5 ms·

A campaign of state sponsored genocide against a class of people because they may be disadvantaged or have a more difficult life, for "the greater good" is... c

A campaign of state sponsored genocide against a class of people because they may be disadvantaged or have a more difficult life, for "the greater good" is... concerning. Assuming tests were possible (which they might be), what would you think about an intensive government campaign to eliminate homosexual and trans people from the population?

cercatrova 4y ago
It's not state sponsored. They merely provided tests for free and parents chose to abort. Nowhere did the government force them.
- throwawaylinux 4y ago
  The state develops the programme, funds it, and encourages it and celebrates it. State sponsored. But whatever you like to call it, I'm asking about the same kind of elimination campaign directed at other disadvantaged groups.
bigDinosaur 4y ago
So you'd advocate against treating (or indeed, aborting) for all genetic or congenital conditions where the child may live to an adult? That seems extreme in and of itself.
- throwawaylinux 4y ago
  I did not express my opinion about what should be done. It is a difficult problem and I would not debate it here. I was just explaining why it is controversial.
  - bigDinosaur 4y ago
    If no mother had a child after the age of 25 you'd also see a significant drop in Down Syndrome rates with a similar effect to abortions (although obviously not the 100% which abortions could in theory achieve). Effectively that would be doing the same thing except without the controversy of abortion but few would call that eugenics. What's the difference? Would people say it's bad if the rate of Down Syndrome decreased because mothers were younger?
    - throwawaylinux 4y ago
      > What's the difference? The difference is a personal choice versus a government campaign to influence peoples' choices with the goal of eliminate those classes of people the state has deemed "undesirable". > Would people say it's bad if the rate of Down Syndrome decreased because mothers were younger? Probably, if the change was due to the government trying to convince people older than 25 not to have children.
  - etjhe4 4y ago
    You know, aside from your choice of framing and that you called it concerning. But no you didn't outright express a literal binary opinion.
    - throwawaylinux 4y ago
      The eugenics aspect is concerning, that was my opinion, and many who have similar concerns (hence it is controversial). My opinion on the merits of an individual making personal choices about reproduction and medical treatment for themselves and their offspring was not offered.
o_____________o 4y ago
"genocide" is extremely loaded when we're talking about something that can be detected as early as 10 weeks in a developing fetus. And being gay doesn't cause brutal, head to toe, lifelong (albeit a short life) material suffering in the individuals, like most cases of Down Syndrome do. It's not just cognitive issues, if you're unaware.
- throwawaylinux 4y ago
  > "genocide" is extremely loaded That's fair, I was trying to frame it from the point of view of people who might disagree with it to answer OP's question. Might have come across a little strong, so we could call it a state sponsored eugenics programme, then. The systematic reduction or elimination from society a class of people deemed undesirable by the state through the funding of genetic tests and abortion services. > And being gay doesn't cause brutal, head to toe, lifelong (albeit a short life) material suffering in the individuals, like most cases of Down Syndrome do. It's not just cognitive issues, if you're unaware. I have known a number of people with downs syndrome who are very happy a lot of time time, and wonderful fun people too. And on the other hand, let's say trans people for example can suffer excruciating depression as well as physical suffering too. So my concern is valid. If people with downs cross some certain threshold dreamed up by state bureaucrats that others do not, that does not give me much comfort. Where exactly are these arbitrary lines drawn, who decides them, how might they change? Pretty concerning if you ask me, and I'm not anti-abortion nor even anti-abortion for this reason. Giving people information and freedom is one thing. Having the state encourage the abortion of classes of people it considers "undesirable" is quite another, IMO.
  - tsimionescu 4y ago
    As far as I understand, "encouraging" here is referring to offering free access to tests that screen for this genetic disorder (among many others), and free access to at-will abortion (up to some fetal age). Or is there some kind of campaign saying "mothers, Abort every fetus with Down's syndrome!" that has gone unmentioned?
    - 4y ago
tsimionescu 4y ago
First of all, homosexual and trans people don't require the same amount of dedication from their parents to live a half-way decent life as children with Downs syndrome do. In fact, homosexual people don't require any extra care, and trans people barely more than that (depending on access to free Healthcare). Second of all, there just isn't, and can't be, a right to be born. The hypothetical person who would turn out of if a fertilized egg is carried to term has no innate rights until they actually do get born (or, well, somewhere near - not trying to justify late term abortions or anything). At least, this is the case if you believe a right to voluntary abortion should exist at all. Theoretically, I don't see anything unethical about aborting a fetus with some hypothetical gay gene, nor do I see anything unethical about aborting a fetus with a gene for black hair instead of blond. In practice though, assuming the screening is not happening very early in the pregnancy, it would seem strange for expecting parents to throw away their excitement after a month of pregnancy because of such shallow reasons. I don't think the same strangeness applies though for more life-impacting conditions, like Down syndrome (or like severe non-verbal autism, if it could be screened for). The fact that the born child would be a precious life that no one would have the right to attack or judge for their illnesses in no way reflects back in time to before they were a child.
- throwawaylinux 4y ago
  > First of all, homosexual and trans people don't require the same amount of dedication from their parents to live a half-way decent life as children with Downs syndrome do. In fact, homosexual people don't require any extra care, and trans people barely more than that (depending on access to free Healthcare). This is all pretty subjective and arbitrary. Are you saying it's just a matter of degree, and if it happens to be the case for one set of "experts" or bureaucrats then fine. What happens when the next set decide a different group of undesirables is over the line? What I'm saying has nothing to do with a right to be born, or an individual's right to personally make choices about their own reproductive and medical issues. It is purely about a state eugenics campaign to systematically eliminate undesirable classes of people from society.
  - tsimionescu 4y ago

cercatrova 4y ago

It's not state sponsored. They merely provided tests for free and parents chose to abort. Nowhere did the government force them.

throwawaylinux 4y ago
The state develops the programme, funds it, and encourages it and celebrates it. State sponsored. But whatever you like to call it, I'm asking about the same kind of elimination campaign directed at other disadvantaged groups.

bigDinosaur 4y ago

So you'd advocate against treating (or indeed, aborting) for all genetic or congenital conditions where the child may live to an adult? That seems extreme in and of itself.

throwawaylinux 4y ago
I did not express my opinion about what should be done. It is a difficult problem and I would not debate it here. I was just explaining why it is controversial.
- bigDinosaur 4y ago
  If no mother had a child after the age of 25 you'd also see a significant drop in Down Syndrome rates with a similar effect to abortions (although obviously not the 100% which abortions could in theory achieve). Effectively that would be doing the same thing except without the controversy of abortion but few would call that eugenics. What's the difference? Would people say it's bad if the rate of Down Syndrome decreased because mothers were younger?
  - throwawaylinux 4y ago
    > What's the difference? The difference is a personal choice versus a government campaign to influence peoples' choices with the goal of eliminate those classes of people the state has deemed "undesirable". > Would people say it's bad if the rate of Down Syndrome decreased because mothers were younger? Probably, if the change was due to the government trying to convince people older than 25 not to have children.
- etjhe4 4y ago
  You know, aside from your choice of framing and that you called it concerning. But no you didn't outright express a literal binary opinion.
  - throwawaylinux 4y ago
    The eugenics aspect is concerning, that was my opinion, and many who have similar concerns (hence it is controversial). My opinion on the merits of an individual making personal choices about reproduction and medical treatment for themselves and their offspring was not offered.

o_____________o 4y ago

"genocide" is extremely loaded when we're talking about something that can be detected as early as 10 weeks in a developing fetus. And being gay doesn't cause brutal, head to toe, lifelong (albeit a short life) material suffering in the individuals, like most cases of Down Syndrome do. It's not just cognitive issues, if you're unaware.

throwawaylinux 4y ago
> "genocide" is extremely loaded That's fair, I was trying to frame it from the point of view of people who might disagree with it to answer OP's question. Might have come across a little strong, so we could call it a state sponsored eugenics programme, then. The systematic reduction or elimination from society a class of people deemed undesirable by the state through the funding of genetic tests and abortion services. > And being gay doesn't cause brutal, head to toe, lifelong (albeit a short life) material suffering in the individuals, like most cases of Down Syndrome do. It's not just cognitive issues, if you're unaware. I have known a number of people with downs syndrome who are very happy a lot of time time, and wonderful fun people too. And on the other hand, let's say trans people for example can suffer excruciating depression as well as physical suffering too. So my concern is valid. If people with downs cross some certain threshold dreamed up by state bureaucrats that others do not, that does not give me much comfort. Where exactly are these arbitrary lines drawn, who decides them, how might they change? Pretty concerning if you ask me, and I'm not anti-abortion nor even anti-abortion for this reason. Giving people information and freedom is one thing. Having the state encourage the abortion of classes of people it considers "undesirable" is quite another, IMO.
- tsimionescu 4y ago
  As far as I understand, "encouraging" here is referring to offering free access to tests that screen for this genetic disorder (among many others), and free access to at-will abortion (up to some fetal age). Or is there some kind of campaign saying "mothers, Abort every fetus with Down's syndrome!" that has gone unmentioned?
  - 4y ago

tsimionescu 4y ago

First of all, homosexual and trans people don't require the same amount of dedication from their parents to live a half-way decent life as children with Downs syndrome do. In fact, homosexual people don't require any extra care, and trans people barely more than that (depending on access to free Healthcare). Second of all, there just isn't, and can't be, a right to be born. The hypothetical person who would turn out of if a fertilized egg is carried to term has no innate rights until they actually do get born (or, well, somewhere near - not trying to justify late term abortions or anything). At least, this is the case if you believe a right to voluntary abortion should exist at all. Theoretically, I don't see anything unethical about aborting a fetus with some hypothetical gay gene, nor do I see anything unethical about aborting a fetus with a gene for black hair instead of blond. In practice though, assuming the screening is not happening very early in the pregnancy, it would seem strange for expecting parents to throw away their excitement after a month of pregnancy because of such shallow reasons. I don't think the same strangeness applies though for more life-impacting conditions, like Down syndrome (or like severe non-verbal autism, if it could be screened for). The fact that the born child would be a precious life that no one would have the right to attack or judge for their illnesses in no way reflects back in time to before they were a child.

throwawaylinux 4y ago
> First of all, homosexual and trans people don't require the same amount of dedication from their parents to live a half-way decent life as children with Downs syndrome do. In fact, homosexual people don't require any extra care, and trans people barely more than that (depending on access to free Healthcare). This is all pretty subjective and arbitrary. Are you saying it's just a matter of degree, and if it happens to be the case for one set of "experts" or bureaucrats then fine. What happens when the next set decide a different group of undesirables is over the line? What I'm saying has nothing to do with a right to be born, or an individual's right to personally make choices about their own reproductive and medical issues. It is purely about a state eugenics campaign to systematically eliminate undesirable classes of people from society.
- tsimionescu 4y ago