What you’re talking about, with using IVF to reduce the chances of genetic conditions, is called prenatal screening. And while it relies on genomics, and even borrows some concepts from Eugenics, it is not Eugenics, at least as far as most people understand and use that term. Eugenics is widely understood to be the pseudo-scientific shield fascists frequently hide behind to justify bigotry, forced sterilization, genocide, and other atrocities. You may think this is just a semantic argument over an umbrella term that can cover anything to do with improving the human genome, but modern geneticists are very careful to disassociate anything they do with the term “Eugenics”, due to the authoritarian implications it carries.
So you think the government should have no laws about reporduction?
If a father wants to reproduce with his own daughters, assuming he waits till they’re 18, you’re cool with that?
Any law against inbreeding is eugenics after all, and your pretty clear that because someone corrupted it, the baby has to go out with the bathwater.
Like, you realize on a long enough timescale, all you’re arguing for is the repeated and continual renaming of every system after someone abuses, which only leads to a general populace ignorant of history and that any system can be abused.
You think this is just me being pedantic, but word choice literally shapes how we think.
It matters more than you think it does.
And what you’re arguing for is literally why so many ericans are against socialism.
That’s the ironic part, you’re method is easily and recently disproven. But likely due to that very train.of logic you don’t understand it.
It’s like a blind man arguing everyone should be blind be cause he never sees anything scary, ignorant that if everyone was blind we’d all be fucked
My guy, you wanna stop putting words in my mouth and have an honest, productive discussion, I’m all for it. Otherwise, don’t bother replying.
Also, pay attention to usernames when replying. That was my first comment in this chain, but I have a feeling you thought you were replying to someone you’d already been talking to.
Because your one reply to me claimed that I was saying a bunch of stuff that I never said in my one comment?
Like, it should be obvious what’s going on here
My account is over two years old with thousands of other comments. My writing style is vastly different than anyone else’s in this thread. I’m not creating new accounts to avoid blocks. I’m not out to get you. I’m flattered, but it’s not that serious.
Imagine the deep dark hole you had to climb out of to write that and genuinely stand by your demented conviction.
Get help.
So…
If a couple both are carriers for a serious and lifelong medical condition, but they really want kids.
If they used IVF to make sure their kids don’t have either copies of that gene…
To you, that’s the same as killing the couple?
Because both methods is eugenics.
Just one is fucking horrible and one ensures future generations don’t suffer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics
What you’re talking about, with using IVF to reduce the chances of genetic conditions, is called prenatal screening. And while it relies on genomics, and even borrows some concepts from Eugenics, it is not Eugenics, at least as far as most people understand and use that term. Eugenics is widely understood to be the pseudo-scientific shield fascists frequently hide behind to justify bigotry, forced sterilization, genocide, and other atrocities. You may think this is just a semantic argument over an umbrella term that can cover anything to do with improving the human genome, but modern geneticists are very careful to disassociate anything they do with the term “Eugenics”, due to the authoritarian implications it carries.
So you think the government should have no laws about reporduction?
If a father wants to reproduce with his own daughters, assuming he waits till they’re 18, you’re cool with that?
Any law against inbreeding is eugenics after all, and your pretty clear that because someone corrupted it, the baby has to go out with the bathwater.
Like, you realize on a long enough timescale, all you’re arguing for is the repeated and continual renaming of every system after someone abuses, which only leads to a general populace ignorant of history and that any system can be abused.
You think this is just me being pedantic, but word choice literally shapes how we think.
It matters more than you think it does.
And what you’re arguing for is literally why so many ericans are against socialism.
That’s the ironic part, you’re method is easily and recently disproven. But likely due to that very train.of logic you don’t understand it.
It’s like a blind man arguing everyone should be blind be cause he never sees anything scary, ignorant that if everyone was blind we’d all be fucked
My guy, you wanna stop putting words in my mouth and have an honest, productive discussion, I’m all for it. Otherwise, don’t bother replying.
Also, pay attention to usernames when replying. That was my first comment in this chain, but I have a feeling you thought you were replying to someone you’d already been talking to.
If I’ve replied to you once why start with this:
This is a two day thread I’ve blocked multiple low activity accounts in, and a new one only shows up after I block the last one…
Like, it should be obvious what’s going on here, but I’m betting a new account will reply in a couple hours after I don’t reply to your next one.
Because your one reply to me claimed that I was saying a bunch of stuff that I never said in my one comment?
My account is over two years old with thousands of other comments. My writing style is vastly different than anyone else’s in this thread. I’m not creating new accounts to avoid blocks. I’m not out to get you. I’m flattered, but it’s not that serious.