internal organs. It will inflict renal failure and ultimately death on about 500,000 people living with the disease today. Two of three forms of this disease are inheritable. Both of these illnesses can be stopped through genetic cleansing, saving hundreds of thousands, even millions of lives in the future. The research funds being used to find these cures can be transferred to unsavory diseases, such as cancer and alzheimer's disease, AIDS and HIV.
When applying genetic cleansing to the country's policies and politics, they must use serene thought, cold and calculating sense, total foresight and a disregard of present fears. To implement the cleansing process, you must first bypass the public opinion, then implement the process of patient sterilization needed for the program to work. Fortunately we have hospitals today for delivering babies, so find those diseased children and parents we need to sterilize. As the parents are being analyzed and their children born, a board of judges should simultaneously be checking the parents' records of inheritable ailments to decide if the parents and child (and existing children) should be given preventative measures from future pregnancy. As the number of parents with these diseases dwindles, the future cases will shrivel in a few generations. We can then apply the resources saved to less directly curable diseases.
There are a great number of advantages to this process of elimination. There will be fewer ill people in the future. There will be a lessened fear of overpopulation and global starvation. The people sterilized will be able to live out their life as happy as they want to be; their children will have an entire life to live. The outside unafflicted populace will see an increase in job opportunities. Hospitals will see a reduction in the people who come to them in duress and will be able to treat a greater number of people per year. Entire charities can be disbanded and the money sent to other charities, allowing them to find their cures faster.
This view isn't new, since it was developed in the late 19th century, but all the previous thinkers considered behavioral flaws like alcoholism, deviance, and depression as diseases. This modern, revised plan sees these for what they are: non-inheritable problems. There must be a careful management of eugenics, because if it is done wrong, there could be terrible consequences. But if eugenics is enacted properly, it can save millions of lives.
Andrew S.
Genetic Cleansing
There is a disturbing trend happening today. Unhealthy people are reproducing with other unhealthy people and producing children with fatal diseases, and the hospitals will work as hard as possible to keep this child alive; the baby has no working organs, but the doctors will work tirelessly to save its life. There should be a point in society where we say, "This baby has no reason to be saved." A society needs to decide when destroying a child and the disease it carries is worth more than saving it. To better our country, one method is genetic cleansing, or eugenics. It calls for a selective social method of promoting healthy genes for future generations. It requires the elimination of social graces and the evaluation of the present versus the future. If done properly, eugenics can save millions of lives.
There is an alternative to this view, one of hope and love. Human life is precious and shouldn't be eliminated just because the baby might be carrying a fatal disease. Babies are helpless and cannot speak for themselves; if they can't explain their opinion of their state of being then we shouldn't decide for them. The fate of the ill child should be decided by the parent, or ultimately by the illness of the child. If we base our society on one "perfect specimen" we will end up no more well off than the Nazi Party.
But there are reasons for genetic cleansing beyond the parent's plight, the baby's life, that certain view of human life. Those are all noble views, but consider . Cystic fibrosis is a foul disease that affects about 30,000 people in the United States today. It causes the blood to be clogged by mucus and the lungs to be filled to the point of total disuse. It is an inheritable disease that could be be wiped from the current population. Polycystic kidney disease is a painful illness that causes irreversible damage to several major internal organs. It will inflict renal failure and ultimately death on about 500,000 people living with the disease today. Two of three forms of this disease are inheritable. Both of these illnesses can be stopped through genetic cleansing, saving hundreds of thousands, even millions of lives in the future. The research funds being used to find these cures can be transferred to unsavory diseases, such as cancer and alzheimer's disease, AIDS and HIV.
When applying genetic cleansing to the country's policies and politics, they must use serene thought, cold and calculating sense, total foresight and a disregard of present fears. To implement the cleansing process, you must first bypass the public opinion, then implement the process of patient sterilization needed for the program to work. Fortunately we have hospitals today for delivering babies, so find those diseased children and parents we need to sterilize. As the parents are being analyzed and their children born, a board of judges should simultaneously be checking the parents' records of inheritable ailments to decide if the parents and child (and existing children) should be given preventative measures from future pregnancy. As the number of parents with these diseases dwindles, the future cases will shrivel in a few generations. We can then apply the resources saved to less directly curable diseases.
There are a great number of advantages to this process of elimination. There will be fewer ill people in the future. There will be a lessened fear of overpopulation and global starvation. The people sterilized will be able to live out their life as happy as they want to be; their children will have an entire life to live. The outside unafflicted populace will see an increase in job opportunities. Hospitals will see a reduction in the people who come to them in duress and will be able to treat a greater number of people per year. Entire charities can be disbanded and the money sent to other charities, allowing them to find their cures faster.
This view isn't new, since it was developed in the late 19th century, but all the previous thinkers considered behavioral flaws like alcoholism, deviance, and depression as diseases. This modern, revised plan sees these for what they are: non-inheritable problems. There must be a careful management of eugenics, because if it is done wrong, there could be terrible consequences. But if eugenics is enacted properly, it can save millions of lives.
Andrew S.
AfroSpatula on
Edgewood wrote:So I was cutting my penis off the other day when I realized... it's hard to mix snacks.
Kusugattai, on AfroSpatula wrote:I don't like you.
Posts
The main fault with the paper is that you don't really (other than a fleeting reference to the Nazi party) acknowledge the history of social darwinism and eugenics. It's not a new idea. Depending on how well educated your audience is, it's most likely going to come off as ignorant.
If this is satire, I think you're going to have to stick your tongue a bit further into your cheek, because at this time the paper sounds scarily serious. If, on the other hand, you are really trying to convince people, get rid of stuff like "the burdensome task of childraising" and "a reduction in inner-city traffic congestion". At the moment the paper is an awkward half-way point where you're bound to be misunderstood.
BTW, Nazis are only in there because that is a prevalent argument from opponents: with genetic cleansing being enacted, we are one step from Hitler.
The second paragraph is the counter-argument.
In addition, this was intended to be both deadly serious and entirely infuriating to the opponents of eugenics. That's how our class enjoys their debates.
*I will be updating the paper soon.
Sheri Baldwin Photography | Facebook | Twitter | Etsy Shop
Also, just drop the "eugenics" and social darwinism somewhere in the introduction. that should be enough.
Also, I have mixed feelings about page/word limits/requirements. On one hand, they force you to be concise or thorough. Word limits are certainly better than word requirements-- it is much easier to cut things out than it is to pad a paper to reach some asinine length requirement.
I prefer a good ol' '5-7 pages' (or whatever) requirement, so you have something to shoot for. So you go over seven pages? No big deal. So you're a word or two under five? Whatever. For more than one paper I wrote last year, I just had so much information, that there was no way I could keep it within the page limitations. And both the professors I turned them in to said that was just fine. They are pretty awesome profs.
But really, I'm getting off topic. Sorry.
Sheri Baldwin Photography | Facebook | Twitter | Etsy Shop