#consang discourse

[mionghairearracht]

Where did I say disabled people couldn't be in relationships?

What does being in a relationship have to do with having children?

Do you really think a childless partnership is somehow "less fulfilling? Not as valid?

You want kids? Adopt them. There are plenty waiting for good homes.

There is no good, ethical argument for knowingly causing undue suffering. Both me AND my fucking fiance have "bad" genetics. We've both decided, independently, that if we were to be parents, we'd adopt.

God, you sound insufferable.

"Hey, maybe don't knowingly cause suffering, especially when the world is already so fucked up and hostile to disabled people."

"Omg, you think I shouldn't have sex? You think I shouldn't be able to be in a relationship? You wanna shoot all disabled people?"

I never said any of that. You're putting words in my mouth, and tbh I'm not dealing with that.

you were the one who said it's immoral for parents to knowingly have children who could inherit disabilities; and you're the one who in response to me pointing out the existence of contraceptives said you wouldn't

cause an innocent life to suffer like this because I was too horny and stupid to use a contraceptive or a condom.

what exactly should i take from that other than since incest could cause disablities and result in disabled children and therefore is immoral therefore its also immoral for disabled people to be in relationships because they might not use contraception and thus end up with a disabled child?

and its hilarious that you're suggesting im the one who said relationships can't exist without children when i brought up contraceptives in my first reply and you are the one who replied with the above quote

also if people can be in relationships without having children then why did you use the possibility of children as an argument against incest?

either relationships can exist without children, therefore children can't be used as an argument against incest; or children can be used but you have to assume relationships result in kids. you cant have it both ways with relationships not needing children and the possibility of children being an argument against types of relationships

and like i dont even have a position on the whole incest morality discourse other then "stop fucking using the possibility of someone like me existing as an argument as to why something is bad". that's. it. i am a person and my existence isnt a moral failure on anyones part.

you and everyone else are welcome to have you're own personal feelings on your disabilities and what that means in regards to having children but you do not get to tell others that their lives are lesser and having a child like themselves is a failing.

[mionghairearracht]

Ah, yes, a simple "Maybe we shouldn't intentionally make children who we know will suffer through pain and unnecessary hardship" question being met with "you're an awful ableist person"

I never said that disabled people shouldn't exist. I'm fucking disabled. And I don't ever wanna intentionally, knowingly, cause an innocent life to suffer like this because I was too horny and stupid to use a contraceptive or a condom.

But thanks for convincing me your side of the argument is too hostile or aggressive to ever actually bother teaching anyone about why it should be acceptable to let incest babies happen.

Do no harm. To anyone, for any reason.

okay anon do you think disabled people with heritable disorders should be allowed to be in relationships?

because guess what a lot of us have heritable disorders and either we are all horrible people for having sex because it could theoretically result in a child with disabilities or you are a hypocrite

if you say "this group of people could pass on disabilities so they cannot be in relationships" you are saying that the possibility of a disabled person is bad enough that legal and social norms need to be created to prevent it.

no one is saying you personally need to be fine with having children who could inherit your disability, we are saying that using the possibility of disabled children as a moral or legal argument is eugenics because it fucking is

and again the disabilities people associate with incest are related to repeated incest over multiple generations.

also frankly if you want to go to bat for eugenics under the guise of increasing quality of life you're better off demanding everyone get a genetic screning before having children, since unrelated carriers passing on genes is a much much more common cause of disability then incest.

if you're going to be a eugenicist and throw a temper tantrum in my inbox the least you could do is argue for something theoretically effective in meeting your goals.