I think the better question is, why are you entertaining thoughts of eugenics when you clearly know better?I think if you know you're likely to produce a sick baby, you should adopt or else take measures to ensure that you don't produce a sick baby. I think you owe it to your future children to provide for their health and safety and quality of life as best you can, and that includes their genetic heritage. We have more tools at our disposal than ever before to make that a reality, and I think they aren't used as much as they could be.
Why do you think i'm pursuing a career in public health?
I don't describe my beliefs as eugenics, and I think it's unfair that you do, but I don't get to decide what you label me. There will never be a government agency that tells people they can't have kids. I would never advocate for such a thing and it's frankly impossible in practice even in the most totalitarian of states. What I would like is for people to make honest appraisals of their means and ability to be a responsible parent, which includes the genetic component. I will frankly state that I think less of people who knowingly bring sick kids into the world. Medicine does not exist to try and ameliorate the consequences of peoples poor decision making. Fate throws us enough curveballs, enough suffering without having to deal with conscious stupidity.
That's it. The kid gloves are off, because this perverse joke of a debate has gone on long enough. Except you literally admitted it . . . . . . Dude. Eugenics have been around for centuries. You don't even have to find yourself in a totalitarian state to find yourself a victim of eugenics. You want the ugly truth? The real, nasty, ugly truth? It happened here, in America. On multiple occasions. Even worse? We gave the idea to the fucking Nazis. Read that whole thing. It's dispicable. It's disgusting. It's completely, wholly, and without argument, indefensible. So you can sit there, at your computer, in your chair at home, and say "Oh. I think Eugenics is okay as a thought exercise and I don't see why it's so controversial." The reality though? The reality is for so many countries, it was more than a thought exercise, it was a real practice, with real victims, with long lasting consequences. Fate throws us curveballs. Entertaining the idea of eugenics, even slightly, is the embodiment of conscious stupidity.I don't describe my beliefs as eugenics, and I think it's unfair that you do, but I don't get to decide what you label me.
It is a form of eugenics, because it creates a class of people who are legal adults, capable of making their own decisions, who are legally prohibited from having children.
There will never be a government agency that tells people they can't have kids. I would never advocate for such a thing and it's frankly impossible in practice even in the most totalitarian of states.
Yes, your interpretation of what I believe the world 'should' be like is eugenics. I am not in favor of a government agency telling people they can or can't have kids. I do think that lots of unqualified people are parents, and there should be some standard that we can agree on as a society that define 'acceptable minimums' for being a parent. We don't let people with Downs have kids, even in cases where they want them. Not everybody reproduces. Regardless of what you or I believe, changes are being made to the frequency of alleles that develop into the characteristics that make us human. Because of the miracle of modern medicine, pathological alleles that once would have been selected out by the unforgiving hand of Mother Nature are surviving and reproducing. In cases where it's a pure binary of 'dead or not dead' that's a good thing, but in the cases where it's 'Dead or alive but barely, and not really a person with agency or anything like a decent quality of life' that's not a good thing. The population of 'Alive, but barely, and experiencing a lot of pain' is growing, and will continue to grow. I'm well aware of the history of eugenics. I'm aware of the historical US influence on other countries with regard to eugenics. I am aware of the long history of abuse and violence inflicted in the name of 'racial purity' and various other causes. Do you think, if you had the experiences that I have had, you would feel differently than I feel?Except you literally admitted it . . .
From start to finish, you've been contradicting yourself this entire conversation, moving the goalposts, and trying to muddy the issue. Either you want to talk about eugenics when it comes to ideologies and a person's capacity to be a good parent, or you don't. Either you want to talk about eugenics and genetics and birth defects, or you don't. Either you want to admit that it's morally wrong and reprehensible, or you don't. Either you want to admit that it's something that past governments have done and is still a risk in today's world or you don't. Apparently, we can talk about this all night because you don't want to commit to any one part of the argument. So this is my last response. Deciding who can and can't get married, who can and can't have kids, how they can and can't raise them, what risks they can and can't take, are all up to the individuals. Period, full stop. Fucking polio, small pox, and the mother fucking flu used to be devastating. We're over that hump. Now we got this hump to go over. Focusing on the genetic, nutritional, environmental problems behind these diseases is fine. Same with poverty. Same with hunger. Same with a shit ton of problems. Once again, deciding who can and can't have kids and what risks they can and can't take, is up the the individuals. Period. Full. Stop. If you are well aware of the history of eugenics and are even slightly willing to entertain them as a viable idea, EVEN IN THEORY AND NOT IN PRACTICE, you need to accept every last bit of criticism and argument that comes your way, because you are in the wrong. Period. Full. Fucking. Stop. I guaran-fucking-damn-tee you I do, because unlike you (remember this shitshow of an argument?) no matter what problem I see in the world, never will I ever even consider dances on the fringes of fascist or totalitarian concepts. Furthermore, if I ever do, and it's pointed out to me, I'll scoot my ass away from that fire so quick you'll see a fucking blur and thank the man that kept me from getting singed.Do you think, if you had the experiences that I have had, you would feel differently than I feel?
Good talk. I'm totally in favor of sick people having oodles of sick babies now. But you're outright wrong on one point. If you had lived my experiences, you would be me. That's how being human works. We are the amalgamation of every experience we've had leading up to the present moment. I hope you never have to experience the things that have led me to believing the things I do.
What ? How do we standardize something without some sort of agency ? I am not in favor of a government agency telling people they can or can't have kids.
there should be some standard that we can agree on as a society that define 'acceptable minimums' for being a parent.
I'm open to suggestions. Off the top of my head, we could crowdsource it. Ask people what they think the 'acceptable minimum' is for different things. Keep refining the questions until some sort of consensus is reached. Then somehow get prospective parents to reflect and honestly assess if they are able to meet those minimums.How do we standardize something without some sort of agency ?
If people want kids, they'll have them regardless of what some randoms on the internet decide is acceptable. I mean basically you think people should vote for a standard but you're stopping short of saying the standard should be enforced to avoid the whole government thing.
Mostly because it can't be enforced effectively enough to warrant doing it in the first place. And what is government other than some random people? As you said, people who want kids will have them regardless. I don't think that's a good thing. Children are people too, not just something an adult gets to have because they want one. you're stopping short of saying the standard should be enforced to avoid the whole government thing.
So what about normalizing adoption ? Currently it's seen as the last ditch effort to have kids for those people who fail in every other way. If it wasn't viewed so negatively than maybe more people would make that choice when deciding if they want kids. There are actual ways to convince more people to stop having kids they know will be sick that don't involve any sort of voting or standardized list of who can acceptably have children.
Dude, it's not about looking down on people or moral failing. The more you look down on people, the easier it is to dehumanize them and the less you will care about their suffering. That's not difficult to sell, it's just an approach that will take a new generation to fully understand. Considering adopting would have less of an impact on a woman's career since she skips pregnancy it could easily start to seem like a positive.