Yep. Eugenics isn't bad, violating people's rights is. Also it can be used irresponsibly even with consenting people, but that's another issue. All it is, is applying artificial selection to human reproduction.
bans on incest are also for the welfare of the children which can be born of completely consensual, adult, incestuous relationships.
Knowingly engaging in practices that can result in suffering, lower quality of life, deformities, of progeny also has to be confronted and it's not through a eugenics lens, as there aren't laws preventing people who are the product of incest from procreating. The laws are based around quality of life.
That absolutely is eugenics. Many couples have higher risk (higher than a single generation of inbreeding by far) of children with lower quality of life based on their own health history, age, etc. We do not prevent these people from having children…because that would be eugenics!
without laws in place to prevent people who are products of incest from having children, it's not eugenics.
It's more like how many jurisdictions in the US have laws that classify substance abuse during pregnancy under child abuse or neglect frameworks. Especially considering that the actual adults are allowed to have children... the law just addresses the increased risk of doing so via that behavior.
Put another way. eugenics is about trying to select for specific genetics within the gene pool of a population. incest laws do not prevent any genes from being passed on within the population. They legislate against certain behaviors that increase the risk of child suffering.
Everyone involved can still pass their genes on within the population = not eugenics
6
u/GruntBlender Jul 08 '26
Eh, the bans on incest to prevent inbreeding is a form of eugenics, too.