10 ms·

It’s misleading to equate support for birth control, abortion, or genetic testing with support for eugenics. Eugenics, historically, refers to coercive or state

It’s misleading to equate support for birth control, abortion, or genetic testing with support for eugenics. Eugenics, historically, refers to coercive or state-enforced policies aimed at “improving” the gene pool, often through forced sterilization, selective breeding, or even genocide. The problem with eugenics is exactly that it denies individual autonomy and human rights in favor of a supposedly “better” population. Support for modern reproductive healthcare is not equal to support for eugenics as it rejects coercion in favor of personal agency.

metalcrow 2y ago
This is just playing a semantic shell game. The term refers to only certain things that are negative, but when the same things are positive it doesn't refer to them anymore? Even if you accept your changed definition as "coercive or state-enforced policies aimed at improving the gene pool", then laws against incest and mandatory genetic screening aimed at identifying cousins and thalassemia in Iceland, Cyprus, and Iran, are also eugenics.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- bigbadfeline 2y ago
  If government dictatorship vs personal choice is "a semantic shell game" then "war is peace" is just a divine revelation of another "semantic shell game" and Big Brother is really your brother. "Dictatorship is Free Choice" sounds like a fine addition to the list of glorious slogans...
Teever 2y ago
Not at all. Planned Parenthood was founded by eugenicists like Margret Sanger[0] and the services that it provides like birth control and abortion were done so for eugenics purposes. Eugenics historically encompasses all of the things I listed, and the things that you have listed as well. They are grouped into two terms -- positive eugenics and negative eugenics. Positive eugenics is about encouraging the people to reproduce in the best way possible while negative eugenics is about discouraging or outright denying people to breed because of sometimes subjective judgment ascribed to their reproductive fitness. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to rehabilitate the term eugenics or defend the kind of odious stuff that the article is talking about , I just think that in this discussion it's important for people to acknowledge that 'modern reproductive healthcare' is eugenics. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger
- AIPedant 2y ago
  Margaret Sanger's creepy and scientifically repudiated motivations are not relevant to the discussion. It seems like you are playing a dishonest word game: "eugenics" is a set of ideologies and policies which specifically excludes individual choice so that society can impose its views of genetic fitness. But you are using a slippery and unspecified definition that seems to change shape depending on what point you're trying to make. As to birth control and abortion, you are flat out 100% wrong, they have nothing whatsoever to do with eugenics. These exist because people don't want to disrupt their lives with the difficulty of raising a child. In 99.9% of cases the genetic fitness of that child is completely immaterial. Birth control was also not significant in Margaret Sanger's eugenics writing: she advocated sterilization, and her support of birth control distinguished her from other eugenicists since she thought "fit" mothers still had a right to limit the number of "fit" offspring. Which leads to another point: you are misstating "positive eugenics." Positive eugenics is encourage "fit" people to have more kids, not to encourage everyone to "reproduce in the best way possible." Again it seems like you are being plain dishonest - which is especially frustrating because I don't think you're arguing for eugenics, you're just trying to win an argument on the internet, and that argument rests on a dumb word game which ignores reality. Genetic testing actually is a bit more relevant, but there are sharp distinctions between "medically justifiable interventions" and "attempting to optimize your children," and even optimizing your children is not the same thing as eugenics. It is irresponsible and childish to use the same term without being careful. The goal of enhancing individuals and the human species by engineering the genes related to some characteristics and traits is not to be confused with the barbarous projects of eugenics that planned the simple elimination of human beings considered as 'imperfect' on an ideological basis. However, it impinges upon the principle of respect for human dignity in several ways. It weakens the idea that the differences among human beings, regardless of the measure of their endowment, are exactly what the recognition of their equality presupposes and therefore protects. It introduces the risk of new forms of discrimination and stigmatization for those who cannot afford such enhancement or simply do not want to resort to it. The arguments that have been produced in favour of the so-called liberal eugenics do not trump the indication to apply the limit of medical reasons also in this case. (https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000233258_eng https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000233258_eng)

metalcrow 2y ago

This is just playing a semantic shell game. The term refers to only certain things that are negative, but when the same things are positive it doesn't refer to them anymore? Even if you accept your changed definition as "coercive or state-enforced policies aimed at improving the gene pool", then laws against incest and mandatory genetic screening aimed at identifying cousins and thalassemia in Iceland, Cyprus, and Iran, are also eugenics.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
bigbadfeline 2y ago
If government dictatorship vs personal choice is "a semantic shell game" then "war is peace" is just a divine revelation of another "semantic shell game" and Big Brother is really your brother. "Dictatorship is Free Choice" sounds like a fine addition to the list of glorious slogans...

Teever 2y ago

Not at all. Planned Parenthood was founded by eugenicists like Margret Sanger[0] and the services that it provides like birth control and abortion were done so for eugenics purposes. Eugenics historically encompasses all of the things I listed, and the things that you have listed as well. They are grouped into two terms -- positive eugenics and negative eugenics. Positive eugenics is about encouraging the people to reproduce in the best way possible while negative eugenics is about discouraging or outright denying people to breed because of sometimes subjective judgment ascribed to their reproductive fitness. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to rehabilitate the term eugenics or defend the kind of odious stuff that the article is talking about , I just think that in this discussion it's important for people to acknowledge that 'modern reproductive healthcare' is eugenics. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger

AIPedant 2y ago
Margaret Sanger's creepy and scientifically repudiated motivations are not relevant to the discussion. It seems like you are playing a dishonest word game: "eugenics" is a set of ideologies and policies which specifically excludes individual choice so that society can impose its views of genetic fitness. But you are using a slippery and unspecified definition that seems to change shape depending on what point you're trying to make. As to birth control and abortion, you are flat out 100% wrong, they have nothing whatsoever to do with eugenics. These exist because people don't want to disrupt their lives with the difficulty of raising a child. In 99.9% of cases the genetic fitness of that child is completely immaterial. Birth control was also not significant in Margaret Sanger's eugenics writing: she advocated sterilization, and her support of birth control distinguished her from other eugenicists since she thought "fit" mothers still had a right to limit the number of "fit" offspring. Which leads to another point: you are misstating "positive eugenics." Positive eugenics is encourage "fit" people to have more kids, not to encourage everyone to "reproduce in the best way possible." Again it seems like you are being plain dishonest - which is especially frustrating because I don't think you're arguing for eugenics, you're just trying to win an argument on the internet, and that argument rests on a dumb word game which ignores reality. Genetic testing actually is a bit more relevant, but there are sharp distinctions between "medically justifiable interventions" and "attempting to optimize your children," and even optimizing your children is not the same thing as eugenics. It is irresponsible and childish to use the same term without being careful. The goal of enhancing individuals and the human species by engineering the genes related to some characteristics and traits is not to be confused with the barbarous projects of eugenics that planned the simple elimination of human beings considered as 'imperfect' on an ideological basis. However, it impinges upon the principle of respect for human dignity in several ways. It weakens the idea that the differences among human beings, regardless of the measure of their endowment, are exactly what the recognition of their equality presupposes and therefore protects. It introduces the risk of new forms of discrimination and stigmatization for those who cannot afford such enhancement or simply do not want to resort to it. The arguments that have been produced in favour of the so-called liberal eugenics do not trump the indication to apply the limit of medical reasons also in this case. (https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000233258_eng https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000233258_eng)