3 ms·
I've had this argument before: If you argue eugenics then you should really look into your family history and be 100% sure no-one has any "defects" anywhere. Mo
by consp 4y ago
I've had this argument before: If you argue eugenics then you should really look into your family history and be 100% sure no-one has any "defects" anywhere. Most people who argue it have either needed some form of intervention somewhere in their lives to fix a "defect" and in other cases one of their predecessors and would they be unwanted in the eugenics-fanatics eyes. (Reflection usually works quite well with when someone is reasoning for eugenics)
- iLoveOncall 4y agoWell that's a pretty week argument. Yeah sure if we killed every baby to be that had a defect I probably wouldn't exist. But I wouldn't care, because I wouldn't exist. Note I'm not saying to kill those unborn children, I'm saying that if this medical field had not been completely put to a stop following WW2, we wouldn't have to kill unborn children but we could do in utero interventions to prevent those conditions from developing. "Kill the babies" is the current state of eugenics because it has been at a full stop for more than half of a century. That's my point.
- agileAlligator 4y agoEugenics doesn't necessarily mean kill the baby. It meant that in the past only because science wasn't advanced enough. Techniques to modify the human genome exist; we could potentially "fix" the bad genes without killing the child.