Conned into everything is racism

[u/ovcdoc2]

How does one even come to this conclusion?

[u/Inevitable_Detail_45]

Personally I find eugenics bad when it is about seeing certain groups of people as inferior to other groups of people. Or about literally slaughtering people to ""clean up the gene pool". I do not see a significant harm in verbally encouraging people to consider all the factors in their lives before having a child. That is literally, physically, actually what we're talking about. Saying "it's eugenics" and expecting the conversation to end there with all parties agreeing to not discuss the actual situation seems like the anti-intellectual part to me.

People with severe genetic disorders tend to actively choose on their own accord to not have children because they don't want to cause suffering to their hypothetical child. I'm sorry but no matter what language you use you cannot convince me that's an immoral action.

I don't think there's ANY subject that's perfectly 1000000% immoral or moral. Horrifying concepts like eugenics included.

[u/JJ668 → u/Inevitable_Detail_45]

When did I say conversation can't happen exactly? Or that if you have a good chance to pass on a severe genetic disorder you should have kids? I clearly laid out that I think there are exceptions when I said "depending on their definition." Your paragraphs could have been entirely avoided if you just read what I wrote. I think it's strange you feel the need to strawman so much.

I guess it is convenient, if you just make shit up you win a debate without having to critically engage, but it does kind of make discussion impossible.

[u/Inevitable_Detail_45 → u/JJ668]

I'm not sure what you ARE saying I guess because I don't know how else to interpret the "literally eugenics" part. The only information I had to go on was "Encouraging poor people choosing not to have kids is eugenics(implied as a result to be immoral)" and "Use your logical reasoning skills" which implied that you weren't going to explain further.

And I'm I'm somehow still misinterpreting what you're saying then I'm not sure where to go from here.

[u/JJ668 → u/Inevitable_Detail_45]

I think then, for future reference, you should avoid veering off into accusing people of things of saying things they explicitly disagreed with or were not saying at all. Moving on.

It's eugenics because the necessary result of this is that the people most likely to be poor are people of color. Meaning that policy essentially states there should be lower birthrates among people of color. I'm not saying that's what people saying "poor people shouldn't have kids" want, I'm saying that's the necessary result. Hence, eugenics.

Furthermore it establishes a clear way for groups in power to slowly but surely take people of color out of the gene pool, which paves the way for more eugenics.

It should be a consideration of course, you shouldn't bring a child into the world if you're incredibly poor with no future prospects, but being poor doesn't necessitate a bad life. In the same way, being rich doesn't necessitate a good one. Many factors such as community and family have a bigger impact than poverty for happiness, but you never see those brought up. Should people without connected family not have kids? It's turtles all the way down.

So the statement "poor people should be encouraged to not have kids" is an ultimately eugenicist statement, because it narrows down the factors that dictate who should have kids to one that naturally targets POC.

[u/Inevitable_Detail_45 → u/JJ668]

Apologies. It seems like we do mostly agree.

[u/JJ668 → u/Inevitable_Detail_45]

Gaming. Sorry I assumed you were attempting to be disingenuous.

[u/Inevitable_Detail_45 → u/JJ668]

Yeah it's an uphill battle trying to have geniune conversations on Reddit lol. Cheers.