Comment on It's the spelling for me

• 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

      • Bgugi@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

        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.

        source
    • 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

      • Bgugi@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

        My brother in christ, the conversation is explicitly about eugenics, I don’t need to see shit!

        source
  • 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
    • 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