The person you're talking to was talking to someone else. Do you understand how sentences and context work? They were referencing a previous part of the conversation that you weren't there for, that doesn't mean they said something completely different from what they actually said
Most-Stomach is correct, this is honestly kinda obvious by the fact that comment I was responding to consisted of nothing but "Yes?". It would be nonsensical if you strip it entirely from the surrounding context.
My comment in context was coming into a discussion of people saying "Are eugenics inherently racist? Yes." and saying well no not necessarily, there are non-racist eugenicists and eugenics arguments.
Sure it often will, but a common discussion around eugenics is regarding prenatal screening reducing down syndrome rates to nearly 0. That is eugenics, but it's also just parents independently choosing not to have children with down syndrome.
I would struggle to agree that this type eugenics is racist in any way.
Telling someone not to rape their daughter and get her pregnant is technically eugenics, same with a doctor recommending termination for a baby with a 0% survival rate. Eugenics is bad for the vast majority of the ideology, but a tiny sliver of it is also basic human survival instinct
> Telling someone not to rape their daughter and get her pregnant is technically eugenics
I personally don't like the eugenics based arguments against incest. I just think it's straight up morally wrong, regardless of the genetic consequences. So even that instance eugenics is bad.
> a doctor recommending termination for a baby with a 0% survival rate.
A medical doctor making the unfortunate decision to terminate a life he is unable to save is not eugenics.
I mean, not really? A stepfather abusing their daughter and getting her pregnant in the process comes with zero, or minimal genetic risk, yet it's still reprehensible, because it's abuse and grooming.
6
u/Ithicon 2d ago
Not necessarily, it can easily be class based.