14 ms·
Wasn't this line of thinking discredited with the Nazis? Is eugenics back now? Do you also have a modest proposal for solving the problem of all those excess po
by cfmcdonald 10y ago
Wasn't this line of thinking discredited with the Nazis? Is eugenics back now? Do you also have a modest proposal for solving the problem of all those excess poor children?
- rch 10y agoWright or wrong, this doesn't fit the definition of eugenics.
- ceejayoz 10y agoHow does this not fit the definition of eugenics? > Spending untold resources on keeping alive infants who would otherwise die is inherently dysgenic, and allowing whatever conflagration of genetic anomalies that contribute to the necessity of postpartum care will inevitably lead to higher incidences of these cases in the future, as these genes are allowed to propagate into future generations.
- tedunangst 10y agoWell, cystic fibrosis patients are encouraged not to have children. Is that eugenics? In the extreme, with enough time and money we could even harvest eggs and sperm from CF patients to ensure they can procreate even if they don't live long enough to do so. Is it eugenics to not spend those resources?
- ceejayoz 10y agoIt's a pretty big gap between "don't treat preemies who might be perfectly normal once stabilized" (case in point: my kids) and "you should think about not giving a kid a death sentence" that CF entails.
- daxorid 10y agoEugenic/dysgenic thinking has never been discredited. Rather, it has fallen out of favor for ethical, not scientific reasons.