2 ms·

I don't know how to not be too blunt but we already do it with down syndrome and others we can detect. It's not called eugenics because they the word has a bad

• banannaise 4y ago
  Oh, I am quite aware that eugenics is already a thing we do. That doesn't make it right, and it certainly doesn't mean it's something we should be looking to expand. One might note that down syndrome individuals are often quite happy, and can make others around them quite happy as well. They just don't succeed under capitalism - they can't really work, and because caretaking is not financially compensated, they greatly reduce someone else's ability to work. In a more collectivist society, caring for them would be quite straightforward. Eugenics based on who can be "productive" takes you directly to Nazi territory, do not pass Go, do not collect $200. Once you've accepted it, the only question left (assuming we can get "accurate" predictions) is where you draw the line: autistic? deformed limb? mentally ill? criminal? gay? short? black? And I realize this is a slippery slope argument, but slippery slope arguments are particularly compelling in cases where there is direct historical precedent. Mass sterilization to reduce "undesirable" populations has been done by law in the United States. From there, coerced or even forced abortion is just an improvement in technology.
  • deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]