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).
Comment on It's the spelling for me
Bgugi@lemmy.world 1 day agoYou 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?
Viceversa@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Bgugi@lemmy.world 1 day ago
My brother in christ, the conversation is explicitly about eugenics, I don’t need to see shit!
some_kind_of_guy@lemmy.world 1 day ago
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.
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.
A perfectly reasonable take, but even that falls in-scope of eugenics.