"Eugenics concerns the decisions of individuals, not just the policies of the state. “Reprogenetics” uses reproductive technology to allow parents to select embryos with certain desirable traits or without disability. Parents are now able to select embryos with desirable characteristics. Both practices meet the definition of eugenics."
Then, the definition of eugenics is too broad. The personal choices of prospective mates about choosing a mate, choosing an embryo using IVF, or genetic enhancement should not be considered eugenics.
Likewise, public information concerning the desirability of producing healthy offspring with positive traits should not be considered eugenics as long as there is no coercion.
"If you agree that people who are genetically related should not have children, or should see a genetic counselor, congratulations, you’re a eugenicist."
That is nonsense. I don't think stupid people, ugly people, people with debilitating genetic diseases, or siblings should have children. But that doesn't mean I believe there should be a law against it.
Because they are brother and sister. So, the German state punished this couple by restricting them from marriage, taking away their children, and forcefully separating them with Patrick’s imprisonment.
History has proven that 1st-order marriages (Brothers and sisters) aren't a viable way to reproduce. That's why the common people always marry outside the family bloodlines. Only the corrupted nobility were worried about their bloodlines and thus married too close in relations. That's why the House of Hanover had such an issue with hemophilia.
Why do we believe the outcome of mass availability of engineering children could only lead to positive outcomes? If we take dogs as an example, humans have been manipulating their genetics for centuries with varied results. Some have decided the french bulldog is the epitome of cuteness. So now we have super cute AND super unhealthy dogs. Is there no downside really? Given the typical human desire for social conformity, I doubt it.
I’ve heard people make the eugenics argument in the case of a couple screening for trisomy 18 (worse than Down syndrome). I thought it was a ridiculous argument, likely coming from someone with healthy kids.
"For example, the “expressivist objection” to reprogenetics is that, by using prenatal testing to try to choose a child without disability, we are expressing a discriminatory stance against disabled people." Logically, this makes no sense. Biologically, the objector appears to be trying to protect his/her perception of his/her own social status by impugning the status of others.
Unfortunately a eugenics policy that screens without bias against low IQ and criminal behavior would lead to disproportionate statistical outcomes between Whites and Blacks. This in turn would lead to accusations of racism, "black genocide" etc. It would be shut down in a heartbeat. The race card trumps everything.
Normalizing eugenics. What in heaven could go wrong? It's true that eugenics is totally normalized (more opt-in than opt-out or mandatory, thank God) but, still...
👏👏👏 Diana Fleischman more lucid every day❗❗
"Eugenics concerns the decisions of individuals, not just the policies of the state. “Reprogenetics” uses reproductive technology to allow parents to select embryos with certain desirable traits or without disability. Parents are now able to select embryos with desirable characteristics. Both practices meet the definition of eugenics."
Then, the definition of eugenics is too broad. The personal choices of prospective mates about choosing a mate, choosing an embryo using IVF, or genetic enhancement should not be considered eugenics.
Likewise, public information concerning the desirability of producing healthy offspring with positive traits should not be considered eugenics as long as there is no coercion.
"If you agree that people who are genetically related should not have children, or should see a genetic counselor, congratulations, you’re a eugenicist."
That is nonsense. I don't think stupid people, ugly people, people with debilitating genetic diseases, or siblings should have children. But that doesn't mean I believe there should be a law against it.
Because they are brother and sister. So, the German state punished this couple by restricting them from marriage, taking away their children, and forcefully separating them with Patrick’s imprisonment.
History has proven that 1st-order marriages (Brothers and sisters) aren't a viable way to reproduce. That's why the common people always marry outside the family bloodlines. Only the corrupted nobility were worried about their bloodlines and thus married too close in relations. That's why the House of Hanover had such an issue with hemophilia.
Why do we believe the outcome of mass availability of engineering children could only lead to positive outcomes? If we take dogs as an example, humans have been manipulating their genetics for centuries with varied results. Some have decided the french bulldog is the epitome of cuteness. So now we have super cute AND super unhealthy dogs. Is there no downside really? Given the typical human desire for social conformity, I doubt it.
I’ve heard people make the eugenics argument in the case of a couple screening for trisomy 18 (worse than Down syndrome). I thought it was a ridiculous argument, likely coming from someone with healthy kids.
Is selective breeding eugenics, though?
Seriously? You're using incest as the hill you want to fight for?
Incest has always proven to be disastrous. It's not just an issue of dictate, it is something everyone knows will end in disaster.
"For example, the “expressivist objection” to reprogenetics is that, by using prenatal testing to try to choose a child without disability, we are expressing a discriminatory stance against disabled people." Logically, this makes no sense. Biologically, the objector appears to be trying to protect his/her perception of his/her own social status by impugning the status of others.
I've written an essay and FAQs page detailing how laissez-faire eugenics would work: https://zerocontradictions.net/FAQs/eugenics-FAQs.
It'd be great if Diana Fleishman and/or Aporia Magazine would comment on it.
Unfortunately a eugenics policy that screens without bias against low IQ and criminal behavior would lead to disproportionate statistical outcomes between Whites and Blacks. This in turn would lead to accusations of racism, "black genocide" etc. It would be shut down in a heartbeat. The race card trumps everything.
Normalizing eugenics. What in heaven could go wrong? It's true that eugenics is totally normalized (more opt-in than opt-out or mandatory, thank God) but, still...