4 ms·
When you're doing it explicitly because 40% of their offspring will be poor, I think you've at least entered a gray area. Aligning with the interests of eugenic
by ToValueFunfetti 3y ago
When you're doing it explicitly because 40% of their offspring will be poor, I think you've at least entered a gray area. Aligning with the interests of eugenicists is hardly an argument against a policy though.
- mrguyorama 3y agoThe point is that an individual CHOOSING to not have a child because they don't want that child to stay poor is NOT EUGENICS, and this policy will not force birth control on anyone who doesn't want it. In fact, all this does is make it easier for people who DON'T WANT KIDS to NOT HAVE KIDS. Enabling personal family planning like that is basically the opposite of eugenics?
- ToValueFunfetti 3y agoEugenics and choice are not exclusive; eugenics does not have to be administered through force. Singapore subsidized sterilization of poor and uneducated people and that was eugenics, even though people were still able to choose whether they wanted kids. And, to get ahead of 'poor people don't have a choice because they need money to live', Singapore changed tracks and started incentivizing reproduction for educated women, and that is also eugenics. If I don't reproduce because I have a genetic disease that I don't want to pass down, I'm practicing eugenics. Eugenics doesn't by definition mean all of the horrible abuses that have arisen from it in practice. It's just about 'improving' the human gene pool, and any method of achieving that goal qualifies.