Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Bill O'Rights
Almost? I'd say that it's only a matter of time before someone posits that the offspring of molestors be sterilized, in order to eradicate the tendancy. Or, at the very least, be monitored, and scrutinized, as closely as the actual sex offendor himself.
Although...I wonder what "normal", and "average" are, when measuring the tendancy to become a molestor. What are the odds? One in ten? One in one hundred? 50/50?
|
No idea on the odds, and yes I'm sure the eugenic potential is there, though I'd say it will be directed at the molesters themselves. In fact its already been done so with chemical castrations as options in some states although the target there was their sexual desire more than offspring.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by sapiens
I'm curious about your sources as well.
|
Quote:
|
Besides, we now know that virtually all of the evidence purporting to show how parental influences shape our character is deeply flawed. There is indeed a correlation between abusing children and having been abused as a child, but it can be entirely accounted for by inherited personality traits. The children of abusers inherit their persecutor's characteristics. Properly controlled for this effect, studies leave no room for nurture determinism at all. The stepchildren of abusers, for instance, do not become abusers.
|
- (Matt Ridley, Genome) he sites Rich Harris, The Nurture Assumption (1998) as his source for this factoid.
I can't say I've read the work personally, so I make no claims to its accuracy, but I don't find it shocking either. With so many personality traits obviously genetic in nature, why would negative traits like an abusive nature be exempt and purely nurture?