“Genuine” eugenics with voluntary participants isn’t bad because it is deontologically wrong, it is bad because it is a complete waste of time and effort
no, eugenics is morally and ethically wrong. eugenics is not a term that can somehow be reclaimed by throwing out its entire history.
This borders on sounding like “real eugenics has never been tried” which is :cringe:
No, I definitely think eugenics is non-magically bad, I can't get over the 'superficial' connection to the 20s I suppose, although really more with a mind to the 30s & 40s. I guess I just haven't fully put to words why I think terminating a pregnancy because of birth 'defects' isn't really eugenics, because I am ok with that.
So the reason I changed the emphasis on defects is that while certainly many things considered birth defects are very debilitating, not all of them are so its an unfit generalization, and on top of that its just not a very nice thing to say; I work with children and we do not refer to them as defective or any other way that compares them unfavorably to, oh I don't know what word you would prefer here, 'normals'? 'Regular folks'? 'Superior genetic specimens'? I don't find the concept especially useful but I suppose for you it is essential to have something to refer to people whose traits you would prefer were in the gene pool. But I understand this is just a professional thing and a fact of working with children, they are especially sensitive, I have friends with cerebral palsy who feel condescenced to by that sorta thing, but who also suffered massive hits to their self-esteem from rhetoric like that when they were younger so. Its a balance.
The Nazis had bad science then, sure, but they were motivated by eugenic logic. Foolish Nazis would have failed doesn't make me less upset they tried. And if the Nazis had gene therapy and advanced screening, I do not think their eugenic project would have been more principled. I think gene therapy is fine, I think abortion for reasons of birth defect is fine. No problem with people making decisions like that. So if you insist those are eugenics, and a person making those decisions in their own life is practicing eugenics, you can satisfy yourself by loudly proclaiming you are a eugenicist. But see how far that gets you, people are going to hear "I love eugenics" and assume you are talking about a social project. Maybe find another word for your thing
You know eugenicists are completely full of shit because their standards for who gets culled coincidentally never places them or their friends and family on the chopping block lmao
Shit like that dude is why Pol Pot lost it and just started murdering everyone with glasses. Check out what they wrote in response to someone else in this thread :agony-shivering:
Defects are defects and don’t need scare-quotes. I personally was born with a genetically-inherited deformity and a deformity is likewise a deformity. Not all ways for a body to develop are equally good. Some are just bad for your health or leave you unable to do things that most people can. Gratefully, mine mostly just makes me ugly, but only a slight difference would have left me in a really miserable position and I would have been fucking insulted by someone saying that there’s nothing wrong with it. If I could have been given genes from someone else to change this specific trait (which was also entirely predictable, looking at my parents), it would be ridiculous for my parents to have abstained on the basis of such an act being “eugenics”.
The Nazi eugenics project was mostly oriented around a completely unscientific racial mythology. It shouldn’t be compared to attempts to avoid people being born with life-crippling defects that doesn’t involve coercing anyone or pandering to myths. I think that not all birth defects are genetic in nature as much as a byproduct of how the fetus happened to develop, but those that are actually genetically-driven being screened out is definitionally eugenics and, not because it is eugenics but because it helps avoid inflicting gratuitous suffering, it’s clearly a good thing. On the level of principals, this really is not a complicated concept. Gene therapy (to remove a disease) affecting a fetus or a person who plans to reproduce is also eugenics and it’s also a good thing outside of how the commodification of healthcare threatens to make such things another vector for the poor being fucked over. People should not be forced to suffer because of what their genes or their parent’s genes happen to dictate. There is nothing sacrosanct about DNA and superstition should not be a barrier to reducing suffering.
“But what about the Nazi genocide of the disabled?” Considering that they were just as happy to kill people who were disabled for non-genetic reasons, it still was not “real” eugenics. That aspect of the project was less “purging the gene pool” and more “removing the ‘useless eaters,’” as they wrongfully called them. Even some German veterans of WWI were killed for being disabled (though most were exempt because of nationalist lionizing). Obviously it still would have been wrong if they only murdered people with genetic conditions, but then it would have arguably been “real” eugenics (and would have failed even if the Nazi project didn’t kill itself by other means soon after it began).
Oh yeah ... I remember reading that post before I upvoted it. Listen, I get it, you are some kind of moralist and you've determined that "eugenics" is verboten. But if you ask me if I'd hypothetically prefer that either there be a service existed that screened people's jizz and eggs for genetic diseases before IVF treatments or risk a kid getting born with a malady that's genetic in origin, then yeah, I guess I'd support the service, even if it is "eugenics". Because that way, you don't get kids who choke to death on their own mucous because of Cyctic Fibrosis, or have to tell someone that they've got Huntington's disease and their central nervous system is going to start poisoning itself. You ever see a baby born with Harlequin Icthyosis? Don't fucking google it!
You’re going to need to define whatever it is you think eugenics is, and why you don’t like it.
naw. There’s a standard understanding of eugenics and it’s universally viewed as a white supremacist concept.
Help me understand what you’re saying though, what do you think eugenics is or should be viewed as? You mentioned harley quin babies and cystic fibrosis, but really weren’t clear. I don’t see how those medical conditions relate to eugenics.
bruh
no, eugenics is morally and ethically wrong. eugenics is not a term that can somehow be reclaimed by throwing out its entire history.
This borders on sounding like “real eugenics has never been tried” which is :cringe:
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
I think about that a bit because you do see anti-abortion types making that point. Haven't quite got an answer for it yet
deleted by creator
No, I definitely think eugenics is non-magically bad, I can't get over the 'superficial' connection to the 20s I suppose, although really more with a mind to the 30s & 40s. I guess I just haven't fully put to words why I think terminating a pregnancy because of birth 'defects' isn't really eugenics, because I am ok with that.
deleted by creator
So the reason I changed the emphasis on defects is that while certainly many things considered birth defects are very debilitating, not all of them are so its an unfit generalization, and on top of that its just not a very nice thing to say; I work with children and we do not refer to them as defective or any other way that compares them unfavorably to, oh I don't know what word you would prefer here, 'normals'? 'Regular folks'? 'Superior genetic specimens'? I don't find the concept especially useful but I suppose for you it is essential to have something to refer to people whose traits you would prefer were in the gene pool. But I understand this is just a professional thing and a fact of working with children, they are especially sensitive, I have friends with cerebral palsy who feel condescenced to by that sorta thing, but who also suffered massive hits to their self-esteem from rhetoric like that when they were younger so. Its a balance.
The Nazis had bad science then, sure, but they were motivated by eugenic logic. Foolish Nazis would have failed doesn't make me less upset they tried. And if the Nazis had gene therapy and advanced screening, I do not think their eugenic project would have been more principled. I think gene therapy is fine, I think abortion for reasons of birth defect is fine. No problem with people making decisions like that. So if you insist those are eugenics, and a person making those decisions in their own life is practicing eugenics, you can satisfy yourself by loudly proclaiming you are a eugenicist. But see how far that gets you, people are going to hear "I love eugenics" and assume you are talking about a social project. Maybe find another word for your thing
Also sorry you're so ugly
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
You know eugenicists are completely full of shit because their standards for who gets culled coincidentally never places them or their friends and family on the chopping block lmao
Another college addict.
Shit like that dude is why Pol Pot lost it and just started murdering everyone with glasses. Check out what they wrote in response to someone else in this thread :agony-shivering:
Oh yeah ... I remember reading that post before I upvoted it. Listen, I get it, you are some kind of moralist and you've determined that "eugenics" is verboten. But if you ask me if I'd hypothetically prefer that either there be a service existed that screened people's jizz and eggs for genetic diseases before IVF treatments or risk a kid getting born with a malady that's genetic in origin, then yeah, I guess I'd support the service, even if it is "eugenics". Because that way, you don't get kids who choke to death on their own mucous because of Cyctic Fibrosis, or have to tell someone that they've got Huntington's disease and their central nervous system is going to start poisoning itself. You ever see a baby born with Harlequin Icthyosis? Don't fucking google it!
wait are you saying you also support eugenics lol I’m so confused
You're going to need to define whatever it is you think eugenics is, and why you don't like it.
naw. There’s a standard understanding of eugenics and it’s universally viewed as a white supremacist concept.
Help me understand what you’re saying though, what do you think eugenics is or should be viewed as? You mentioned harley quin babies and cystic fibrosis, but really weren’t clear. I don’t see how those medical conditions relate to eugenics.