MJC

Why?

Surely in this case the survival of the fittest is correct

cutina

You mean only in terms of the death penalty, or in general? If you don't belive in it in general, then you can't really apply it here.

If you do, you could hide in the bushes and pick them off

MJC

A mentally ill bloke - that hadn't hurt anyone before killed a bloke in an underground station a few years ago. he's now out. if he stops taking his tablet's he'll do it again. It could be you husband/wife kiddies who get stabbed in the eye.

Sorry, you were saying?

cutina

I'm sorry, but that just doesn't work of me.

I think you'll find that you can't judge people for what they haven't done.

Where would your limit be? and if you do feel strongly about it, why don't you go pick them off? Probably because that would make YOU a murderer

sorry, you were saying?

MJC

I didn't say that, I said, AFTER he had killed that guy, he is now out on the streets, he kills my kids, I have no sympathy, he should not be there to do the crime again. He should be dead, in the same way that a rapist should be hanged, we should exterminate the vermin in the world, we'd all be a far lot safer because of it!

cutina

Okay, I understand what you are saying, it is a fair point, even if I don't fully agree with you about how to deal with those who commit these crimes.

But about the survival of the fittest thing; does that apply to 'ill' people as well as 'mentally ill' people. I was interested because I think the question of survival of the the fittest (AKA evolution) is an interesting one for modern society.

tina

MJC

Unfortunately, whether we believe in it or not, it happens, a few years ago some health authority in Uk wanted to sterilise a mentally disabled (can I say that or is not PC. who cares?) woman, she was 25 or so but had the mental age of a 6yo. Where they right? She plainly couldn't look after the child. I'm not saying chuck them in a workhouse, but there should be limits....

cutina

At Cold Spring Harbor Labs, Long Island, they have a website which deals with the area's dark past with regard to eugenics. http://www.eugenicsarchive.org/eugenics/list3.pl

they tried to use genetic 'evidence' to stop reproduction of people with 'bad traits' and encourage those with 'good traits'. This was based on behaviour, along with other traits, and ended in suppression of immigration and sterilisation. The general opinion in looking back at these examples of trying to get rid of unwanted behaviour in society, is that it was not only morally wrong, but in hindsight was also scientifically floored.

I am really surprised to hear that it can still happen in modern society. Thanks for the information.

gruffbrown

Didn't we put people on trial after WW2 in Nurenberg for sterilising people with 'learning difficulties'? We haven't come very far in those 60 years have we?

MJC

I wasn't saying that, all I said was a 6 yo girl (whether or not she has the body of a 25yo) is not mature enough to take responsibility for the results that her actions.

cutina

i completely understood what you were saying. Was just saying that this isn't the first time this kind of thing has been debated, and that you might be interested in the site, 'tis all. It's a tough issue.

MJC

Is it just me Cuty, or are we beginning to sort of agree on some stuff.

Now that IS scary!

tony126

I do not think there should be an exception for a Police Officer but as the question was a yes or no situation I had to come down on the side of life.

MJC

And if it was a serial paedophile that killed your granddaughter?

Thydney

It was a bit more than that.

But it still didn't stop scientists using their findings in modern medicine. They were just doing things that a lot of scientists would like to do. (I hasten to add I do not condone what Mengele and co did)