Comment on It's the spelling for me

• gandalf_der_12te@feddit.org ⁨5⁩ ⁨minutes⁩ ago

  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.

  source
• ParadoxSeahorse@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

  Supposing none of that is an issue

  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.

  source

  • Viceversa@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    because folks that are prone to inbreeding are not necessarily equipped to make those assessments.

    Yeah, but it seems a bit eugenical.

    source

    • Bgugi@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

      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?

      source

      • some_kind_of_guy@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

        documented genetic conditions

        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.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
      • Viceversa@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

        Why is it fine for parents with documented genetic conditions to do the same?

        While I tend to agree, that’s a highly controversial view (see eugenics).

        source

        • -> View More Comments
    • LurkingLuddite@piefed.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

      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.

      source

      • Viceversa@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

        If you prefer dating humans without genetic defects, congratulations; you’re a eugenicist.

        Colloquially eugenics refers not to personal preferences, but to collective rules.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
      • ivanafterall@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

        Why’d you have to bring my potato body into this?

        source
    • Duamerthrax@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

      It sort of also assumed that just because relatives are fucking that they’ll even have a kid.

      source
• cosmos8188@leminal.space ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

  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.

  source