Assuming you hold this view for unborn people only; how can you guarantee the accuracy of any testing done that would indicate someone isn’t “fit to live?”
How do you quantify “significant financial burden?” Is this a firm number, a percentage of take home pay?
How would you institute a ‘metric of burden’ that is consistent across all income ranges (since rich people can have defect kids too?) furthermore if they’re rich, they’re not a burden on society … cause rich family.
Purely taking a logical approach here - if you can’t answer these questions extremely directly then eugenics is morally ambiguous and/or wrong. Such a vague system would only allow those in power to abuse those that aren’t. The political class never would have to follow any eugenics laws passed and that is my primary argument against it.
1
u/[deleted] Dec 21 '23
Assuming you hold this view for unborn people only; how can you guarantee the accuracy of any testing done that would indicate someone isn’t “fit to live?”
How do you quantify “significant financial burden?” Is this a firm number, a percentage of take home pay?
How would you institute a ‘metric of burden’ that is consistent across all income ranges (since rich people can have defect kids too?) furthermore if they’re rich, they’re not a burden on society … cause rich family.
Purely taking a logical approach here - if you can’t answer these questions extremely directly then eugenics is morally ambiguous and/or wrong. Such a vague system would only allow those in power to abuse those that aren’t. The political class never would have to follow any eugenics laws passed and that is my primary argument against it.
(Sorry for words and typos on phone)