I had a very interesting thought today, and I want to share it with you. This isn’t based on any scientific evidence, nor am I suggesting that I am right. But perhaps others are thinking the same thing. That Genetic Defects are a part of the evolutionary process and that perhaps they are there to help reduce the number of defects.
I never said it was politically correct. I’m also not forcing you to read on. This is my hypothesis.
Genetic Defects form part of the basic evolutionary process. In all animals, a defect passed down from generation to generation through their genetic make up would result in decreased population. This would be due to more illness within the group. Without intervention, this would over time reduce their numbers substantially to a point where the defect may die out.
What does this all mean?
Well what if the genetic issues that we have today are there to help make the species a stronger group? It could be that these illnesses are meant to reduce the likelihood that it will be passed down to another generation. This could be due to some members of a generation passing away before being about to reproduce, or not having the ability to reproduce. Slowly, those with the genetic issue become fewer and fewer. This seems like evolution at work.
So by studying genetics are we short-circuiting the evolutionary process? Perhaps when people have their children scanned and decide not to continue the pregnancy due to a defect, we are in fact assisting evolution. Perhaps by being able to keep people who have this defects alive and healthy longer we are increasing the time it would take for the defect to disappear naturally. It’s a very controversial subject and trust me when I say I don’t really know where I stand on this.
If we are in fact shortcutting the process, should we be allowed to choose whether we only do it for good reasons? Who decides what the definition of good reason is anyway? How can we really be sure whether we are doing the right or wrong thing when it comes to evolution? Some will say religion, and I think that is important to touch on.
When we are looking at the scientific process, and trying to determine whether it is the ‘right’ thing to do, why are religious moral values trotted out. Surely the last thing that a good scientist is going to do is wonder whether the Spaghetti Monster would want him to do it. So why is it when we start talking about genetic research and stem cell technology do we start looking at the religious moral code to determine where we as a people stand on these issues?
Perhaps it shouldn’t be up to the people. Perhaps it needs to be left up to science to determine which is the right thing to do. Perhaps we need to study these issues so that we can understand them better and make the correct choices for the benefit of all, not the benefit of a few. We don’t need guidance from above to understand that we need to take all the evidence we can and determine bad from good, wrong from right using a sound process.
Using just religious arguments is not using sound evidence and a sound process.
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has recently been asked to comment on her views regarding Reproductive Rights and Family Planning, including abortion. Rather than summarise, here is the YouTube video of the question and her answer.
There will be those who disagree with her view and you are entitled to that right. I am with Secretary Clinton on this one. It must be the individual’s right to choose whether abortion is suitable for them. Providing good family planning advice, including information about contraception and safer sex practices is important no matter where you live. Providing the tools for girls and boys, men and women to make sound and informed decisions is much more important than running scare mongering campaigns.
Teaching kids about sex is just as important as teaching them about other physical health issues and perhaps even more so in some cases. They are not resistant to hormones and need to have the information available to think for themselves. Providing them with age appropriate education in a safe environment is important. If parents want to opt their children out then we shouldn’t stop them. But we shouldn’t allow a group to force their views on abortion, sex education or family planning on anyone else.
If your deity, your moral values or your ideological view of society says that it is wrong to have an abortion, then you do what you need to do. Let other women decide for themselves and do whatever they decide they need to do.
I’ve been thinking more about the issues I mentioned in my previous post on child discipline. The consensus (that being two commentators, for the record) is that any form of physical discipline is abuse. So it appears that I’m old fashioned and probably should never have children myself. It’s also been suggested to me that physical discipline only comes from the parent’s frustration/anger at the child not following directions. So now I’m wondering, should people need to sit a parenting test and get a licence?
That might seem far fetched and out of touch, but lets think about this for a minute.
It seems that the courts and the child advocate groups have decided that you cannot discipline using excessive physical force. So where is the line in the sand? Some say that any force is excessive. Some say that using a weapon (for example, a belt or a cane) is where the line should be drawn. So already we have a blurred line from which to work from. So lets clear it up.
Lets make it illegal to use any force against a child. No hand smacking, belts, cords, canes, hitting or slapping. Nothing.
Parents are then left with reason, talking, positive parenting techniques and all sorts of other stuff that the Super Nanny would probably prescribe. How is the average Australian parent meant to keep abreast of the currently worlds best discipline techniques? If parents are only to use whatever means the child advocacy groups feel is best, then what options are available?
Lets gather all people who are capable of having a child and license them. Then they can do a course similar to a first aid course, a basic parenting course. Make them sit through a course teaching all the current parenting techniques and demonstrate the use of them through role play. If they pass, they get a licence and are now allowed to have children. Perhaps if you fail you are sterilised temporarily until you can pass. We don’t want just anyone having a child.
What if we make it a requirement to attend a yearly refresher to keep their skills up to date? That’s a revenue raiser for the Government or child advocacy groups, who could tender for the right to teach these courses. Imagine a generation of parents being taught by Hetty Johnson the rights and wrongs of child rearing, as well as the world in general. Sounds like a fun Sunday afternoon.
We need to carefully consider what we teach in these courses though. Twenty years ago people would have laughed to suggest that using a cane or belt on a child would get them into court. Not any more. So what is to say that some of the current worlds best practices are not going to go the same way in another twenty years? Could the naughty step been seen as psychologically damaging to the child in the future, and we’ll have to go to court for using that too?
It has almost gotten to the point where its too hard to have a child and bring them up. Perhaps belting your child is too far. One wack on the bum with a hand would seem to be the level of physical discipline that should be the line. But remember if you give that smack all they have to do is complain and they’ll be taken away to a much better place.
Foster care. Because that’s where we aspire our future generation to go.
A Northern Territorian father has lost his five year old daughter and been fined $1,000 for disciplining her with a belt. She has been placed into inter-state foster care, despite the court hearing that they had a “wonderful relationship”. Well I’m sure she’ll thrive being a ward of the state, away from her Dad wondering just why he doesn’t love her any more. Brilliant work guys, just brilliant.
Magistrate Greg Cavanagh said that the assault on the girl was “outrageous”.
“The trust that is given to adults and to fathers to bring up and nurture their young babies is a very precious thing indeed – the most precious responsibility and trust you’ll ever have,” he said.
“You have abused that trust and you have abused your love of her by giving her a beating.”
Yes, you heard correctly. Smacking your child with a belt four times is a beating. We don’t know the specifics of the belting, but there has been no mention of excessive force or injury being inflicted on the poor little girl. But magistrate Cavanagh wasn’t finished there.
“In this modern age, physical punishment of children is seen to be barbaric,” he said.
“I’ll bet you she screamed and cried when you did this to her.”
You bet she screamed and cried, just like I did when I got a smack. Generally as a last resort and after much reasoning and intelligent conversation. Because five year olds do reason fairly and justly, and always follow direction. I’m right, aren’t I?
I never understand those who look in from the outside and judge others. I would agree that smacking your child around (or your spouse or anyone) is not on. Violence in the home is never welcome and should be dealt with promptly and with full force. But when did the right to discipline children with a smack with a belt get taken away? I don’t remember signing up for that.
Some wacko commented today on the couriermail.com.au website that a belt was a “Criminal Weapon.” The last time I heard of a belt used as a weapon was by Michael Hutchence, and that was on himself in a Sydney hotel room.
Too soon?
As long as there are no other issues surrounding this case (and who knows, it’s not like the media to just gloss over a few chunks of data that they aren’t interested in, is it?) then there needs be serious reconsideration of whether foster care is the right route to take. It’s seems a tough road to send a child on.
Do you think I’m nuts? Actually agree with what I’m saying for a change? Why hide away anonymously reading when you can actually TELL ME WHAT YOU THINK. Leave your comments – I do read them and often respond.
Plus sitting on the fence will leave you with splinters.- Nicholas
At work the other day, we were discussing a colleague’s new man. He has told her he is an atheist, and so my interest piques. Another one pipes up, declaring that you have to believe there is something out there, even if you don’t call it God. I reply that I’m quite happy believing that there is nothing else but science involved. Again I’m rebuffed, and reminded that our moral conscious is derived from the Ten Commandments.
For those playing along at home, the Ten Commandments are (from Wikipedia, accessed 22-02-2009):
a list of religious and moral imperatives that, according to Judeo-Christian tradition, were authored by God and given to Moses on the mountain referred to as “Mount Sinai” (Exodus 19:23) or “Horeb” (Deuteronomy 5:2) in the form of two stone tablets. They feature prominently in Judaism and Christianity.
Obviously I’m wrong! How could there possibility be no God since Moses came down from a mountain and brought two stone tablets bearing His inscription? So I countered with the argument that perhaps the Ten Commandments were written with the current moral code of the time with additional items for religious reasons. They wondered about this and thought it might be so. But there was still definitely something there!
So to this end I left the conversation as they started to talk about the first person’s man and his beliefs. I think she is probably agnostic anyway so it should work out if he doesn’t mind. At least he might have a chance to give her the facts as he seems them.
I also find it strange that just because I don’t believe in there being a creator and a omnipotent God, people don’t understand that I can enjoy reading of the pomp and ceremony that is found in religions. Religions are very fascinating to me and provide an insight into the human mind unlike any other.
I don’t begrudge someone having their belief system. You may choose to be a Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddist, Hindu, Hare Krishna, Jehovah’s Witness or whatever it is you wish to believe in. I guess I’d even say that if you want to be a Scientologist, I can’t stop you – although I would recommend it. Just don’t try to paint me with the same brush.
I believe in science and I have belief in human beings. I know that in each of us is a moral fibre, handed down from generation to generation. We can’t leave it up to another being or higher power (or even politicians and priests) to tell us what is right and wrong. It is up to all of us, the entire community, to teach kids the right way to live. You can differ on the finer points but still know what is wrong and what is right. That is where morals come from, not religion or stone tablets.
