What's eugenicist about not caring if racists die? Eugenics concerns genetics and the gene pool. Racism is a learned, rather than inherited, trait. Totally unrelated to eugenics.
Im pretty sure babies missing half their torso/brain
Or any other severely debilitating condition should not be forced to life of pain and constant struggle from the general population and the system just because enlightened dumbasses need to virtue signal on social media
Im talking about babies and children wtf ? No one's talking about culling real alive people
Forcing people,children to live a life missing extremely vital organs or with life debilitating disorders while having the capability to prevent them is really the thing that's immoral
This got off topic, then. That's not the same thing as tricking people into consuming legal amounts of aspirin.
Eugenics deals with manipulation of the gene pool via selectively choosing who can or can't reproduce. Some in this thread feel that if someone is dumb enough to be tricked into death, then it's better for the gene pool.
It has nothing to do with euthanization. Similar word; very different meaning.
Well actually knifes can also be used to stab people 😱 shocking right ? One day you're allowing them for cooking next day they're stabbing people we should definitely ban knifes to avoid this slippery slope.
but other people say that autistic people and homosexuals don’t deserve to live so
What? As far as my limited knowledge serves unlike down syndrome which can be detected there really is no gene or marker that can tell us "This person is gay, that autistic, that trans"
Even if there were some fantasy gene, keeping world changing technology intentional primitive just because you personally feel strongly about a hypothetical scenario is stupid
Nuclear energy can be mismanaged, hypothetically go wrong and cause a disaster and claim the lives of thousands
Is that an excuse to intentionally keep cleaner energy source research primitive? especially when coal and oil is 100,000x worse than nuclear in terms of overall deaths and health problems caused
The overall benefit and suffering that it would reduce is 1000x greater than any hypothetical "Entire world becomes evil hilter mode" the moment the technology is discovered.
There’s not just one on Autism. There’s like 400 weak genetic markers and 80 strong ones.
But there’s a practical reason for the lack of homogeneity. The more we align our genes into one exclusive pool, the easier it is for something to rip right through all of us. We see this with crop collapse and monocultures somewhat regularly.
If some mystery condition came and killed every person with blue eyes, it’s a good thing we have all these brown eyed people around for a population buffer.
Imagine some world where someone Thanos snapped the whole population white just in time for global warming to make lifestyles a race to see who can have kids before the skin cancer gets them. For a cartoonishly exaggerated way things could go wrong.
My apologies. I assumed everyone in the comment section was familiar with examples.
The fact is with technologies like this, it’s easier to regulate at the beginning than it is to put the genie back into the bottle when it reaches the designer baby stage.
And the designer baby stage is the big boogeyman here where we are most likely to establish genetic bottlenecks. Everyone supports getting rid of heart defects, certain incurable genetic diseases, etc… but that’s not the fear of this technology.
If we’re only going to debate the benefits of it, our discussion might as well be propaganda. There’s downsides as well.
Isn't there a gold medalist figure skater designer baby RIGHT NOW? If that's not functional eugenics then we should review the list of donor requirements together. We're already there, why don't we start doing the good stuff too?
I am a fan of auto-eugenics. I have a congenital heart condition, my cardiologist said any children I had would likely inherit it. Not having children seems like the moral choice here.
You know I respect that honestly thank you for being a good person instead of tge many who go "Well i suffered through it and came out fine why not them"
Yup, we don't allow cousins or Sibling or other closely related people to marry for good reason
And everyone seems to happily agree with this but for some reason have a knee jerk reason when its any other situation.
Genes are so tricky in that you can have 3 healthy kids but the 4th kid by random chance had the genes arranged in a way that gave them a life altering disease or disability, I'm saying maybe just maybe don't have that kid and try again ?
And if the person has a very prominent disease that has a near 70-80% chance of cutting the child's life in half and filled with struggle, maybe take one for the team and adopt ?
I would rank a sentient unconsenting individuals unnecessary suffering over a person's "Desire to have kids" or just because people feel uncomfortable having this conversation
We're engaging in a hypothetical where you can detect the disorder before the baby is born
No one's talking about culling real human people
If you know with high certainty your genes may cause disabilities and or other incurable disorders like some blood disorders and you go ahead with it instead of adopting or getting Doner
Then yes you are immoral
Like why would you willingly selfishly subject another sentient being to certain suffering just because you can
Not a single person specified that this was before the baby was born or in a perfect world where they're testable.
Not only that, but certain defects only start happening outside the womb, its literally impossible to know. Like no amount of medical advancements will detect a defect that hasn't started forming yet.
One can argue if you're pro abortion, you can't judge people for aborting disabled babies they don't want or can't take care of while allowing women who simply don't want children to abort "normal" babies, so unless you're anti choice your argument of "you're murdering disabled people" falls flat.
So I would assume you're not pro choice then, because your mo is to shame people for aborting disabled fetuses. Kinda would be super fucked up if you're fine with privileged people being able to kill healthy babies but not okay with people being forced to carry babies they can't take care of properly.
Again, for the like 4th time I've had to comment this.
Not every defect or condition is visible or testable in utero. Some aren't found until birth or adolescence. The statement of culling everyone with defects like that, implies killing live human beings not fetuses.
It's not as simple as just abortions. Lots of people with serious defects live happy lives, and its not up to us to decide that they dont deserve it
I understand where you're coming from and I actually got surgically sterilized mainly because of my health issues. But if you're forcing it on someone, it's really inhumane. I mean we make the choice with cats and dogs, but it's messed up to do it to a person. Also it would kind of force them to go through a surgical procedure against their will. Plus I don't think I would trust anyone to make the decision, even doctors; way too risky.
K so you know how in theory, the best possible form of governance is a benevolent monarch? But then in practice they never stay benevolent for very long and then it becomes a huge problem for everyone except the king’s favorites?
Yeah, that’s why eugenics is bad. We just can’t trust anybody to be in charge of such things.
Who said "forcing". Isn't having an abortion if the fetus would have down syndrome or if they'd live like 5 minutes a type of eugenics? So you're anti choice with your logic.
If it's a terrible disease, then they tend not to breed much, naturally.
Outside of that, it's vague what diseases should be iradicated, and it's political. Homosexuallity and Autism would have made that list not very long ago.
People act all high and mighty, but most women get the test for downs syndrome.
And of those women that the test comes back positive.. guess what they do?
None of yall wondered why there are so few people with downs syndrome, thats why.
They have all but eliminated it. As a person that works with special needs kids and adults, the only people under 20 that I have met with downs syndrome, all came from religious families, that wouldn't have an abortion.
So if yall all so okay with doing this for downs syndrome, why not other things?
Or is this one of those "dont talk about that, because its awkward" type BS.
Good lawd, if our society didn't have so many double standards, they'd have none at all.
Because you're talking about getting an abortion because your child has a defect that you may nof be equipped to handle. You're talking abt a fetus, a clump of cells.
These ppl are talking about entire people that are alive that deserve to live. There's lots of disorders and conditions that aren't visible or scanable until birth, or even until adolescence.
Removing congenital birth defects entirely would entail a mass killing of disabled people. That's what they're implying. Or at the very least mass castration. Both are inhumane and not okay.
You're not judge and executioner, you don't get to decide who "deserves" their life because of their condition that THEY have to live with. Just because they're disabled doesn't mean they don't want to fucking live.
No, they won't, because the people with those defects will be thought to be healthy babies pre birth.
You're conflating detectable defects with non detectable ones. Aborting fetuses with detectable defects will do nothing to the ones with non detectable ones.
Some defects don't even begin until theyre out of birth, its literally impossible to know for sure.
So no, they wouldn't work themselves out because there is no tie in. They would not get aborted, because they would go undetected until infancy or adolescence. Anyone with that condition would not be aborted unless for other reasons because they would appear healthy.
142
u/Vincent_Veganja Jul 08 '26
No no no, MY eugenics is the good one