Why isn't it considered overkill and outrageous to call feminists "feminazi's"?
Eise Richter was the chair in 1920-30 of the Association of Austrian Academic Women, which she had also founded. But she was Jewish, was dismissed, & sent to the Theresienstadt concentration camp, where she disappeared: http://forschung.univie.ac.at/en/portal/... Elisabeth von Thadden started a girls school in Germany, ignored edicts to deny Jewish girls into her school. She joined the German Resistance, was arrested & tortured at Ravensbrück concentration camp. She was finally beheaded: http://www.mscd.edu/~mdl/gerresources/fr... Alma Rosé saved many women's lives in Auschwitz, though she did not survive herself (she was Jewish): http://website.lineone.net/~matthew.brai... Mildred Fish Harnack was a freedom fighter who lead the Red Orchestra resistance group. She was captured by the Nazi's & executed at Plötzensee Prison (she was American):http://archives.library.wisc.edu/mfh/sectionpages/
Are there any scientific problems preventing us from selectively breeding humans?
“Selective breeding” is the way most human beings have been reproducing throughout the ages. When a man and a woman CHOOSE each other from among multiple options of individuals to have sex with, and a child is produced, that is a type of selection process.If you mean something like the government having the power to choose which men and which women will be allowed to reproduce and have children with particular characteristics, then, there are strong ethical, moral, and legal reasons why that isn’t going to happen. But from a purely biological point of view ANY sexually fertile and healthy human being can reproduce with ANY opposite-sex healthy and sexually fertile human being (between the onset of menses and the completion of menopause, for women.)
Legalize incest?
Homosexual relationships are now legal, and as long as the person can consent I see no problem with incest other than possible birth defects for their children, but since non related people with either physical or mental genetic disabilities are allowed to reproduce, even though they also risk having children with birth defects, I don't see the point in denying two related people to have children even though another couple can regardless if the risks are the same. Incest porn is also extremely popular for something that's considered so taboo. I often ask why you're so against something you're practically endorsing. It all sounds like hypocrisy, from what I hear we shouldn't incorporate any law with moral prejudice or with the idea of "master race" but I guess that doesn't apply to two related people who love eachother and just want the same rights as everyone else. I personally see incest as wrong, but I don't believe I have the right to make the decision about who people want to be with.
If abortion is murder, then male masturbation is genocide and female ovulation is involuntary manslaughter?
When I studied biomedical ethics I learned that the original stand of the christian church was that there was no "soul" in the fetus until the moment the mother felt QUICKENING, meaning fetal movement in her uterus. They later changed that once early safe abortion methods became more easily accessible. It's easy to come to the conclusion that the goal of the church is to increase suffering in this world by insisting that unwanted, malformed or otherwise handicapped children MUST be born into this already overpopulated and finite earth (this policy is also supported by their opposition to all contraceptives). That begs the question, why would the church want to increase suffering and misery in this world? Could it be because poor people living lives of hardship with little or no education make perfect candidates for a "flock" or "congregation"? After all, what kind of business is the church involved in? The business of selling false "hope" of an "afterlife" of bliss to people living lives of extreme hardship!!! So, the more people become educated and improve their standard of living, thus increasing their happiness and satisfaction with life, the less they need an institution to sell them a false "hope" of "salvation"! No wonder the more advanced nations on earth such as Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Netherlands and Japan have now largely gone atheist (or at least non-religious), while the church remains strongest mainly in "developing" countries. Let's use our human minds to their greatest potential and come to our own conclusions based on verifiable evidence and numbers, not the gibberish written in old religious texts or the institutional agenda of the church. We can all work together to educate more people and put the church in its place (If we were to allow them to have their way they'd institute a theocracy, just like in some of the muslim countries). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quickening http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/
Is there a possibility that a child can resemble someone who never fertilised the egg but slept with that pregnant woman?
Yes, absolutely. For example, it's a well-established fact that a large proportion of babies resemble Winston Churchill. Rarer cases involve Mother Theresa, Gandhi, and even Abraham Lincoln. So a baby could indeed resemble anyone in the world, and it's not impossible that the person a baby resembles had sex with the mother sometime in the past.If you are asking if a baby can have a genetic connection to a person who is not one of the two genetic parents, then that's also true -- every baby shares 1/4 of the genes of each of its grandparents, 1/2 of the genes of its full siblings, some more variable fraction of the genes of aunts and uncles, and so forth. Again, there's no reason the mother couldn't have had sex with any of those people in the past -- it's entirely beside the point, but it could have happened.But if you mean that genetic material from a non-parent could be incorporated somehow into a forming embryo within the womb: no, that is not the case. All genetic material for a human being (except for a few quirks in some cases of test-tube fertilization) comes from the two parents, full stop.Resemblance is not the same as genetic connection. Resemblance is a much vaguer, inherently subjective standard -- "oh, he has Aunt Suzy's nose!" I'm afraid you've been taken in by a piece of particularly misogynist folk mythology.(In case it changes, the question I answered was "Is there a possibility that a child can resemble someone who never fertilised the egg but slept with that pregnant woman?")
What are the reference books in anthropology for the UPSC?
UPSC is coming. There are many people who are giving the exam at the very first time. The date of the examination is declared to be :-UPSC Prelims 2018 is 3rd of june - pre Examination(sunday). Its the one day examination onlyUPSC mains 2018 examination:- 1 oct 2018(5days)You will find many books on Anthropology upsc which will have comple Anthropology syllabus. you may find various Videos for the same. Understand It takes hell lot of time to estimate what really matter for the UPSC examination purposeStrategies to clear UPSC in first attemptIf you are preparing for UPSC, You definitely be knowing the fact that it comprises of various partsTribal India.Physical AnthropologyIndian AnthropologySocio-cultural AnthropolgyMy friend 2015 CSE batch passout also took the handwritten notes from here click -> ANTHROPOLOGY HANDWRIITEN NOTES BY MuniratnamIts not easy to keep on buying the books of different parts of anthropology and the question arises why even when we can directly get the notes of Muniratnam sirSocio-Cultural Anthropology – Muniratnam Sir Printed material, Braintree notesPaper 1 Physical Anthropology – Muniratnam Printed Material, Braintree and P. NathPaper 2 Indian Anthropology – 60% paper from muniratnam updated notes Click here[1]Take a calm, study these notes well. After this try to keep on revising rather than looking for new content and you will get the Success.DOWNLOAD ALL UPSC PAST PAPERS FREE OF COSTJOIN THE TELEGRAM GROUP TO GET THE RECENT UPDATES ON 2018All the best!!Footnotes[1] ANTHROPOLOGY-Optional By Muniratnam Reddy Sir
Shakers and Oneida Community?
The Shakers were united on the teachings of Ann Lee and her model of equality of the sexes which they institutionalized in their societty in the 1780s. She advocated "taking up the cross of celibacy." There was neither "giving or taking in marriage," but here were plenty of children. The first group members were known as the "Shaking Quakers" because of the nature of their worship services. The Oneida community was founded in 1848 in Oneida New York by John Humphrey Noyes, they practiced communalism, complex marriage (post menopausal women introduced teenage males to sex providing each with a sex partner with no children to be responsible for - the women were religious role models- Noyes used his own judgment to determine partnerships), male continence, mutual criticism, eugenics (selective breeding program), and ascending fellowship.
Should everybody be allowed to have kids? Is it a "right" that everybody should have? Should we forbid some people to have children? Should people pass some kind of tests before being allowed to have kids?
Sure. Let's set a criteria for being allowed to have kids!Minimum annual household income…$250,000. That's a nice round number. But what if they want more than one child? We'll have to increase that $100,000 per year each for child #2, 3, 4, etcPotential parents must have NO criminal background. No DUIs, no speeding or parking tickets - we don't want them passing on their criminal tendencies to the kids, do we?And health checks - we don't want non-perfect specimens having children. Nose not quite straight? Family history of arthritis? Sorry - no children for you. Can't pass tbe psychological exam? Just lay down here and get sterilized now. It will save time.Now, what do we do about people who try to have kids without permission? Put the parents in prison, of course. They can be re-educated there on why their behavior is bad for the State…er…society. And the illegal pregnancy will have to be aborted. Can't have illegal babies wandering the streets, now can we?Oh, but what happens if the parents who met tbe criteria and were allowed to have children suddenly no longer meet the standards? What if one parent develops cancer? Obviously, they're no longer qualified to be parents, so does the State put the children into re-education camps (so they'll understand why they won't be allowed to have children themselves now) or should they just be labeled “undesirable” and killed, to save time and trouble?To make sure your plan works, beginning at age 10 all boys and girls must undergo annual “parent potential” checks - physical, mental, financial -until they are confirmed to be through menopause. That way, the State can sterilize everyone who fails a criteria right away. Children will need to submit grade transcripts to prove they are smart enough to go to college and get jobs that will earn them a minimum of $125,000 per year (they'll have to partner with someone making at least that much in order to qualify to be a parent).All righty! Sounds like your idea of only allowing certain people to have children is ready to roll!Ummm…will YOUR parents meet the criteria or should you be packing your own bag, ready for the Parenting Police to take you and your siblings off to a “re-education csmp”? And how are your grades? Is your nose quite straight?