Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

SirLeaf t1_j89e1mx wrote

Reply to comment by [deleted] in You're probably a eugenicist by 4r530n

The premise of this article is not that it is ok to be a nazi.

The premise is that "we are all eugenicists—but in selective, inconsistent, and often hypocritical ways."

To quote the article, so people don't read this comment and completely dismiss what the article was getting at.

"When someone says that screening embryos for genetic diseases, giving educated women incentives to have children (like free child care for college educated women), or offering subsidized abortions for women addicted to drugs is "eugenics" they are absolutely using the term correctly."

The overarching message of this article is that it is not Nazism to get an abortion because the fetus will be born with painful lifelong disabilities. In fact, most progressives would argue that should be the woman's right to get an abortion in this situation.

Likewise, it is not Nazism to ban incest because it increases the likelihood of cognitive disorder (in offspring).

Did you just read the title and maybe the first two paragraphs and comment?

8

forestwolf42 t1_j89if8p wrote

Yeah, the point is there is a huge ethically middle ground in-between Nazism and Incest, a middle ground that reasonable people already occupy, but we are afraid to have conversations about policy and ideas that could benefit the future because we are afraid of being called Nazis.

I, for example, have decided not to have children because of various psychological disorders that run on both sides of my family, as well as actual gene damage from my grandfather studying uranium before we understood how dangerous it is. There is a high chance for my children to have disabilities, so I've decided not to have any. And I encourage other people in similar situations to voluntarily not reproduce and consider adoption. This is definitely a "eugenics" mindset, but I don't think encouraging people to consider the welfare of their potential children before having them to be Nazi behavior.

2

AConcernedCoder t1_j89q803 wrote

Anti-natalists can have a variety of rationales for their choices -- a belief that one has an ethical obligation to not bring children into the world being one of them, is not the same as the belief in a class of people that should neither procreate or be eradicated. One is megalomaniacal.

That's not even touching the absurdities baked into the idea of "improvements." Superiority is very much a subjective evaluation. Genetic fitness isn't the same as one culture's preferential vision of what it considers a superior human being.

−5

SirLeaf t1_j89t6hu wrote

This is more interesting than your comment alleging that the post is promoting nazism.

4