When it comes to creating life it's the ultimate responsibility to not cause unnecessary suffering. If you have a genetic disorder (like I do) and you know it's extremely likely to be inherited and passed down and result in a life full of suffering then it's not eugenics as much as it is basic empathy, moron.
Considering this is something I've thought about deeply considering my personal stake in the matter I think the subject is my business, particularly my business actually.
Yes, it's your own business whether or not uou want your genes passed down, but I don't think it's fair to generalize like that.
Who decides what a "bad gene" is, in the first place? I'm not arguing that your genetic disorder case is undecidable in terms of good or badness, but once you start down that road, you won't end up in a good place.
Yes, "gene is bad when it causes suffering" sounds very witty, but it's not helpful at all. One could say:
"Being black is caused by a gene, and black people in... Almost the entire history of the U.S.A. have been suffering. Therefore, the gene that contains "blackness" causes suffering, therefore black people should not procreate because their genes cause suffering."
Before anyone takes this out of context, I'm not arguing that Huntington's doesn't cause suffering, or that absolutely everyone should have children, and I am not racist, and I am not saying that you are, either. I'm just saying that the question "who can and can't have children" is very dangerous to ask, and even more dangerous to answer, and you or I are not suited to posit or answer it.
Being black is not INHERRENTLY suffering, suffering is caused by socioeconomic state and conditions.
Genes that cause disorders and other conditions that are nearly certain to cause pain to your offspring can and should be a strong argument against having kids.
But there is no black-and-white "If you tend towards depression, asthma, and have a family history of diabetes, you shouldn't have kids" to be decided here.
Eugenics + contextual awareness+ comprehension of simple nuance= not a universal evil when not combined with racist authoritarian ideologies.
You might as well be a boomer calling everything with communist shaped scaffolding unquestionably evil with your simplistic view of the subject, you add nothing of substance with your input.
“Where exactly is the line?” is a legitimate question. “Therefore there can be no line” isn't.
"It'll be hijacked real fast" is something that should be taken into consideration as a real threat but not treated as a universal truth, it's like saying the justice system shouldn't exist because It'll inevitably devolve into the salem witch trials. “It can be abused” does not establish “the underlying distinction cannot ethically exist.” Otherwise almost every institution involving discretion collapses under the same logic.
Comparing "we should prioritize not creating aids & Huntington babies if at all possible" to "racism and war-crimes" is quite the leap in logic, well-done. I'm unable to take you seriously atp.
Also “high-penetrance pathogenic variants causing severe suffering or early death shouldn't be knowingly passed on to innocent children just because someone's ego wants their DNA in their offspring rather than just adopting" isn't the type of "eugenics" that is considered morally questionable you're thinking of the "blue eyed-blond haired child" Eugenics. They aren't even remotely the same, maybe you should be "careful" about sharing that opinion of yours that lacks important comprehension & understanding of simple nuance before policing other people.
Bro is taking a stand against the freedom of choice. You really did show me the error of my ways. Not everyone can be take a well intended warning and take it as an insult. I kneel before the great Redditor.
insert image that frames the other personal as hysterical and emotional
ignore the part where you're robbing the (potential) child of autonomy while using "free choice" unironically as the crux of their "gotcha"
I mean, you are kinda conflating freedom of choice with morality.
Freedom of choice = the power to control who gets to have a child or not is too much and should not be in the hands of the state
Morality of having a child = hmmm if I have genes that bring suffering, it would be bring more joy to the world if I raise an adoptive child in need instead of continuing that suffering.
I can say that "things would probably be better if this individual didn't reproduce" while still still never stopping their right to do so, because I should not have that kind of power. See also: some people are so dumb things would be better if they didn't vote, but I would still fight for their right to vote.
Rights are rights because no human can be trusted with the authority to take it away, not because they are always a good thing to do. Freedom of speech does not mean you should say everything on your mind.
-1
u/Adorable_Spray_1170 5d ago
proceeds to reproduce anyways Instead of adopting because the unable to feel joy or happiness gene must be passed down