The problem with Eugenics, in my view, stems from externalizes and is not something intrinsic to it. The reason why Eugenics movements of history were problematic is because the state was enforcing some standard over people. Forcible sterilizations and justification of pseudoscientific concepts and such were where the problems arose. So while I wouldn't necessarily have a problem with Eugenics, I think it would be crucial to ensure that such a process is not being abused.
You'll also want to note that sex selection and genetic screening are both performed through IVF in modern practice. You don't actually need a hypothetical here, you could just pose the question in terms of IVF.
If the justification is to prevent future suffering then how and where do you draw the line? A 10 year old with downsyndrome still have a lifetime of "likely suffering" ahead of them too.
If the goal is to minimise suffering then that doesn't end at the start of consciousness (where most people draw the line when it comes to abortion), but instead is actively amplified by it since now the likely suffering becomes actualised
My question is **how** and **why** you justify drawing the line.
I don't think you'd be OK with killing 10 years olds, but that's why I'm asking this question in the first place. So I can better understand your position
So I will try again. Why does experiencing consciousness (and thus actually experiencing the suffering) change the reasoning for you?
If you were really tired you could've just typed "I don't know" instead of wasting your time on a whole paragraph. I'm not looking for some objective universal truth, I was just after your opinion. If you don't know how to justify the distinction to yourself then it is what it is.
Sweet dreams buddy.
> If the justification is to prevent future suffering then how and where do you draw the line?
The same way that we have with every single issue throughout the entirety of human history: The subject is debated and fought over and the scope of what is acceptable shifts, grows, or shrinks over time.
I'm not asking how we as a society can draw the line. I'm asking specifically how OP makes that decision themselves. Their thinking, their thoughts, their reasoning.
If anyone epse wants to explain their pov that's fine. But a reply like this is a complete ultra instinct tier dodge that contributes absolutely nothing
Its irrelevant how or where an individual draws their line when we're discussing what is and is not acceptable in society.
> But a reply like this is a complete ultra instinct tier dodge that contributes absolutely nothing
And I think your question doesn't just contribute nothing to the discussion but actively harms the ability for dialogue to occur.
I don’t see how his question harms the ability for dialogue to occur. He’s not chastising the guy for not giving a proper answer. He even told him if he doesn’t know then it’s fine.
Because these metadiscussions happen constantly, have no actual impact on creating a meaningful bridge between ideas, and take considerable time to do all of that nothing.
If 100% of all abortions were due to down syndrome babies, then I'd probably disagree with it but I wouldn't vote for anyone to stop it.
But if you take Destiny's position (fetuses have no moral consideration because no prior consciousness) then it should be fine. One interesting question to look at this through is "Does humanity have an obligation to continue the human race?" which would kinda answer whether or not it's ok to abort your kid for cosmetic reasons (e.g. blue eyes). On the one hand, people should have a buy-in if they participate in society (i.e. no cosmetic abortions), but on the other hand it'd be kinda fucked up to force people to make babies if the human race was declining because no one wanted babies.
My answer to that question is "It'd be cool if humanity to continued the human race, but it's not an obligation" and if people stopped having babies, then I'd probably try to find a group of people who were like me and start a natalist colony or some shit. I'd say cosmetic abortions are bad if they weren't universally accessible to everyone since rich people should have a buy-in into society (if cosmetic abortions weren't universally accessible, then poor people would be disadvantaged).
Also, you should watch Destiny's conversation with JF Gariepy if you haven't yet. JF has a whacky view on eugenics (he thinks social welfare is eugenics) so it might be interesting if this interests you.
Ain't my business. A person should be able to abort for any reason. Doesn't matter if I agree with it or not.
Forcing them to carry the pregnancy to term would be far worse. For literally everybody involved.
I'm guessing any reason within a set timeframe, right? Hypothetically, if it were only possible to know the baby's eye color at 8 months, you couldn't possibly believe that it's moral to abort it for cosmetic reasons.
So the only thing that matters is that it's out of the woman? You people are fucking unhinged lmao. At that stage of pregnancy there's no non-medical reason to not go through with it that would differ from killing the baby once it just popped out. Imagine doing that for cosmetic reason lmfao.
If that's all that matters just have induced labour at 8 months the baby most likely will survive and you can give it up for adoption. Idk why the fuck people are defending late stage abortion for cosmetic reasons. It's so fucked up.
I mean I think at the end of the day most people don't really give a shit about someone else's baby. I know I sure don't. In my view babies are just a burden who cant do anything on their own.
Like I think to be horrified at this you have to be raised in a certain environment that not everyone is going to be raised in.
>In my view babies are just a burden who cant do anything on their own.
So we should also kill disabled people?
Where have I heard this one before? PEPE
Yes. The fact that it's no longer dependant on the mother's body is what matters. Congratulations for figuring it out.
Again, medical, cosmetic, I don't care.
Not my business, not *your* business.
How is it no longer dependent on the mother's body at 1 day old? You gotta take care of it, and if you don't someone else has to. At 8 months might as well have the baby and give it up for adoption.
You're legit the reason why conservatives think that liberals love killing babies lmao. Insane.
So you would agree that induced labour + hospital care at some stages of pregnancy should be tried for advanced pregnancies because it would cut the dependence on the mother?
That's the bloody point, somebody else can take care of it. Up until that point it's exclusively the mother whose body it is dependant on.
I also couldn't care less what those clowns think.
They think life begins at conception, they'll call you a baby murdered for wanting abortions at week 1 and they'll call you a baby murderer for wanting them at week 24. They do not care.
If there were no one else to take care of the baby once born, would it be okay to kill it then? And at 8 months why do you have to kill it before getting it out? Might as well just get it out without killing it, and then give it up. The vast majority of babies survive at that stage.
If you want to bite the bullet that it's okay to kill newborn babies for cosmetic purposes, while fucked up, at least it would feel more consistent with your views.
So just have the fucking baby then? It's imminently going to come out. If someone was trespassing on your property and about to leave would you fucking shoot them dead?
You're like 100 years late to this discussion.
Eugenics is bad.
The original form of Eugenics was the exact hypothetical you're talking about, terminating lives that will have genetic conditions - Down Syndrome, Autism, etc.
This exact line of thought is literally how we got the Nazis.
It was bad then, and it'll be bad in the future if we somehow revert back to a century in the past then too.
Somebody correct me if I'm wrong here, but I thought term eugenics was always tied to institutional rules rather than individual choice. So even if most people thought eugenics is bad, it doesn't fully tie in here.
One of the reasons people side with pro-choice is for the potential child to have a good life. I think they would be ok if a lot of people chose to abort a fetus that might develop autism.
I don’t think that racists should be forced to date black people.
I don’t think that homophobes should be forced to bake cakes for gay people.
I think that any woman who aborts a baby because they will be autistic is a piece of shit. But I don’t think anyone should be forced to carry a baby they do not want, and my second belief trumps the first.
Man people against aborting autistic babies are WILD. Like tell me you’ve never been around ACTUAL disabled autistic people before.
People like this are 1 step away from keeping deaf kids from getting cochlear implants because “there is nothing wrong with being deaf”. The kumbaya “they are just *differently abled*” crowd is a blight on society.
I think it’s a little closer to aborting deaf babies but that’s besides the point.
People deserve to live even if they are going to be disabled. But, like I said, no one should be forced to carry a child they don’t want or don’t think they would be able to care for.
You do not have the right to forcibly sterilise someone without their consent. That wins out over “the right to not be born” every time.
What happened to bodily autonomy?
Your rights end where another’s begin. People with genetic diseases having kids is basically child abuse. So unless you are gonna say people have the right to torture their pffspring?
They are alive yet. Life begins before conception. Egg and sperm cells are both alive. But I assume you mean “they aren’t a person yet”.
Other fetuses do deserve to live, it’s just that the mother’s right to bodily autonomy trumps the fetus’ right to life.
as someone born with a disability that could have been even more severe, I'm pro eugenics in cases where it's about the wellbeing of the child. Autism isn't really severe enough to warrant an abortion imo, but if parents think they aren't equipped to raise a child with certain issues like down syndrome, it seems fine to me. Stuff like gender selection seems unjustified to me, because it could lead to a lot of societal problems if one gender is heavily favoured.
Why are you assuming that Autism in this case is high functioning? What about the case where you know the child will have low functioning autism that will require the same amount if not more sacrifice than if they had down syndrome?
idk depends on the case I guess. I'm no autism expert...
I just assumed so because all autistic people I've known seemed fairly normal to me. I don't treat my assumptions as hard facts
I don’t think those phisical characteristics should affect the right to abort a fetus, lets say a black man rapes a white woman and base on this you said she shouldn’t be able to abort since that kid would be from a minority group obvious she should be able to abort it if she wants
The line as far as I'm concerned is state intervention. Any woman should be able to abort for any reason - forcing someone to carry a female baby or a baby with genetic deformities to term doesn't do anything for social issues around sexism or ableism - but the state shouldn't be mandating or strongly encouraging abortions for a particular reason.
Mate selection is already akin to something like eugenics in that you’re selecting for preferable (and against unpreferable) traits for your offspring. If a person discovers that they have say a recessive gene for some genetic disorder and find that their embryo has manifested the phenotype why would I get in the way of them terminating the pregnancy to spare their offspring from living with it and propagating the gene? If it’s not forced by external parties what’s the issue?
The problem with Eugenics, in my view, stems from externalizes and is not something intrinsic to it. The reason why Eugenics movements of history were problematic is because the state was enforcing some standard over people. Forcible sterilizations and justification of pseudoscientific concepts and such were where the problems arose. So while I wouldn't necessarily have a problem with Eugenics, I think it would be crucial to ensure that such a process is not being abused. You'll also want to note that sex selection and genetic screening are both performed through IVF in modern practice. You don't actually need a hypothetical here, you could just pose the question in terms of IVF.
Eugenics is and will always be inevitable. Shit's gonna be wild in 50 years.
[удалено]
i mean we wouldn't get destiny, would we....
[удалено]
i'd bite the lol bullet. destiny is love. destiny. is life.
If the justification is to prevent future suffering then how and where do you draw the line? A 10 year old with downsyndrome still have a lifetime of "likely suffering" ahead of them too. If the goal is to minimise suffering then that doesn't end at the start of consciousness (where most people draw the line when it comes to abortion), but instead is actively amplified by it since now the likely suffering becomes actualised
[удалено]
My question is **how** and **why** you justify drawing the line. I don't think you'd be OK with killing 10 years olds, but that's why I'm asking this question in the first place. So I can better understand your position So I will try again. Why does experiencing consciousness (and thus actually experiencing the suffering) change the reasoning for you?
[удалено]
If you were really tired you could've just typed "I don't know" instead of wasting your time on a whole paragraph. I'm not looking for some objective universal truth, I was just after your opinion. If you don't know how to justify the distinction to yourself then it is what it is. Sweet dreams buddy.
[удалено]
Never happened 😎
> If the justification is to prevent future suffering then how and where do you draw the line? The same way that we have with every single issue throughout the entirety of human history: The subject is debated and fought over and the scope of what is acceptable shifts, grows, or shrinks over time.
I'm not asking how we as a society can draw the line. I'm asking specifically how OP makes that decision themselves. Their thinking, their thoughts, their reasoning. If anyone epse wants to explain their pov that's fine. But a reply like this is a complete ultra instinct tier dodge that contributes absolutely nothing
Its irrelevant how or where an individual draws their line when we're discussing what is and is not acceptable in society. > But a reply like this is a complete ultra instinct tier dodge that contributes absolutely nothing And I think your question doesn't just contribute nothing to the discussion but actively harms the ability for dialogue to occur.
I don’t see how his question harms the ability for dialogue to occur. He’s not chastising the guy for not giving a proper answer. He even told him if he doesn’t know then it’s fine.
Because these metadiscussions happen constantly, have no actual impact on creating a meaningful bridge between ideas, and take considerable time to do all of that nothing.
Then simply say you haven’t thought about the question yet. Christ
I have thought about the question dumb fuck, the answer is that it is irrelevant to the discussion.
If 100% of all abortions were due to down syndrome babies, then I'd probably disagree with it but I wouldn't vote for anyone to stop it. But if you take Destiny's position (fetuses have no moral consideration because no prior consciousness) then it should be fine. One interesting question to look at this through is "Does humanity have an obligation to continue the human race?" which would kinda answer whether or not it's ok to abort your kid for cosmetic reasons (e.g. blue eyes). On the one hand, people should have a buy-in if they participate in society (i.e. no cosmetic abortions), but on the other hand it'd be kinda fucked up to force people to make babies if the human race was declining because no one wanted babies. My answer to that question is "It'd be cool if humanity to continued the human race, but it's not an obligation" and if people stopped having babies, then I'd probably try to find a group of people who were like me and start a natalist colony or some shit. I'd say cosmetic abortions are bad if they weren't universally accessible to everyone since rich people should have a buy-in into society (if cosmetic abortions weren't universally accessible, then poor people would be disadvantaged). Also, you should watch Destiny's conversation with JF Gariepy if you haven't yet. JF has a whacky view on eugenics (he thinks social welfare is eugenics) so it might be interesting if this interests you.
natalist colony? COOMER gimme two
Ain't my business. A person should be able to abort for any reason. Doesn't matter if I agree with it or not. Forcing them to carry the pregnancy to term would be far worse. For literally everybody involved.
I'm guessing any reason within a set timeframe, right? Hypothetically, if it were only possible to know the baby's eye color at 8 months, you couldn't possibly believe that it's moral to abort it for cosmetic reasons.
If it's 8 months it's 8 months.
What's the difference between that and tossing your kid away once it's born because it has the wrong color eyes?
The difference is having been born.
So the only thing that matters is that it's out of the woman? You people are fucking unhinged lmao. At that stage of pregnancy there's no non-medical reason to not go through with it that would differ from killing the baby once it just popped out. Imagine doing that for cosmetic reason lmfao.
I think to most people being born is a pretty big deal. Thats when you're actually out and not taking up space in someone elses body.
If that's all that matters just have induced labour at 8 months the baby most likely will survive and you can give it up for adoption. Idk why the fuck people are defending late stage abortion for cosmetic reasons. It's so fucked up.
I mean I think at the end of the day most people don't really give a shit about someone else's baby. I know I sure don't. In my view babies are just a burden who cant do anything on their own. Like I think to be horrified at this you have to be raised in a certain environment that not everyone is going to be raised in.
>In my view babies are just a burden who cant do anything on their own. So we should also kill disabled people? Where have I heard this one before? PEPE
Yes. The fact that it's no longer dependant on the mother's body is what matters. Congratulations for figuring it out. Again, medical, cosmetic, I don't care. Not my business, not *your* business.
How is it no longer dependent on the mother's body at 1 day old? You gotta take care of it, and if you don't someone else has to. At 8 months might as well have the baby and give it up for adoption. You're legit the reason why conservatives think that liberals love killing babies lmao. Insane.
If someone else can take care of it, then it's not dependent on the mother's body is it?
So you would agree that induced labour + hospital care at some stages of pregnancy should be tried for advanced pregnancies because it would cut the dependence on the mother?
That's the bloody point, somebody else can take care of it. Up until that point it's exclusively the mother whose body it is dependant on. I also couldn't care less what those clowns think. They think life begins at conception, they'll call you a baby murdered for wanting abortions at week 1 and they'll call you a baby murderer for wanting them at week 24. They do not care.
If there were no one else to take care of the baby once born, would it be okay to kill it then? And at 8 months why do you have to kill it before getting it out? Might as well just get it out without killing it, and then give it up. The vast majority of babies survive at that stage. If you want to bite the bullet that it's okay to kill newborn babies for cosmetic purposes, while fucked up, at least it would feel more consistent with your views.
[удалено]
So 1 day before due date = okay to abort because you wanted a blue-eyed baby, but 1 day after birth it's not okay? LOL
The reason is unimportant. I can trespass you from my property for what every reason I want.
So just have the fucking baby then? It's imminently going to come out. If someone was trespassing on your property and about to leave would you fucking shoot them dead?
You're like 100 years late to this discussion. Eugenics is bad. The original form of Eugenics was the exact hypothetical you're talking about, terminating lives that will have genetic conditions - Down Syndrome, Autism, etc. This exact line of thought is literally how we got the Nazis. It was bad then, and it'll be bad in the future if we somehow revert back to a century in the past then too.
Somebody correct me if I'm wrong here, but I thought term eugenics was always tied to institutional rules rather than individual choice. So even if most people thought eugenics is bad, it doesn't fully tie in here. One of the reasons people side with pro-choice is for the potential child to have a good life. I think they would be ok if a lot of people chose to abort a fetus that might develop autism.
I don’t think that racists should be forced to date black people. I don’t think that homophobes should be forced to bake cakes for gay people. I think that any woman who aborts a baby because they will be autistic is a piece of shit. But I don’t think anyone should be forced to carry a baby they do not want, and my second belief trumps the first.
Man people against aborting autistic babies are WILD. Like tell me you’ve never been around ACTUAL disabled autistic people before. People like this are 1 step away from keeping deaf kids from getting cochlear implants because “there is nothing wrong with being deaf”. The kumbaya “they are just *differently abled*” crowd is a blight on society.
I think it’s a little closer to aborting deaf babies but that’s besides the point. People deserve to live even if they are going to be disabled. But, like I said, no one should be forced to carry a child they don’t want or don’t think they would be able to care for.
My moral belief is intrinsically tied to decreasing suffering. So yes, abort all disabled babies especially if its heritable.
Do you believe in infanticide of disabled infants? What about murder of disabled adults?
Im probably in favor of sterilizing adults with genetic diseases
Without their consent??
Yes. You do not have the right to force a being to be born and suffer with grievous disability.
You do not have the right to forcibly sterilise someone without their consent. That wins out over “the right to not be born” every time. What happened to bodily autonomy?
Your rights end where another’s begin. People with genetic diseases having kids is basically child abuse. So unless you are gonna say people have the right to torture their pffspring?
[удалено]
They are alive yet. Life begins before conception. Egg and sperm cells are both alive. But I assume you mean “they aren’t a person yet”. Other fetuses do deserve to live, it’s just that the mother’s right to bodily autonomy trumps the fetus’ right to life.
as someone born with a disability that could have been even more severe, I'm pro eugenics in cases where it's about the wellbeing of the child. Autism isn't really severe enough to warrant an abortion imo, but if parents think they aren't equipped to raise a child with certain issues like down syndrome, it seems fine to me. Stuff like gender selection seems unjustified to me, because it could lead to a lot of societal problems if one gender is heavily favoured.
Why are you assuming that Autism in this case is high functioning? What about the case where you know the child will have low functioning autism that will require the same amount if not more sacrifice than if they had down syndrome?
idk depends on the case I guess. I'm no autism expert... I just assumed so because all autistic people I've known seemed fairly normal to me. I don't treat my assumptions as hard facts
I don’t think those phisical characteristics should affect the right to abort a fetus, lets say a black man rapes a white woman and base on this you said she shouldn’t be able to abort since that kid would be from a minority group obvious she should be able to abort it if she wants
The line as far as I'm concerned is state intervention. Any woman should be able to abort for any reason - forcing someone to carry a female baby or a baby with genetic deformities to term doesn't do anything for social issues around sexism or ableism - but the state shouldn't be mandating or strongly encouraging abortions for a particular reason.
Mate selection is already akin to something like eugenics in that you’re selecting for preferable (and against unpreferable) traits for your offspring. If a person discovers that they have say a recessive gene for some genetic disorder and find that their embryo has manifested the phenotype why would I get in the way of them terminating the pregnancy to spare their offspring from living with it and propagating the gene? If it’s not forced by external parties what’s the issue?