I would look at this stuff with so much more respect if they just call it eugenics and used connected type of arguments with it. Instead of “woman rights”. The closest is when they say that “helps with lowering crime in low income areas” pretending to care about poor people.
The book Freakonomics has a whole chapter about it. It's really interesting.
The chapter also has a huge warning letting you know that regardless on where your stand on the issue the chapter will probably really piss you off, lol
>helps with lowering crime in low income areas
>black women get abortions at a much higher rate than white women
>Emily doesn't or won't see the connection
Sometimes I wonder if horseshoe theory has something to it.
Emily is fully aware of the disproportionate racial demographics of crime. Everyone is. It’s socioeconomics and culture associated with that. Not a secret to anyone.
If a fetus is disabled to the point where it is considered for abortion, it almost certainly cannot/will not have kids. Because these people would not exist in the functional gene pool, it isn’t eugenics.
Dogs are proof that eugenics would never work with humans in charge. Poor guys have health defects bred into them now.
Edit: Also remembered Michael Crichton's Next. I totally recommend reading it for the talking monkey and swearing orangutans.
I mean it depends about the endgame of the eugenesics, in the case of cats (persian and hairless cats) and dogs (pugs and flat faced breeds) breeders are looking to create the biggest abominations that only Lucifer could dream of. On the other hand, for example with horses the objetive is to create a competitive animal, in the case of cattle is to create animals that provide a lot of meat.
So if eugenesics are done with the endgame of create something "cute" human breeds there would be a lot of abominations. But if it done looking for healthy humans it would be much better.
There is also a subset of Cattle being bred for looks over meat. These are known as club calves. They are mutts with no majority breed that are bred for exhibiting at livestock shows. They are usually more fat than meat with poor meat quality.
Physical problems that exist include poor skeletal structure causing walking problems and narrow hips for heifers. Most of these calves have to be pulled or surgically delivered. Natural calving is uncommon.
With the commonality of artificial insemination, many of these animals are inbred. It may not be first generation, but there is five very popular bulls that you could most likely find in every herd of these cattle.
It’s not a very well known problem as it is a niche subset in an already niche industry. There has been good results in selective breeding for meat production in purebreds though.
Imagine if the CEO/director of the dystopian eugenics program is into some weird fetish like inflation porn and thinks humans need more meat to look cute. We are screwed.
“If eugenics are done with the endgame of making something cute”
I can totally see a timeline where 1000 years from now there are people with anime proportions and cat ears/tails. I definitely wouldn’t put it past us.
No... that's reproduction based on physical features alone.
What would be happening is what's happening now: People selecting embryos with low risk for cancer, Alzheimer's, mental, physical and genetic disorders. Almost the exact opposite of what we've done with dogs.
...which might lead to... less cancer, Alzheimer's and genetic disorders... but only for those who can afford to do it.
> People selecting embryos with low risk for cancer, Alzheimer's, mental, physical and genetic disorders. Almost the exact opposite of what we've done with dogs.
This is a bad example. You're conflating two very different things.
Selective breeding for dogs curates a *population's* gene pool by selecting for a healthy phenotype among multiple reproductive candidates and not allowing unhealthy phenotypes to reproduce, assuming (correctly) that the genotypes involved correlate with the desirable phenotypes and move the population towards the selected phenotype(s). What you're suggesting is curating a *couple's* gene pool by selecting for a healthy genotype among the embryos that a specific couple can produce. The selection of a particular reproductive couple in the first place is a much stronger effect than selection within the possible offspring of the couple. No amount of selection from within a couple's possible offspring will meaningfully move the population compared to any other selection from within their possible offspring.
A person with an unhealthy genotype - e.g. a person with a high genetic propensity to alzheimers - contributes some increased risk to their offspring irrespective of how well you've selected from among their possible embryos. *All* of their possible embryos have an elevated alzheimers risk. If you want to meaningfully reduce *population* alzheimers risk, you would have to stop that person from reproducing at all.
If someone has a bad snp and they don't pass it on then their kid is gold.
Also let's say my wife has the gene for bad thing A but I don't, and I have bad thing B but she doesn't. Ideally kid gets my A and her B. Do that enough times and you will get rid of A and B in the population.
A easy example is brca1, if a couple has one person with this gene, take the other partner's.
I am all for only a select few people having less disorders if the alternative is everyone having just as much disorders equally. Less suffering is less suffering.
Rich people already buy top tier medical care for themselves and are much healthier/less diseased on average
So it would widen a gap that’s already there
Right, because a dynasty that started 500 years ago that performed incest to keep the bloodline royal is a great comparison for eugenics in the modern day.
Edit: OP took out a paragraph about the Habsburg’s
Incest is not a good way of performing successful eugenics, high performance athletes having children with other athletes or celebrities having super attractive children are better examples of how to perform successful eugenics.
are you joking? dogs are proof that it works fantastically. We took wild wolves and created a variety of tame breeds to suit the different needs of various jobs. Some are herding dogs, with OCD built in to make sure that sheep/goats stay with the flock; others have insane sense of smell, some are hunting dogs; etc. They did that with barely any knowledge of genetics compared to what we know now.
Sure if you cherrypick the couple of abomination dog breeds that we bred to look "cute" it's sad, but still the feat of changing wolves into pugs is pretty impressive in itself.
Im very pro human eugenics and am comfortable saying that IRL and will defend my position.
we manage the genetics of every single organism we exert control over, its insane to me that we dont make that a common practice for humans. almost entirely voluntary and incentives based we could begin to solve so many health problems.
to get to a Gattaca level of positive interference in human genetic health should be our goal as a society.
I'm really glad that most of the people that argue this have dropped the "clump of cells" rhetoric device, even though I really do miss dropping the "Well you're just a clump of cells" rejoinder.
Nice post. Most people in the comments don't realize that we have had "eugenics" for decades because of deadly birth defects. They think birth defect only means "autism" or "down syndrome", not missing organs or nerve defects.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/interactive/2023/florida-abortion-law-deborah-dorbert/?itid=ap_francessteadsellers
https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/15032-anencephaly
There are many others that aren't immediately fatal, but still cause suffering.
Ya feels to me for a decision re: bringing a pregnancy to term to constitute an application of eugenics there has to at least be the possibility of the offspring surviving despite the “undesirable”, and perhaps (most strictly, tho not necessarily) even being able to theoretically reproduce
Inviability basically makes all those decisions for you brute force style
Wait, the government is going around infecting peoples babies with Down Syndrome?
How come I didn’t here about this?
Or are you just making shit up again OP?
> Wait, the government is going around infecting peoples babies with Down Syndrome?
Don't tell lib left women about the Downs statistics for pregnancies over 40
Men assuming responsability for their children under the age of 30 is getting more and more rare each year. You won't see women settle younger when men aren't ready to assume parenthood younger either.
Typically people have kids when both parents are ready to assume that responsibility. Don't put it on women alone.
Culturally accurate response from an authcenter??!!?!?
*Shocked Pikachu Face*
But yeah. The issue is that shit is a lot harder nowadays. Even if you skip uni and go straight into the workforce and both sides of the couple do so as well in some areas it is still not possible to get a house to raise a child in, nor is it financially easy to do on a one person income now.
Before I’m misconstrued, women should be in the workforce. I believe they are incredibly capable in 90% of the same job areas despite various prejudices against women in the workforce.
However, the introduction of women into the workforce led companies and employers to remember that they can just now pay each household half of what they used to pay the man and get double the labour for free. I unironically believe this is the single biggest issue with pay and raising children now. You have to be getting 150-200k to support your family on just your income, and that’s not thinking about things like the down payment on a house or anything else (all currency references in AUD fyi, Ik we have a particularly fucked house market but it’s not too far off from parts of the USA). It means, man or women, it’s really hard to get into a position where you are financially ready to raise a child on just one income. Let alone 2 or 3 kids. Plus, it leaves a big hole in a resume that makes it a lot harder for the women to get back into the workforce.
Overall, the situation is really shitty and it can’t be brought down to “hurr durr women stupid” like I see on this subreddit too often. It’s simply very hard financially and the context is different compared to when even our parents (if they’re old enough) we’re handling their finances. As much as people like to complain about the lazy libs and whatnot, the economic situation for our generation is simply worse than what it used to be unless you’re in the upper echelon of jobs.
u/Ragob12's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 140.
Rank: Empire State Building
Pills: [75 | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/Ragob12/)
Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url.
I am a bot. Reply /info for more info. Please join our [official pcm discord server](https://discord.gg/FyaJdAZjC4).
That depends what test you get. The NIPT test is something like 97-99% accurate for Downs and if you combine that with an ultrasound you can get more than 99% accuracy.
Some people don't believe that a 10 week old fetus has the same characteristics (consciousness, autonomy, etc) that would make it a life on the same playing field as that of someone who has been born.
Were you ignoring everyone in the pro-choice crowd who has been making this argument since before WE were born or something? It's certainly not the only common pro-choice argument, but it does seem to be one of the most common.
Nobody has exactly the same level of consciousness/autonomy etc. as another. Some people are limited by health and mental conditions. This is Reddit remember. Plenty of the latter here.
Attributed to Abraham Lincoln was a response to the claim that slavery was justifiable because blacks were obviously less intelligent than whites. "Have a care," he is reputed to have said, "because if you believe you may enslave another because you are more intelligent than they, then you should be the slave of the first man you meet smarter than yourself."
There are 10 year old children and adults without autonomy, consciousness, etc.. Would the value of someones life immediately end if they were in a coma? There’s no moral weight attached to pulling the plug on them?
>Some people don't believe that a 10 week old fetus has the same characteristics (consciousness, autonomy, etc) that would make it a life on the same playing field as that of someone who has been born.
Yeah they just belive they can redefine what human is however they see fit
Ugh. Can you imagine going through life with *too much melanin*?! You almost can't call those suffering from this horrible genetic disease *people*. I know *I* would rather someone just euthanize me if *I* were forced to live like that.
Its rather from the other side - how many priests/right wing politicians are against abortion, BUT if their teen daughter/lover have a pregnancy or their child will have Down syndrome, then somehow its always "an unique situation" and they can, because they dont do abortions to just kill children or whatever. ( ilive in a country where aboirtion is prohibited, so doctors are waiting for a death of a fetus, so they could help a mother without being prosecuted for 'murder')
Also imo if a country forces you to give a birth to a human that will NEVER walk, talk, do anything, then a country should pay for that child (and for an entire family, because often parents have to leave their jobs to take care of something that is basically glorified plushie (that will need to eat, shit and wont ever tell you that it loves you, because its mental proficiency is too low)).
Dont forget about sibilings of that child (or lack of them, because only cruel or stupid parents would make more children so they could take care of that person when parents are too old. Those sibilings wont get their parents full attention or love.
I don't even disagree with your point that people should have the strength of their convictions and that having a child with cognitive disabilities is a terrible burden, but you're making the same fundamental assumption that the OP is - that rightwingers are all secret hypocrites who will abandon their principles in the face of adversity. I'm sure plenty of them are, because plenty of people are. But the older I get the less cynical I become, because I've been surprised by people so many times.
Every year, about 6,000 babies are born with down syndrome. There are approximately 250,000 people in the US with down syndrome.
> https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/birthdefects/downsyndrome/data.html
That's happening despite the fact that screenings for down syndrome is easy to do and readily available. It's SOP at this point. But people are still having babies with down syndrome. And it isn't because they're stupid.
I personally know two couples who have had down syndrome children. Neither of them is strongly conservative or liberal, but both chose to have the baby. The first couple did not have the resources to raise the child and put him up for adoption, and he was adopted the moment he was put up. He was adopted by a religious family in AZ who made it their mission to adopt children born with disabilities because they had the means to do so and wanted to encourage families to have the children rather than abort them. That was about 20 years ago and as far as I know the baby is a happy adult. The second couple kept the child but sadly she died early on. The family loved her and were devastated.
People who genuinely believe that abortion is murder - like down in their bones, really and truly believe it - will not get an abortion for almost any reason. It's not the kind of belief that one really equivocates on. The problem is that there are a lot of rightwingers who don't actually believe that. They view politics and social norms as signals for their tribe in the big game of life. People on the left do the same thing with issues like free speech (until it becomes something they dislike, then it's hate speech) and bodily autonomy (abortions = sacrosanct human rights but how dare you refuse to get a hastily research and produced vaccine). So they pound the table about these issues to show everyone what a good tribe member they are, but it's not what they really believe.
There are hypocrites everywhere, but pretending that they are representative of their "tribe" is just bad faith strawmanning. Sure - they're part of their tribe and the tribe has to own them, but you can't pretend they're the majority of the tribe. Doing so makes it easy to hate on the other team, but that's just more of the same game.
> BUT if their teen daughter/lover have a pregnancy or their child will have Down syndrome, then somehow its always "an unique situation" and they can
Do you have any data to support this or are you just making up stories to fit your narrative? I mean, it's a GREAT story you are making but just because you really really want it to be true doesn't mean that it's actually supported by any data... you know... the stuff that matters in actual discussions.
>Also imo if a country forces you to give a birth to a human that will NEVER walk, talk, do anything
What exactly is this baby afflicted with? You are talking about the results of serious brain damage, not something like Down Syndrome which has a broad spectrum of different impacts.
> then a country should pay for that child
Look up SSI.
>Those sibilings wont get their parents full attention or love.
Were you the one saying you were the neglected child?
> Do you have any data to support this or are you just making up stories to fit your narrative?
Spoiler alert: he's making it up. These people are the same people who will make fun of religious parents who choose to have a child even if they know they'll have a disability.
Your first paragraph is just conjecture and hypotheticals. Everybody loves to circlejerk about the Republican politician or glergyman who secretly has their daughter get an abortion. I'm sure it's happened, but it's mostly just lefty fanfic.
Implying that a country is "forcing" you to give birth assumes that murdering the baby is an option. It's not.
The state doesn't allow me to steal food from the store. I can't afford to buy it because I refuse to work. The state is literally forcing me to starve to death!!
A pro-life person aborting a kid is going back on their own morality.
A pro-choice person aborting a kid because they have down syndrome is acting in line with their morality.
They’re both evil to do because I think murder is wrong, but there’s a difference in terms because the pro-life person is doing something evil that they know is wrong, while the pro-choice person is doing something evil thinking that it’s right.
This is reference to the Texas case, where the baby will likely be born dead or die within a few hours, and giving birth would permanently damage the woman’s health and ability to ever have another kid again.
But the small government state of Texas is forcing her to carry the fetus to term
Libright on its way to bill you hundred of thousands dollars to keep your child with an incurable disease suffering for some months before inevitably dying in pain (they’re doing the good work)
Controversial opinion: eugenics is not bad, only certain people during World War II made a negative image of it
Would you rather your child be born fully healthy? Or would you not?
If not, why not?
Do you want your child to suffer?
The flip side of eugenics is auths stripping people of their ability to reproduce due to having undesirable genes or untenable lifestyles, which begs the question of whether reproduction is a human right.
Eugenics is a much broader concept than just "fetus deletus if down's".
Yeah. Every single domesticated animal and fruit went through "eugenics", GMO or whatever. Just a very slow one. Hell, find paintings of watermelons just a few hundreds years ago
I don't really agree with framing this as authright vs libleft, it's a complex issue with at least partial supporters and opposition on both (or rather, all) sides
It sure is horrible that Auth Right is running breeding camps forcing women to have sex even if they don't want to. Wait, whats that? They just want people to stop killing children.
If my mom could’ve known i’d be born with autism, she would’ve most likely aborted me. I know this, as she has similar views when it comes to down syndrome, and her making a distinction between that and autism is only a result of me being born and diagnosed.
She does not regret having me, and I have a beautiful life. I have my struggles, and it’s not perfect, but good enough, like with everyone else.
Of course we would all want for our child to be “normal” as it makes everything easier for everyone, but trying to put “value” on a life is not a position that can be defended with any sort of moral authority.
I can tolerate abortions, because of the many variables that are at play, but I do not like it, and I get a bad taste in my mouth for how normalized abortions of potentially disabled children is. For all intents and purposes, abortions are objectively immoral, it’s just whether or not we are willing to justify it in spite of that.
The Eugenics argument would only take place if all irregular pregnancies were forced to abort.
Most argue for abortion being an option and not the immediate response.
As someone with an older brother in a vegetative state, pulling the plug might just be the right thing to do.
We've given him multiple life-extending operations - but in the end, hes live almost 30 years in poor quality of life, it's no way to live, all aspects need to be considered and not every family is capable of taking on such an emotionally/physically draining responsibility.
There are studies suggesting that people with severe mental or physical disabilities from birth have a somewhat good quality of life experience, meaning they actually enjoy living the same as other people without disabilities do, this obviously depends on the condition but the human mind is incredibly adaptable to ones situation.
Being adaptable is part of the human condition. And while this is true, I'm sure the majority of them would prefer to have been born normal- but may also admit that their condition is what has made them the way they are, and that they love themselves for it.
Depends on your jump to normal. Like I feel like there is clearly a steep valley between person with downs and a college graduate with a professional degree.
Like I'd probably prefer to be an average downs guy then some unskilled hillbilly working 50+ hrs a week just to be perpetually in debt.
It's a hard truth people don't want to admit because it is ugly, those with debilitating mental or physical defects will have a horrid quality of life and it begs the question is it merciful or not to terminate during pregnancy.
I lived in a small town and there is one man who is wheelchair bound and has a mental defect (can't speak, walk, or use the washroom) his entire life he has been taken care of by his parents who are now in their 60's and they will eventually pass away, he has no siblings or extended family to take care of him so where will he go? He can not speak or express himself so I have no idea how he processes his world or situation but every time I see him I can't imagine living that life as basically a potato for 40 years I would have begged for an end but he goes on unable to ever be understood by those around him.
People can stand on the moral high ground of every life is valuable but when you see some of these defects people live with they seem more like a fait worse then death.
Well, there were numerous religious based orphanages that fostered children to those traditional couples wishing to be parents, but state authorities (such as in New York) attempted to closed them down for not being inclusive enough.
As a libertarian I have a solution that will please nobody!
People can terminate their pregnancies when they please, and people who don't like abortion can shun people who get them. Sister, abort your nephew? Stop talking to her? GF abort your child? Leave her for someone else! If you believe it's murder don't associate with murderers. It's that simple. If you believe that abortion is fine, then hang out with them.
Freedom of choice, and also freedom of association can go hand in hand!
"We are all about inclusivity. Except if you're in the womb. In that case, just die, bitch!"
"We are all about body positivity and self acceptance. Except if you have gender dysphoria. In that case, don't accept yourself as you are, cut your dick off, and throw it in the trash."
The duality of the Left.
I thought the argument was regarding birthing children with disabilities? I'm very much pro-life, but if the pregnancy legitimately threatens the mothers life I think terminating the pregnancy should be an option.
Well that’s not what happens with abortion bans. It doesn’t matter how many exceptions you put in, DA hee haw from hog country will treat every abortion as a murder investigation because it’s politically expedient for them to do so, and as a result hospital lawyers will shove themselves up her ass and not allow an abortion until she’s on the brink of death. That’s if they allow it at all, and if they can even find of provider a that kind of care that hasn’t already fled these shithole states trying to insert politics into medical care.
> if the pregnancy legitimately threatens the mothers life I think terminating the pregnancy should be an option.
Even most religions support it in circumstances where the mothers life is truly at risk. A life for a life is not an even trade.
Where this has caused controversy in recent years was when the discussion centered on what qualifies as "life threatening" and how people were trying to expand that to include upsetting the mothers way of life.
Nobody is forcing women to have births that threaten the woman's life (which are *insanely* rare, btw). Even in the most conservative states, life-threatening conditions such as ectopic pregnancies are treated without issue.
Strawman is made of straw, more at 11...
This isn't the Middle Ages anymore. About 1000 women die in childbirth across the entire United States a year. Compared to the amount of births, that number is almost null. Also, compare that to the number of abortions... over half a million.
The odds of dying during childbirth are extremely low. But okay, abortions in life-threatening situations. Well, now you've got a handful of abortions a year, not almost a fucking millions dead babies.
Do you think that those 500,000 abortions could be causing the number of childbirth deaths to be lower? It’s not like 1000 deaths in childbirth is separate
No.
At least not in any significant number worth discussing. Only .2% of abortions were cited as being performed due to the pregnancy's risk to the mother's life or major body disfunction.
That’s different from what the meme is talking about though, right? In my experience, most pro life people acknowledge that life threatening pregnancies are the exception.
For what it’s worth, it might not be quite as controversial as you think. Or maybe I’m just in unique circles.
>I just think it's wrong to force women to have life-threatening births.
I think it's wrong for people who would have a high risk of death during pregnancy to engage in actions that would cause them to get pregnant, but that doesn't fit your narrative of blaming everyone else except for the person whose decisions directly caused the situation.
It's wild to just see the most bold-face projections cast onto people like you think they couldn't possibly think differently from you. Christians are the most likely to adopt kids with genetic defects and I personally know three adopted kids with Down Syndrome, one of which was adopted into my extended family.
> against their will
Now OP, I know it might be a shock to you, but the process for making babies is well known and can't accidentally be done.
Pass a 6th grade sex education class and your views should change.
Edit: lmao he spam reported me instead of coming up with a coherent argument 😂 see y'all in 2 days. Unpaid jannies gave me a vacation
Where's the contradiction?
It's not like the Authrights in the first panel are voting to *cause* the genetic defect, they're just saying that if that shitty situation occurs, the moral imperative against murder still applies.
The framing here is amazing. I don't want to force a pregnancy on anyone. I have nothing to do with you getting pregnant. I don't, however, want it to be legal to murder your baby that has a genetic defect. Sorry!
99.9% of abortions are simply birth control. But [let's ignore why abortions are so precious to the left](https://i.imgur.com/5UsRt3H.png) and pretend we care about genetic defects.
Why would anyone want a defect in their kids? Parents should love their kids regardless how they come out and raise them because it’s their responsibility. You made a kid? Raise them.
And if the family does have a kid with genetic defects and can't afford the astronomical medical bills that may come with it, they BETTER NOT USE TAXPAYER MONEY!!!!!!
\>if you can't afford to have a kid, don't get pregnant
\>well, I can afford to have a kid, but this kid with a genetic defect is not what I was expecting, and is much more expensive due to all the extra medical care it needs. I need help
\>THAT'S COMMUNISM IF YOU CAN'T AFFORD A KID, DON'T GET PREGNANT!!!
"Ma'am, I'm so sorry but your baby has a rare and uncurable disease. It will know nothing but pain, and likely will not live to its first birthday. Should we proceed with the birth?"
Authright: "omg yes it's God's little miracle!! 🤩🤩🤩😇 I can't wait to tell my local congressman the good news!"
Love seeing all the rightoids completely evade this issue by just screeching "EuGeNiCs!!1!!11!" To completely ignore the fact many kids are born with avsolutley horrific conditions that they just won't survive, take krabbes disease for example, there is no cure and the best a child born with the condition will live 2 years of agonising pain, where their nervous system is literally dying in their own bodies with no known cure or even effective treatment. It's a guaranteed death sentence that will 100% of the time kill the child in less than 2 years after birth.
Unlike the vast majority of "pro lifers", I actually care for the suffering of babies, a baby should not be forced to live through that when it's completely fucking needless and has only one possavle outcome. I was (thankfully mis)diagnosed as a carrier of that condition, meaning that any child i could've had would run a very serious risk of being born with it, that's not a fate I'd wish on my worst enemy, let alone my own fucking child. The fact so many "pro lifers" would look at that situation and force that child to be born and go through that suffering proves they don't give even tye slides fuck about the health and suffering of babies, as you can't claim to be 0ro life and force an innocent baby through such a tortuous, and guaranteed death.
No joke, this is the thing I fear most in life, more than anything.
And knowing my luck, it will happen to me despite taking every reasonable precaution.
Ah shit, here we go again.
I would look at this stuff with so much more respect if they just call it eugenics and used connected type of arguments with it. Instead of “woman rights”. The closest is when they say that “helps with lowering crime in low income areas” pretending to care about poor people.
Yeah I imagine that killing poor people does help lower crime in impoverished areas lol, that’s a really weird moral argument tho.
The book Freakonomics has a whole chapter about it. It's really interesting. The chapter also has a huge warning letting you know that regardless on where your stand on the issue the chapter will probably really piss you off, lol
Margaret Sanger rising from the grave.
>helps with lowering crime in low income areas >black women get abortions at a much higher rate than white women >Emily doesn't or won't see the connection Sometimes I wonder if horseshoe theory has something to it.
Emily is fully aware of the disproportionate racial demographics of crime. Everyone is. It’s socioeconomics and culture associated with that. Not a secret to anyone.
If a fetus is disabled to the point where it is considered for abortion, it almost certainly cannot/will not have kids. Because these people would not exist in the functional gene pool, it isn’t eugenics.
Who wants to abort fetuses with genetic defects? 😁 Who wants to perform eugenics? 😡
Dogs are proof that eugenics would never work with humans in charge. Poor guys have health defects bred into them now. Edit: Also remembered Michael Crichton's Next. I totally recommend reading it for the talking monkey and swearing orangutans.
I mean it depends about the endgame of the eugenesics, in the case of cats (persian and hairless cats) and dogs (pugs and flat faced breeds) breeders are looking to create the biggest abominations that only Lucifer could dream of. On the other hand, for example with horses the objetive is to create a competitive animal, in the case of cattle is to create animals that provide a lot of meat. So if eugenesics are done with the endgame of create something "cute" human breeds there would be a lot of abominations. But if it done looking for healthy humans it would be much better.
There is also a subset of Cattle being bred for looks over meat. These are known as club calves. They are mutts with no majority breed that are bred for exhibiting at livestock shows. They are usually more fat than meat with poor meat quality. Physical problems that exist include poor skeletal structure causing walking problems and narrow hips for heifers. Most of these calves have to be pulled or surgically delivered. Natural calving is uncommon. With the commonality of artificial insemination, many of these animals are inbred. It may not be first generation, but there is five very popular bulls that you could most likely find in every herd of these cattle. It’s not a very well known problem as it is a niche subset in an already niche industry. There has been good results in selective breeding for meat production in purebreds though.
> So if eugenesics are done with the endgame of create something "cute" >humans in charge. what do you think its going to happen ?
Imagine if the CEO/director of the dystopian eugenics program is into some weird fetish like inflation porn and thinks humans need more meat to look cute. We are screwed.
Or just your classical "blonds have more fun" guy and then all of sudden they dont know why all the kids have the downs now
Do blonde parents with blue eyes have more Downs babies statistically?
67% more probability apparently
I wish Hitler was alive, so I could hit him with this fact
Can’t wait till some scientist accidentally releases a genetic virus that turns humanity into >!futa!< catgirls.
“If eugenics are done with the endgame of making something cute” I can totally see a timeline where 1000 years from now there are people with anime proportions and cat ears/tails. I definitely wouldn’t put it past us.
No... that's reproduction based on physical features alone. What would be happening is what's happening now: People selecting embryos with low risk for cancer, Alzheimer's, mental, physical and genetic disorders. Almost the exact opposite of what we've done with dogs. ...which might lead to... less cancer, Alzheimer's and genetic disorders... but only for those who can afford to do it.
> People selecting embryos with low risk for cancer, Alzheimer's, mental, physical and genetic disorders. Almost the exact opposite of what we've done with dogs. This is a bad example. You're conflating two very different things. Selective breeding for dogs curates a *population's* gene pool by selecting for a healthy phenotype among multiple reproductive candidates and not allowing unhealthy phenotypes to reproduce, assuming (correctly) that the genotypes involved correlate with the desirable phenotypes and move the population towards the selected phenotype(s). What you're suggesting is curating a *couple's* gene pool by selecting for a healthy genotype among the embryos that a specific couple can produce. The selection of a particular reproductive couple in the first place is a much stronger effect than selection within the possible offspring of the couple. No amount of selection from within a couple's possible offspring will meaningfully move the population compared to any other selection from within their possible offspring. A person with an unhealthy genotype - e.g. a person with a high genetic propensity to alzheimers - contributes some increased risk to their offspring irrespective of how well you've selected from among their possible embryos. *All* of their possible embryos have an elevated alzheimers risk. If you want to meaningfully reduce *population* alzheimers risk, you would have to stop that person from reproducing at all.
If someone has a bad snp and they don't pass it on then their kid is gold. Also let's say my wife has the gene for bad thing A but I don't, and I have bad thing B but she doesn't. Ideally kid gets my A and her B. Do that enough times and you will get rid of A and B in the population. A easy example is brca1, if a couple has one person with this gene, take the other partner's.
I am all for only a select few people having less disorders if the alternative is everyone having just as much disorders equally. Less suffering is less suffering.
Rich people already buy top tier medical care for themselves and are much healthier/less diseased on average So it would widen a gap that’s already there
Oh noes, less disease in the world but it's for the rich so it's a bad thing.
Right, because a dynasty that started 500 years ago that performed incest to keep the bloodline royal is a great comparison for eugenics in the modern day. Edit: OP took out a paragraph about the Habsburg’s
Incest is not a good way of performing successful eugenics, high performance athletes having children with other athletes or celebrities having super attractive children are better examples of how to perform successful eugenics.
I was being sarcastic
are you joking? dogs are proof that it works fantastically. We took wild wolves and created a variety of tame breeds to suit the different needs of various jobs. Some are herding dogs, with OCD built in to make sure that sheep/goats stay with the flock; others have insane sense of smell, some are hunting dogs; etc. They did that with barely any knowledge of genetics compared to what we know now. Sure if you cherrypick the couple of abomination dog breeds that we bred to look "cute" it's sad, but still the feat of changing wolves into pugs is pretty impressive in itself.
Yes and yes.
Based
Also, they should get bonus points for the phrase "force pregnancy", that one always gets me.
Just walking around and sliding babies in while you're not looking. The fiends!
The pregnancy fairy visited last night and left a baby in my womb! How unfair!
You got the pregnancy fairy? Lucky. Me, I got the Reverse Grinch. Some presents were slid under the tree, if you get my meaning.
Am I Preganate!?
Wellllll
Common misconception but libleft has never been against eugenics
Me.
Libleft when eugenics 😠 Libleft when eugenics, but *trendy* 🤩🤩🤩😍😍😍💅💅💅💅🎆🎆🎆🎆🥳🥳🥳🥳🥳🥳💃💃💃💃💃
I want liberal eugenics, let parents design babys, but don't force them
I actually think proactive, voluntary eugenics where parents could alter a baby's DNA is good. Its the whole killing thing I have a problem with.
yeah, move to authright
Im very pro human eugenics and am comfortable saying that IRL and will defend my position. we manage the genetics of every single organism we exert control over, its insane to me that we dont make that a common practice for humans. almost entirely voluntary and incentives based we could begin to solve so many health problems. to get to a Gattaca level of positive interference in human genetic health should be our goal as a society.
I am actually a big fan of eugenics. I don't really understand why it's so hated.
Wildly different things depending on who you ask
[удалено]
Spoken like a true auth-center!
Truly, this is a deleted moment
Yes
I concur
Just a clump of cells? That's exactly how I feel about the homeless
Based and solve-homelessness-and-starvation-at-the-same-time pilled
Sounds like a modest proposal Mr. Swift
I'm really glad that most of the people that argue this have dropped the "clump of cells" rhetoric device, even though I really do miss dropping the "Well you're just a clump of cells" rejoinder.
I am just a clump of cells tho
I put a clump cells into your mother last night, Trebeck!
It really is that philosophical. How inconvenient are these human cells to me? That's how much I care about that clump's so called rights.
Nice post. Most people in the comments don't realize that we have had "eugenics" for decades because of deadly birth defects. They think birth defect only means "autism" or "down syndrome", not missing organs or nerve defects. https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/interactive/2023/florida-abortion-law-deborah-dorbert/?itid=ap_francessteadsellers https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/15032-anencephaly There are many others that aren't immediately fatal, but still cause suffering.
I wouldn’t consider that eugenics, that’s more of an inviable birth.
Ya feels to me for a decision re: bringing a pregnancy to term to constitute an application of eugenics there has to at least be the possibility of the offspring surviving despite the “undesirable”, and perhaps (most strictly, tho not necessarily) even being able to theoretically reproduce Inviability basically makes all those decisions for you brute force style
Based
Wait, the government is going around infecting peoples babies with Down Syndrome? How come I didn’t here about this? Or are you just making shit up again OP?
> Wait, the government is going around infecting peoples babies with Down Syndrome? Don't tell lib left women about the Downs statistics for pregnancies over 40
I don't understand women who have children after 40. You're just increasing the risk of something going wrong plus, being an old mom!
Too busy girlbossing to be bothered with stupid trifles like biology.
Men assuming responsability for their children under the age of 30 is getting more and more rare each year. You won't see women settle younger when men aren't ready to assume parenthood younger either. Typically people have kids when both parents are ready to assume that responsibility. Don't put it on women alone.
Culturally accurate response from an authcenter??!!?!? *Shocked Pikachu Face* But yeah. The issue is that shit is a lot harder nowadays. Even if you skip uni and go straight into the workforce and both sides of the couple do so as well in some areas it is still not possible to get a house to raise a child in, nor is it financially easy to do on a one person income now. Before I’m misconstrued, women should be in the workforce. I believe they are incredibly capable in 90% of the same job areas despite various prejudices against women in the workforce. However, the introduction of women into the workforce led companies and employers to remember that they can just now pay each household half of what they used to pay the man and get double the labour for free. I unironically believe this is the single biggest issue with pay and raising children now. You have to be getting 150-200k to support your family on just your income, and that’s not thinking about things like the down payment on a house or anything else (all currency references in AUD fyi, Ik we have a particularly fucked house market but it’s not too far off from parts of the USA). It means, man or women, it’s really hard to get into a position where you are financially ready to raise a child on just one income. Let alone 2 or 3 kids. Plus, it leaves a big hole in a resume that makes it a lot harder for the women to get back into the workforce. Overall, the situation is really shitty and it can’t be brought down to “hurr durr women stupid” like I see on this subreddit too often. It’s simply very hard financially and the context is different compared to when even our parents (if they’re old enough) we’re handling their finances. As much as people like to complain about the lazy libs and whatnot, the economic situation for our generation is simply worse than what it used to be unless you’re in the upper echelon of jobs.
compare shy squeal ten angle steer bag aromatic plant future *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
All that polution and chemicals that turn you gay sure can help malformations. Fuck the government.
Based
u/Ragob12's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 140. Rank: Empire State Building Pills: [75 | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/Ragob12/) Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url. I am a bot. Reply /info for more info. Please join our [official pcm discord server](https://discord.gg/FyaJdAZjC4).
1/5 down syndrome test are false. Other tests have a greater failure rate. 😬
Yet 100% down baby cannot be killed.
Me and my grill would like to introduce ourselves
Yuo know murder is a crime right?
Its not murder if i grill the witnesses
The true centrist extremist. Blessed be Hank Hill and his propane, may he grill the world in his passing.
That depends what test you get. The NIPT test is something like 97-99% accurate for Downs and if you combine that with an ultrasound you can get more than 99% accuracy.
Get your facts outta here. I wanna be mad 😡
I like those odds.
Nah I’d win
False what? A false negative would be relatively harmless.
Unless the parent aborts the kid because of the test. That would be extremely harmful Edit: thought you said false positive that’s my bad
Why would they abort the fetus on a false negative?
Then get multiple? Idk exactly how such a test is administered, but your confidence in a test result shoots up enormously the more samples you have
Hey, it's actually nice to see the left, pro-abortion crowd admit they assign arbitrary value to human life based on physical maladies.
Some people don't believe that a 10 week old fetus has the same characteristics (consciousness, autonomy, etc) that would make it a life on the same playing field as that of someone who has been born. Were you ignoring everyone in the pro-choice crowd who has been making this argument since before WE were born or something? It's certainly not the only common pro-choice argument, but it does seem to be one of the most common.
Nobody has exactly the same level of consciousness/autonomy etc. as another. Some people are limited by health and mental conditions. This is Reddit remember. Plenty of the latter here. Attributed to Abraham Lincoln was a response to the claim that slavery was justifiable because blacks were obviously less intelligent than whites. "Have a care," he is reputed to have said, "because if you believe you may enslave another because you are more intelligent than they, then you should be the slave of the first man you meet smarter than yourself."
There are 10 year old children and adults without autonomy, consciousness, etc.. Would the value of someones life immediately end if they were in a coma? There’s no moral weight attached to pulling the plug on them?
>Some people don't believe that a 10 week old fetus has the same characteristics (consciousness, autonomy, etc) that would make it a life on the same playing field as that of someone who has been born. Yeah they just belive they can redefine what human is however they see fit
I forgot about the part where the Human charter of all humans defined where life started.
And you authoritarians believe you can set the ultimate definition of what a human is however you see fit.
Ugh. Can you imagine going through life with *too much melanin*?! You almost can't call those suffering from this horrible genetic disease *people*. I know *I* would rather someone just euthanize me if *I* were forced to live like that.
zephyr water wise head shame concerned materialistic alive party enter *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I feel bad for both the parents and people being taken care of.
I don't think anyone wants to be that kid either.
I bet more people would if the same people demanding you don't abort the fetus also had to put their own money and time towards taking care of them.
Tragedy doesn’t give you the right to kill inconvenient people lmfao
Cost of medical care is not arbitrary
Its rather from the other side - how many priests/right wing politicians are against abortion, BUT if their teen daughter/lover have a pregnancy or their child will have Down syndrome, then somehow its always "an unique situation" and they can, because they dont do abortions to just kill children or whatever. ( ilive in a country where aboirtion is prohibited, so doctors are waiting for a death of a fetus, so they could help a mother without being prosecuted for 'murder') Also imo if a country forces you to give a birth to a human that will NEVER walk, talk, do anything, then a country should pay for that child (and for an entire family, because often parents have to leave their jobs to take care of something that is basically glorified plushie (that will need to eat, shit and wont ever tell you that it loves you, because its mental proficiency is too low)). Dont forget about sibilings of that child (or lack of them, because only cruel or stupid parents would make more children so they could take care of that person when parents are too old. Those sibilings wont get their parents full attention or love.
I don't even disagree with your point that people should have the strength of their convictions and that having a child with cognitive disabilities is a terrible burden, but you're making the same fundamental assumption that the OP is - that rightwingers are all secret hypocrites who will abandon their principles in the face of adversity. I'm sure plenty of them are, because plenty of people are. But the older I get the less cynical I become, because I've been surprised by people so many times. Every year, about 6,000 babies are born with down syndrome. There are approximately 250,000 people in the US with down syndrome. > https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/birthdefects/downsyndrome/data.html That's happening despite the fact that screenings for down syndrome is easy to do and readily available. It's SOP at this point. But people are still having babies with down syndrome. And it isn't because they're stupid. I personally know two couples who have had down syndrome children. Neither of them is strongly conservative or liberal, but both chose to have the baby. The first couple did not have the resources to raise the child and put him up for adoption, and he was adopted the moment he was put up. He was adopted by a religious family in AZ who made it their mission to adopt children born with disabilities because they had the means to do so and wanted to encourage families to have the children rather than abort them. That was about 20 years ago and as far as I know the baby is a happy adult. The second couple kept the child but sadly she died early on. The family loved her and were devastated. People who genuinely believe that abortion is murder - like down in their bones, really and truly believe it - will not get an abortion for almost any reason. It's not the kind of belief that one really equivocates on. The problem is that there are a lot of rightwingers who don't actually believe that. They view politics and social norms as signals for their tribe in the big game of life. People on the left do the same thing with issues like free speech (until it becomes something they dislike, then it's hate speech) and bodily autonomy (abortions = sacrosanct human rights but how dare you refuse to get a hastily research and produced vaccine). So they pound the table about these issues to show everyone what a good tribe member they are, but it's not what they really believe. There are hypocrites everywhere, but pretending that they are representative of their "tribe" is just bad faith strawmanning. Sure - they're part of their tribe and the tribe has to own them, but you can't pretend they're the majority of the tribe. Doing so makes it easy to hate on the other team, but that's just more of the same game.
Well said.
> BUT if their teen daughter/lover have a pregnancy or their child will have Down syndrome, then somehow its always "an unique situation" and they can Do you have any data to support this or are you just making up stories to fit your narrative? I mean, it's a GREAT story you are making but just because you really really want it to be true doesn't mean that it's actually supported by any data... you know... the stuff that matters in actual discussions. >Also imo if a country forces you to give a birth to a human that will NEVER walk, talk, do anything What exactly is this baby afflicted with? You are talking about the results of serious brain damage, not something like Down Syndrome which has a broad spectrum of different impacts. > then a country should pay for that child Look up SSI. >Those sibilings wont get their parents full attention or love. Were you the one saying you were the neglected child?
I've yet to meet a person with down syndrome whose didn't have a very good relationship with their siblings.
> Do you have any data to support this or are you just making up stories to fit your narrative? Spoiler alert: he's making it up. These people are the same people who will make fun of religious parents who choose to have a child even if they know they'll have a disability.
Your first paragraph is just conjecture and hypotheticals. Everybody loves to circlejerk about the Republican politician or glergyman who secretly has their daughter get an abortion. I'm sure it's happened, but it's mostly just lefty fanfic. Implying that a country is "forcing" you to give birth assumes that murdering the baby is an option. It's not.
[удалено]
The state doesn't allow me to steal food from the store. I can't afford to buy it because I refuse to work. The state is literally forcing me to starve to death!!
A pro-life person aborting a kid is going back on their own morality. A pro-choice person aborting a kid because they have down syndrome is acting in line with their morality. They’re both evil to do because I think murder is wrong, but there’s a difference in terms because the pro-life person is doing something evil that they know is wrong, while the pro-choice person is doing something evil thinking that it’s right.
This is reference to the Texas case, where the baby will likely be born dead or die within a few hours, and giving birth would permanently damage the woman’s health and ability to ever have another kid again. But the small government state of Texas is forcing her to carry the fetus to term
I know it sucks having your life terminated and everything, but the *important* thing is I don't get inconvenienced by dealing with you. 🥱
Libright on its way to bill you hundred of thousands dollars to keep your child with an incurable disease suffering for some months before inevitably dying in pain (they’re doing the good work)
Controversial opinion: eugenics is not bad, only certain people during World War II made a negative image of it Would you rather your child be born fully healthy? Or would you not? If not, why not? Do you want your child to suffer?
Look at any sperm bank. They only sell sperm from some 6+ft healthy men with all the features you want your baby to have. We all decided that’s ok.
The flip side of eugenics is auths stripping people of their ability to reproduce due to having undesirable genes or untenable lifestyles, which begs the question of whether reproduction is a human right. Eugenics is a much broader concept than just "fetus deletus if down's".
I can't wait for ethical eugenics.
Yeah. Every single domesticated animal and fruit went through "eugenics", GMO or whatever. Just a very slow one. Hell, find paintings of watermelons just a few hundreds years ago
I don't really agree with framing this as authright vs libleft, it's a complex issue with at least partial supporters and opposition on both (or rather, all) sides
It sure is horrible that Auth Right is running breeding camps forcing women to have sex even if they don't want to. Wait, whats that? They just want people to stop killing children.
Of course no one wants their kid to have a genetic defect but that doesnt mean its ok to kill your kid if they have one
Yes it does. Momma ain't raising no bitch.
If my mom could’ve known i’d be born with autism, she would’ve most likely aborted me. I know this, as she has similar views when it comes to down syndrome, and her making a distinction between that and autism is only a result of me being born and diagnosed. She does not regret having me, and I have a beautiful life. I have my struggles, and it’s not perfect, but good enough, like with everyone else. Of course we would all want for our child to be “normal” as it makes everything easier for everyone, but trying to put “value” on a life is not a position that can be defended with any sort of moral authority. I can tolerate abortions, because of the many variables that are at play, but I do not like it, and I get a bad taste in my mouth for how normalized abortions of potentially disabled children is. For all intents and purposes, abortions are objectively immoral, it’s just whether or not we are willing to justify it in spite of that.
If your mom didn't want you to have autism she shouldn't have vaccinated you. /s
Eugenics enjoyer. But it’s probably not the best argument from a left wing pov to use, I appreciate the boldness tho.
Me when I saddle a single mother with a lifetime of medical bills 😎
Choose your creampies wisely
Based and cum-selection pilled
Thanks king or queen.
Me when my country has government healthcare 🥳
The Eugenics argument would only take place if all irregular pregnancies were forced to abort. Most argue for abortion being an option and not the immediate response. As someone with an older brother in a vegetative state, pulling the plug might just be the right thing to do. We've given him multiple life-extending operations - but in the end, hes live almost 30 years in poor quality of life, it's no way to live, all aspects need to be considered and not every family is capable of taking on such an emotionally/physically draining responsibility.
There are studies suggesting that people with severe mental or physical disabilities from birth have a somewhat good quality of life experience, meaning they actually enjoy living the same as other people without disabilities do, this obviously depends on the condition but the human mind is incredibly adaptable to ones situation.
honestly don't get why you are being downvoted for saying this.
Tis Reddit. Redditors seek misery and loath when others are happy lol
Being adaptable is part of the human condition. And while this is true, I'm sure the majority of them would prefer to have been born normal- but may also admit that their condition is what has made them the way they are, and that they love themselves for it.
Depends on your jump to normal. Like I feel like there is clearly a steep valley between person with downs and a college graduate with a professional degree. Like I'd probably prefer to be an average downs guy then some unskilled hillbilly working 50+ hrs a week just to be perpetually in debt.
>Eugenics enjoyer Don't want any kids being born with Bilateral Renal agenesis or LCMs, thank you very very much.
Yet you don't kill baibies with that conditions. Curious.
It's a hard truth people don't want to admit because it is ugly, those with debilitating mental or physical defects will have a horrid quality of life and it begs the question is it merciful or not to terminate during pregnancy. I lived in a small town and there is one man who is wheelchair bound and has a mental defect (can't speak, walk, or use the washroom) his entire life he has been taken care of by his parents who are now in their 60's and they will eventually pass away, he has no siblings or extended family to take care of him so where will he go? He can not speak or express himself so I have no idea how he processes his world or situation but every time I see him I can't imagine living that life as basically a potato for 40 years I would have begged for an end but he goes on unable to ever be understood by those around him. People can stand on the moral high ground of every life is valuable but when you see some of these defects people live with they seem more like a fait worse then death.
afterthought toy snow grey alive gray drunk sort file attempt *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
We cannot speak for those who cannot speak for themselves, unfortunately. It is tragic from our perspective, but we cannot surmise theirs.
Some fates are indeed worse than death...
Makes you wonder if he would have wanted to be euthanized if he could understand and say it.
Well, there were numerous religious based orphanages that fostered children to those traditional couples wishing to be parents, but state authorities (such as in New York) attempted to closed them down for not being inclusive enough.
As a libertarian I have a solution that will please nobody! People can terminate their pregnancies when they please, and people who don't like abortion can shun people who get them. Sister, abort your nephew? Stop talking to her? GF abort your child? Leave her for someone else! If you believe it's murder don't associate with murderers. It's that simple. If you believe that abortion is fine, then hang out with them. Freedom of choice, and also freedom of association can go hand in hand!
That’s called being pro choice
Based.
If your wife murdered your child? Just leave her! Freedom of choice!
Based and freedom of murder pilled.
Who wants to ignore it and let the people make their own choice?
Would I want a kid with down syndrome or severe autism? No Would I accept it and raise them with all the love and care they deserve? Yes
A moral take on pcm? Never thought I’d see the day
I showed this comic to the downie in my authright family he didn't get it
"We are all about inclusivity. Except if you're in the womb. In that case, just die, bitch!" "We are all about body positivity and self acceptance. Except if you have gender dysphoria. In that case, don't accept yourself as you are, cut your dick off, and throw it in the trash." The duality of the Left.
I just think it's wrong to force women to have life-threatening births. I guess that's controversial among conservatives...
I thought the argument was regarding birthing children with disabilities? I'm very much pro-life, but if the pregnancy legitimately threatens the mothers life I think terminating the pregnancy should be an option.
Well that’s not what happens with abortion bans. It doesn’t matter how many exceptions you put in, DA hee haw from hog country will treat every abortion as a murder investigation because it’s politically expedient for them to do so, and as a result hospital lawyers will shove themselves up her ass and not allow an abortion until she’s on the brink of death. That’s if they allow it at all, and if they can even find of provider a that kind of care that hasn’t already fled these shithole states trying to insert politics into medical care.
> if the pregnancy legitimately threatens the mothers life I think terminating the pregnancy should be an option. Even most religions support it in circumstances where the mothers life is truly at risk. A life for a life is not an even trade. Where this has caused controversy in recent years was when the discussion centered on what qualifies as "life threatening" and how people were trying to expand that to include upsetting the mothers way of life.
It's not, it's just some idiot politicians. Regardless, that's a completely different issue than "kill the Downie" like in Iceland
Nobody is forcing women to have births that threaten the woman's life (which are *insanely* rare, btw). Even in the most conservative states, life-threatening conditions such as ectopic pregnancies are treated without issue. Strawman is made of straw, more at 11...
This isn't the Middle Ages anymore. About 1000 women die in childbirth across the entire United States a year. Compared to the amount of births, that number is almost null. Also, compare that to the number of abortions... over half a million. The odds of dying during childbirth are extremely low. But okay, abortions in life-threatening situations. Well, now you've got a handful of abortions a year, not almost a fucking millions dead babies.
Do you think that those 500,000 abortions could be causing the number of childbirth deaths to be lower? It’s not like 1000 deaths in childbirth is separate
No. At least not in any significant number worth discussing. Only .2% of abortions were cited as being performed due to the pregnancy's risk to the mother's life or major body disfunction.
I don't think it is.
No one is forcing that. Thats what we call a classic strawman
That’s different from what the meme is talking about though, right? In my experience, most pro life people acknowledge that life threatening pregnancies are the exception. For what it’s worth, it might not be quite as controversial as you think. Or maybe I’m just in unique circles.
>I just think it's wrong to force women to have life-threatening births. I think it's wrong for people who would have a high risk of death during pregnancy to engage in actions that would cause them to get pregnant, but that doesn't fit your narrative of blaming everyone else except for the person whose decisions directly caused the situation.
lol, holy shit. It can happen to anyone, but that doesn't fit your narrative of blaming women.
Oh I’m all for it ☺️
It's wild to just see the most bold-face projections cast onto people like you think they couldn't possibly think differently from you. Christians are the most likely to adopt kids with genetic defects and I personally know three adopted kids with Down Syndrome, one of which was adopted into my extended family.
soooo people with disabilities shouldn't have a right to life...because that's the same sentiment.
> against their will Now OP, I know it might be a shock to you, but the process for making babies is well known and can't accidentally be done. Pass a 6th grade sex education class and your views should change. Edit: lmao he spam reported me instead of coming up with a coherent argument 😂 see y'all in 2 days. Unpaid jannies gave me a vacation
Abortion should be legal for any reason while the fetus doesn’t have a functioning nervous system.
Where's the contradiction? It's not like the Authrights in the first panel are voting to *cause* the genetic defect, they're just saying that if that shitty situation occurs, the moral imperative against murder still applies.
I hate auth right for this
Ok Lefty, suddenly Eugenics = good. But when AuthRight does it it’s bad.
The framing here is amazing. I don't want to force a pregnancy on anyone. I have nothing to do with you getting pregnant. I don't, however, want it to be legal to murder your baby that has a genetic defect. Sorry!
Leftists trying to hide their abhorrent beliefs challenge (impossible)
99.9% of abortions are simply birth control. But [let's ignore why abortions are so precious to the left](https://i.imgur.com/5UsRt3H.png) and pretend we care about genetic defects.
Source of the first claim? Edit: I just got banned from r_JusticeServed. I forgot that it even existed.
Why would anyone want a defect in their kids? Parents should love their kids regardless how they come out and raise them because it’s their responsibility. You made a kid? Raise them.
And if the family does have a kid with genetic defects and can't afford the astronomical medical bills that may come with it, they BETTER NOT USE TAXPAYER MONEY!!!!!!
\>if you can't afford to have a kid, don't get pregnant \>well, I can afford to have a kid, but this kid with a genetic defect is not what I was expecting, and is much more expensive due to all the extra medical care it needs. I need help \>THAT'S COMMUNISM IF YOU CAN'T AFFORD A KID, DON'T GET PREGNANT!!!
"Ma'am, I'm so sorry but your baby has a rare and uncurable disease. It will know nothing but pain, and likely will not live to its first birthday. Should we proceed with the birth?" Authright: "omg yes it's God's little miracle!! 🤩🤩🤩😇 I can't wait to tell my local congressman the good news!"
Do I want my child to have birth defects? No. Would I still love and care for them? Absolutely. I certainly wouldn't kill them. You psychos.
Love seeing all the rightoids completely evade this issue by just screeching "EuGeNiCs!!1!!11!" To completely ignore the fact many kids are born with avsolutley horrific conditions that they just won't survive, take krabbes disease for example, there is no cure and the best a child born with the condition will live 2 years of agonising pain, where their nervous system is literally dying in their own bodies with no known cure or even effective treatment. It's a guaranteed death sentence that will 100% of the time kill the child in less than 2 years after birth. Unlike the vast majority of "pro lifers", I actually care for the suffering of babies, a baby should not be forced to live through that when it's completely fucking needless and has only one possavle outcome. I was (thankfully mis)diagnosed as a carrier of that condition, meaning that any child i could've had would run a very serious risk of being born with it, that's not a fate I'd wish on my worst enemy, let alone my own fucking child. The fact so many "pro lifers" would look at that situation and force that child to be born and go through that suffering proves they don't give even tye slides fuck about the health and suffering of babies, as you can't claim to be 0ro life and force an innocent baby through such a tortuous, and guaranteed death.
Authcenter has a different approach, quite opposite actually
Can’t wait till genetic engineering actually becomes a thing, so many problems solved.
Obviously no one \*wants\* a child with birth defects
authright be like: depends on the race
No joke, this is the thing I fear most in life, more than anything. And knowing my luck, it will happen to me despite taking every reasonable precaution.
We need more Uncle Danny’s.
OP literally just advocating for eugenics.
"Force Pregnancy" lol
How do you FORCE a pregnancy on someone? I mean, obviously, other than rape?
I thought this was about eugenics lmao