"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.
Actually hemophilia is not a good example. It’s X-linked, meaning that women are carriers with half their sons having the disease. Has nothing to do with cousin marriage. It’s believed that Queen Victoria was a carrier and she had a large family.
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.
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.
That's true, but I would counter-argue that that's actually a good argument for eugenics. If some races aren’t as intelligent or successful as other races, then eugenics could put the less intelligent races on (more) equal footing with other races: https://zerocontradictions.net/FAQs/eugenics-FAQs#race-gaps
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.
no - the term eugenicist has to come to mean many negative things and is forever associated with its misuse to justify androcide, genocide and class subjugation.
Romeo ang Juliet were not Eugenicists because they fancied each other. This term needs to be dropped.
1. Medicinal and health benefits backed up by science are good but do jot make us eugenecists e.g. racial intermarriage is healthy for wide gene pool (but not traditional eugenicist position).
2. Societal attempts to use policy to control overall reproduction should be mindfull of the health needs of a society e.g. non fascistic, democratic, non-classist. Who has the power to control policy? Trump and Elon? White is right?
3. Tribalism should be discouraged and people have the right to xhoose their own partners. More information on genetics is great but dont think to play god yourself. The fact that the author so crassly labells all people as eugenicists demonstrates the intrinsic lack of intellectual value that the term has and the bankruot position of its proponents...You will be telling us next that we are all fascists because we like money and power.
No....how dare you...we exert self control over our animal instincts and reach for higher thought. Drop the E word...its too loaded. "Healthy health seekers" are the words we are looking for.
👏👏👏 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.
Actually hemophilia is not a good example. It’s X-linked, meaning that women are carriers with half their sons having the disease. Has nothing to do with cousin marriage. It’s believed that Queen Victoria was a carrier and she had a large family.
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.
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.
That's true, but I would counter-argue that that's actually a good argument for eugenics. If some races aren’t as intelligent or successful as other races, then eugenics could put the less intelligent races on (more) equal footing with other races: https://zerocontradictions.net/FAQs/eugenics-FAQs#race-gaps
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.
no - the term eugenicist has to come to mean many negative things and is forever associated with its misuse to justify androcide, genocide and class subjugation.
Romeo ang Juliet were not Eugenicists because they fancied each other. This term needs to be dropped.
1. Medicinal and health benefits backed up by science are good but do jot make us eugenecists e.g. racial intermarriage is healthy for wide gene pool (but not traditional eugenicist position).
2. Societal attempts to use policy to control overall reproduction should be mindfull of the health needs of a society e.g. non fascistic, democratic, non-classist. Who has the power to control policy? Trump and Elon? White is right?
3. Tribalism should be discouraged and people have the right to xhoose their own partners. More information on genetics is great but dont think to play god yourself. The fact that the author so crassly labells all people as eugenicists demonstrates the intrinsic lack of intellectual value that the term has and the bankruot position of its proponents...You will be telling us next that we are all fascists because we like money and power.
No....how dare you...we exert self control over our animal instincts and reach for higher thought. Drop the E word...its too loaded. "Healthy health seekers" are the words we are looking for.
https://substack.com/profile/39654977-chandra-hardy/note/c-97614947?r=nlxz5&utm_medium=ios&utm_source=notes-share-action
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.