much depends on the context in which the word “eugenics” is being tossed around
frequently, it’s raised by people who want to use it to lend rhetorical teeth to their argument for eliminating the right to abortion. it’s worth contemplating why that is and what it implies. this is a word that’s been weaponized, and what work it’s doing, to what ends, in any given usage should be carefully interrogated
furthermore, i do just need to point out that objectively unfavorable genetic conditions exist
you may be heavily invested in the idea that every single thing that can go wrong with human development falls equally into the category we call “disability,” with the strong implication that it should be accommodated and managed and optimized rather than eliminated. some of the more familiar developmental conditions really are like that, and ethical arguments defending them exist. but there are misfortunes of this kind that produce appalling outcomes with no upsides and nothing to salvage. it would be inappropriate and cruel of me to push examples on people who have no personal or occupational reason to know about them. point is, it would be an unmixed good if we developed and consistently utilized the technology to reduce the incidence of such conditions to zero forever
when i see jeremiads against eugenics divorced from any specific context, my first question is what specific evil we’re talking about, and which side in the argument at hand is for it vs against it
there might be someone here arguing for eugenics who is pushing for the systematic sterilization of members of a certain race. that would be evil!
there might be someone here arguing against eugenics who is pushing to coerce somebody else who has just had the worst imaginable news about their pregnancy to keep that pregnancy and spend the rest of their own life sustaining an intensely suffering child with no ability to perceive or return love. that too would be evil!
romaincrisis
gummygunk
snowghoul
germansingergirl
izzy806
tangentwithtanner
pixelskylines
