The increased chance of birth defects seems a bit immoral. Also there’s a good chance childhood trauma is at play for siblings to want to bang, or at the very least some questionable power dynamics, that are worth at least looking into. Supposing none of that is an issue I guess I’m not going to yuck someone else’s yum even if I feel weird about the whole thing 🤷♀️
Obviously it’s against the law because folks that are prone to inbreeding are not necessarily equipped to make those assessments. The same as anything.
You know what? I think letting racists ruin eugenics gives them one extra “fuck you” to the human race.
If I use a revolver to play Russian roulette with a baby, they’d bury me under the prison. Why is it fine for parents with documented genetic conditions to do the same?
Who’s to say what conditions qualify? And what even is a condition? Homosexuality was in the DSM not long ago.
If the parents’ families have, say, a history of heart disease, we can all agree heart disease is bad, right? So they should be penalized for wanting children?
What about people with red hair? If we collectively decide to pathologize having red hair, are we going to sterilize all the gingers?
Do we try and prevent people with autism from being born? Down’s Syndrome?
I’d rather see better detection and genetic therapies, myself. Inform the parents and let them come to their own conclusion about whether or not to have children.
It’s definitely possible to establish reasonable thresholds - you could draw parallels to abuse/neglect laws. There are things that many people may find grotesque and objectionable that aren’t considered abuse/neglect. There are definitely historical and modern examples of those laws being applied unfairly, particularly to the disadvantaged. Boundaries may flex across regions or cultures, But it’s fair to say society as a whole supports abuse/neglect laws, and that they’re generally beneficial for children.
I’d rather see better detection and genetic therapies, myself. Inform the parents and let them come to their own conclusion about whether or not to have children.
A perfectly reasonable take, but even that falls in-scope of eugenics.
Eugenics isn’t inherently bad. If you prefer dating humans without genetic defects, congratulations; you’re a eugenicist.
Do you prefer blondes or brown hair? You’re preferring genes again! Don’t like people with potato bodies? There you go preferring genes…
Find out your fetus has a genetic defect and won’t live past five even if you birth them, so you abort? Cheer on genetic therapies that could solve such issues? Congratulations, you’ve practiced eugenics!!
Eugenics itself is not bad. It’s the racist fuck desire to want to “cleanse” the “race” of humanity that’s bad.
Nah, not necessarily imperative. An individual can still be a eugenicist without external support. The only reason the old beliefs that often get credited as “eugenics” were mostly wrong is because they were mostly just ignorance and masked racism, not actual genetic analysis.
All it takes to be a eugenicist is to believe that certain people shouldn’t have children because you believe their genes are bad. That’s it. It’s literally just:
Eu: Prefix meaning “good”
Gene: Relating to genes
ecist: Believer (not totally sure on this one as search results to verify my beliefs mostly returned “-ition” results, with no explicit statements for -ecist or similar)
It’s just a silly thing for a common fool to believe in, since genetics is complicated! Many confirmed genetic disorders are not inheritable. Many health issues are latent. You can have two totally healthy people birth genetic defects nigh 100% of the time. On the other end, someone with certain genetic disorders can absolutely have totally fine children with little extra worry. It completely depends on what genes are messed up and why.
Someone unfamiliar with the INSANE complexity of biology even in the basics of reproduction have zero right to hold a strong opinion on eugenics, IMO. (which of course immediately excludes 99% of conservative fuckwits who would happily call themselves eugenicists)
The increased chance of birth defects seems a bit immoral.
one could ask the question whether inbreeding is fine as long as it’s exclusively non-productive sex, i.e. they don’t make any children. some people have sex just for enjoyment.
yuck someone else’s yum even if I feel weird about the whole thing 🤷♀️
I’m quite the same honestly, but like you said - there isn’t a need to be a dick about it, already a surplus of them around.
In terms of birth defects, that may be right. But it really depends on the generation of in-breading. A single generation wouldnt do much harm but has the potential to if it continues. Of course, about the trauma and power dynamic bits, that may be a hit or miss as it doesn’t really hold.
The increased chance of birth defects seems a bit immoral. Also there’s a good chance childhood trauma is at play for siblings to want to bang, or at the very least some questionable power dynamics, that are worth at least looking into. Supposing none of that is an issue I guess I’m not going to yuck someone else’s yum even if I feel weird about the whole thing 🤷♀️
Obviously it’s against the law because folks that are prone to inbreeding are not necessarily equipped to make those assessments. The same as anything.
Yeah, but it seems a bit eugenical.
You know what? I think letting racists ruin eugenics gives them one extra “fuck you” to the human race.
If I use a revolver to play Russian roulette with a baby, they’d bury me under the prison. Why is it fine for parents with documented genetic conditions to do the same?
Who’s to say what conditions qualify? And what even is a condition? Homosexuality was in the DSM not long ago.
If the parents’ families have, say, a history of heart disease, we can all agree heart disease is bad, right? So they should be penalized for wanting children?
What about people with red hair? If we collectively decide to pathologize having red hair, are we going to sterilize all the gingers?
Do we try and prevent people with autism from being born? Down’s Syndrome?
I’d rather see better detection and genetic therapies, myself. Inform the parents and let them come to their own conclusion about whether or not to have children.
It’s definitely possible to establish reasonable thresholds - you could draw parallels to abuse/neglect laws. There are things that many people may find grotesque and objectionable that aren’t considered abuse/neglect. There are definitely historical and modern examples of those laws being applied unfairly, particularly to the disadvantaged. Boundaries may flex across regions or cultures, But it’s fair to say society as a whole supports abuse/neglect laws, and that they’re generally beneficial for children.
A perfectly reasonable take, but even that falls in-scope of eugenics.
While I tend to agree, that’s a highly controversial view (see eugenics).
My brother in christ, the conversation is explicitly about eugenics, I don’t need to see shit!
Eugenics isn’t inherently bad. If you prefer dating humans without genetic defects, congratulations; you’re a eugenicist.
Do you prefer blondes or brown hair? You’re preferring genes again! Don’t like people with potato bodies? There you go preferring genes…
Find out your fetus has a genetic defect and won’t live past five even if you birth them, so you abort? Cheer on genetic therapies that could solve such issues? Congratulations, you’ve practiced eugenics!!
Eugenics itself is not bad. It’s the racist fuck desire to want to “cleanse” the “race” of humanity that’s bad.
Colloquially eugenics refers not to personal preferences, but to collective imperatives, as far as I know.
Nah, not necessarily imperative. An individual can still be a eugenicist without external support. The only reason the old beliefs that often get credited as “eugenics” were mostly wrong is because they were mostly just ignorance and masked racism, not actual genetic analysis.
All it takes to be a eugenicist is to believe that certain people shouldn’t have children because you believe their genes are bad. That’s it. It’s literally just:
Eu: Prefix meaning “good” Gene: Relating to genes ecist: Believer (not totally sure on this one as search results to verify my beliefs mostly returned “-ition” results, with no explicit statements for -ecist or similar)
It’s just a silly thing for a common fool to believe in, since genetics is complicated! Many confirmed genetic disorders are not inheritable. Many health issues are latent. You can have two totally healthy people birth genetic defects nigh 100% of the time. On the other end, someone with certain genetic disorders can absolutely have totally fine children with little extra worry. It completely depends on what genes are messed up and why.
Someone unfamiliar with the INSANE complexity of biology even in the basics of reproduction have zero right to hold a strong opinion on eugenics, IMO. (which of course immediately excludes 99% of conservative fuckwits who would happily call themselves eugenicists)
Why’d you have to bring my potato body into this?
It sort of also assumed that just because relatives are fucking that they’ll even have a kid.
one could ask the question whether inbreeding is fine as long as it’s exclusively non-productive sex, i.e. they don’t make any children. some people have sex just for enjoyment.
I’m quite the same honestly, but like you said - there isn’t a need to be a dick about it, already a surplus of them around.
In terms of birth defects, that may be right. But it really depends on the generation of in-breading. A single generation wouldnt do much harm but has the potential to if it continues. Of course, about the trauma and power dynamic bits, that may be a hit or miss as it doesn’t really hold.