Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

forestwolf42 t1_j8bsbs1 wrote

Reply to comment by Ill_Department_2055 in You're probably a eugenicist by 4r530n

I think the author does include that in their very broad definition of eugenics, as not drinking during pregnancy is also a form of eugenics according to the author.

I don't think the term loses all meaning opening it up this much, it just becomes something that is irrational to oppose, of course people want children to born healthy, the question is just which measures and policies are worth having to produce this result.

In turns eugenics from a yes/no question to a which option question.

9

Ill_Department_2055 t1_j8bw3wv wrote

You're missing the key point of my comment.

The author posits eugenics as a concern for the purity? health? goodness? of the overall population. But in reality, much (most?) concern surrounding the fitness of future children is because we are concerned about the welfare of those children as individuals.

8

forestwolf42 t1_j8bx5n1 wrote

I really don't understand your point then, isn't the health of the overall population the welfare of many individuals on a greater scale? Like, one child of incest with a disability is a tragedy, and a single individual that is suffering, 100 of them in a single town is a health problem for the population. I really don't understand the distinction you're trying to make and why it's important.

4

Ill_Department_2055 t1_j8d6yyl wrote

Yes, of course the population is made up of individuals and each individual's suffering matters.

But that's not the eugenicists primary concern. It's easier to understand when you remember the really big eugenics movements, like Nazism and White Supremacy, which care less for the individual and more for the "purity" of the overall race.

It's an important distinction to make because it's an underlying worldview that does often affect our politics in subtle, and sometimes not so subtle, ways.

Think animal rights vs. conservationists. Most of the time these two groups align, but sometimes conservationists will seek to conserve the overall population of a species in ways that harms individual animals more than animal rights groups find acceptable.

So back to the question of incest: If I am a eugenicist, I oppose incest because I don't want the DNA of the overall population besmirched. If I care about individual rights, I am concerned about the welfare and suffering of individual children potentially born into more suffering than necessary.

6

forestwolf42 t1_j8deqp3 wrote

Okay I can understand that, can you care about people not passing down Parkinson's disease to future generations because Parkinson's is really painful and hard to live with? I can, I think it would be great if people chose not to role the dice with the dangerous disease and it was reduced in future generations. What does that make me?

What if I know a couple that both have schizophrenia and I think they shouldn't reproduce because they're child has a 40% to have a schizoid type disorder and I've seen how difficult that is to live with?

What about the part of the article that talks about Ashkenazi Jews reducing genetic disorders by using genetic testing in mate selection, is that compassion for their future children? Or "purifying" their race? If the person administering the tests is more concerned about purity than individuals does that become eugenics and does it become dangerous?

I know a couple from my life that were told they were incompatible genetically, and they decided to trust Jesus and have two disabled children who both suffer far more than average and require lifelong support. I think what they did is wrong, both because of the suffering of their children, the burden on society and their family that they knowingly created, and because they're children are on the same ethical dilemma that they were in should they want to have children. Now that the children exist I believe they should get full community support, and they do. There is no reason to punish the child for the parents mistake. But I also don't see the point in pretending the parents didn't make a mistake. (Twice)

I have bad genes, my parents didn't know, but I do know, and I can't imagine feeling good about purposefully passing that down to another generation, my compassion isn't just for my own potential children, but their progeny too. I have trouble respecting people who knowingly, and proudly pass down traits much worse than mine, it seems incredibly selfish and inhumane. I don't understand why being critical of this is off limits for so many people.

I know good and bad traits are subjective at times, but when we go to great lengths to medicate away certain traits, because people can't live with having them, I don't see the harm in trying to prevent those traits from occuring in subtle, non-invasive ways, like education about ways to create legacy and positively influence future generations without reproduction. A lot of people live in reality of "die alone or make babies", helping people see alternatives and making other lifestyles equal could help people make more ethical decisions regarding reproduction.

I see why the distinction is important to you, but I don't think you can have a whole view without both, the suffering of individuals and the suffering of society is so closely related, if you only focus on one you blind yourself to the other and that makes it really easy for people to make horrible decisions.

This is already really long and ranty, but last point is, I know what Nazis are, and just like they're bad socialists that interpret socialist ideals in horrible ways, they are also bad eugenicists, that interpreted the ideas in the worst ways, there are non-fascist compassion motivated alternatives.

3

[deleted] t1_j8cl1br wrote

[removed]

3

forestwolf42 t1_j8dafc6 wrote

Isn't the decision to reproduce with your sibling deeply private? Or to take shots in the privacy of your home while pregnant deeply private? Isn't prohibiting and shaming these things collectivizing decisions about procreation?

2

[deleted] t1_j8drlnd wrote

[removed]

1

forestwolf42 t1_j8dvon4 wrote

Oh okay, I was trying to use eugenics in the same way as the author is proposing the term should be used, and you are not. That's why this conversation doesn't make any sense. I didn't realized you were just hard disagreeing about the terminology.

2

Amphy64 t1_j8uyinx wrote

Society is not, though, or there would be more focus on disability inclusion, over the active discrimination which is still a very significant factor in why children, and adults, with disabilities suffer. Here in the UK, we don't even do anything to prevent systemic medical negligence disabling children, multiple known scandals incl. with babies who ought to have been healthy, and the individual cases still treated as isolated incidents with no examination of the system and no justice. There is also currently a campaign against adequate pain relief (some people are opioid addicts therefore people in pain should suffer), and disabled people are still forbidden from deciding they want to end their lives, unless they attempt to do it a way that has a high risk of failure and further disability.

1

imdfantom t1_j8cmm7y wrote

>as not drinking during pregnancy is also a form of eugenics according to the author.

That's not really Eugenics, more Eu-evodevo.

If you generalize eugenics that much, then every single action you take can be determined to be either a eugenic or dysgenic action depending on the time scale and level of detail you examine outcomes.

4