Talk:Eugenicism

no --Magicpeartree (talk) 17:26, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

SomeCrusader - Abortion but honest.

^ I second this -

^ I would argue the real eugenicists are conservatives -

Selective breeding to get rid of hereditary disease may be good, but racism is cringe. We need to reward merit, not race.

'''Okay but your representing a very outdated version based on racist pseudoscience. That's the genetic fallacy. And while a lot of eugenics may have a lot of morally wrong forms of implementation with a lot of seriously problematic ideas if put into their extreme, I do think that trying to remove diseases as well as physical and mental deformities would absolutely be something we should be promoting, but historically their methods were almost universally cringe'''

Just castrate people with hereditary diseases, and the world would be healthier. We need to reward merit. ^ Jesus...

So you mean a world that is more healthy is bad?

People who call this planned parent hood are fucking retarded
Abortion is about giving the right of a mother to her own bodily autonomy, eugenics is about selectively breeding children to get rid of things like mental and physical disability and other things like race. We aren't mass exterminating minorities or anything. Pro-life logic really confuses me tbh, I just don't understand it.

^The above is a strawman argument and fails to recognize the nuance regarding the debate as well as understand abortion often is done specifically to remove fetuses that are going to be birthed with defects such as with down-syndrome or other conditions. If there were other ways to scan for babies of other conditions such as autism I wouldn't doubt many mothers would abort their children even including other autistic mothers because of the stresses it would provide to them. So even while not openly eugenicist in a bubble, in practice, abortion is often used by mothers specifically to abort fetuses that have a risk of bad traits. This isn't me being anti-abortion, this is just acknowledging the fact that when it comes to giving one the choice to decide what type of child they can have there will be actions that will be inherently eugenicist in its reasoning. I am not saying it isn't without reason of course but it still very much is. Also the justification you give of "protecting womens bodily autonomy" can only go so far when it comes to the debate on the morality of essentially killing something that could be old enough to be considered a human infant. If it is for example in the third-trimester to the point where if the baby was out of the womb it would perfectly survive itself is allowed to be aborted then I would consider it child murder because the only real difference is that a newborn baby is outside of the womb while a third-trimester isn't. And for some reason, abortion advocates don't really see a problem with charging a person who for example hit a pregnant person in the stomach whether intentionally or not to be equated with child murder for a child that has not even been birthed yet, however when the women herself does it apparently it makes a difference. Also also, it is the males sperm that made the child, so what about their choice? I am not trying to say that I am anti-abortion, (I honestly see it as just proof that child-birth is inherintly immoral by nature alongside the process of life itself and there really is no right awnser and there really is only wrong ones) I just think you are making a very nuanced and complex debate into an extremely simplified way that aligns with YOUR current biases.

TL:DR Nice strawman.

^ Ok in response to your reply. The problem lies with the fact that it's not mandatory, which makes it not eugenicist in nature. And besides, if a person can't handle raising a person with a disability then I don't see how it's fair for the mother. Outlawing selective abortion won't remove sigma for people with disabilities. If you actually wanted to make change then you want to remove the stigma against these people, then mothers would be less inclined to abort children with disabilities if they could ensure that these people would have a good quality of life and services at hand to raise them, so you're ultimately doing more harm than good by outlawing it. TL;DR, abortion isn't murder or eugenics and you can't change my mind

^ (I see your perspective as a totally valid one, but just know that while valid, it isn't agreed with by everyone, even including many pro-abortion advocates from the activists I meet in numerous disability rights who advocate against such against kids with disabilities who they see as wanting to remove them because it is "in the interests of the parents" and to "remove those by the will of others seen as therefore not willing to be live/be born" as eugenicist in its reasoning. Also in your post, if I am not mistaken you ignore third-trimester abortions which I find is a very thin line between an abortion of a not developed fetus, to full on infant killing. In the very least I would say you are not comprehending how ethically grey the situation really is and how others can have different views on what is the "right" choice.)

^ Mucho texto '''^ Why yes, I do openly give my personal thoughts on a deeply complex issue such as abortion and try to explain the nuances you fail to grasp. How could you tell? *Gigachad* Yes I know the meme is shitty fart-sniffing auto-fellatio, smug, egotistical and close-minded to new ideas but its funny  '''

2 r***rds fighitng.

(Not really fighting, just disagreeing)

Republicans in a nutshell: All life is sacred and we should outlaw abortion because it's murder

Also republicans: We should cut welfare for the mentally and physically disabled, and make laws that allow for workplace discrimination and discrimination against LGBT people

(Absolutely agree, republicans don't really care for children when they actively are fine forcing them into lives that actively abuse them. That being said, I still think that you are overgeneralizing opponents to all be far-right conservatives.)

Ok, fair point. But conservatives actively seek to attack the civil rights of disabled people. So it is on all accounts, hypocrisy, to claim to hold all life as sacred and act like they love us, but then to immediately turn their back on us and attack landmark civil right acts that harm people like us, all in the name of supply side jesus, as always. So that point by all accounts still stands

(We don't disagree on that issue then, the conservatives merely want more babies to enforce traditional values on and to serve the traditional family and nation. Regarding those who are not right-wing nutjobs, I think it is fair to have different opinions on the abortion debate without being seen as a "bad", "Eugenicist", "reactionary", or "anti-womens/infants rights" due to the extremely moral ambiguity of the situation with numerous different viewpoints with their own valid reasons. Oh, and P.S, regarding your claim that eugenicism and abortion is unrelated, wasn't the founder of planned parenthood Margaret Sanger a strong eugenicist advocate who wanted people with inheritable disabilities to take birth control? I think shifting the blame when you are claimed to be discriminating against disabled people just because republicans and conservatives do it is pretty sus. It still is in practice either way so the whataboutism might be shifting attention away from the problematic aspects abortion could have that some disability advocates (speaking for others here for good-faithed argument) might find wrong. )