Anonymous OP 1w

literally by definition. and they admitted as much in this little interaction

4

Anonymous #1 1w

not a question side note: i'm not the one downvoting

3

Anonymous OP 1w

Sure, just guess the question would be, how are they arguing for eugenics when eugenics are specifically for traits deemed undesirable by the government? Idk what the post is about so if there’s more context there I’ll look for it

4

Anonymous #1 1w

the screenshot in my post is their original post eugenics isn't "specifically for traits deemed undesirable by the government"

1

Anonymous #1 1w

the government doesn't need to be involved for something to be eugenics/eugenicist

10

Anonymous #2 1w

i'm not confused about their point. it's still a eugenicist take by definition and idc if they don't like the negative associations because said associations are justified no, your friend is not pro-eugenics just by not wanting and/or having kids. read the definition closely "attempting to improve the human gene pool... by encouraging... and discouraging..." self-opting out of childbearing because of risks is not eugenicist

2

Anonymous OP 1w

Interesting so anyone saying they think it’s selfish is discouraging to you therefore it’s pro E? Even if their reasoning isn’t about improving the gene pool? What if my friends with the condition also thought it was selfish would that make them or the person with autism in the Og comments pro too? Genuine questions.

1

Anonymous #3 1w

Additionally, we have to look at the degree of disability. A disabled person taking care of another disabled person isn’t an easy feat, so you have to make sure you could be a good parent. But again, having an opinion on this imo is not eugenics. We have to accept that there is nuance and that eugenics was about more than just opinions on if disabled people should risk having disabled children or not…

8

Anonymous #3 1w

… it was about force, hate, and the killing of them and many other groups too. It was about seeing disabled people as “incompetent” and as “a burden on society that’s better off dead”. Could thoughts like these be the seeds of that? Maybe. Which is why you should keep your thoughts and actions in check. Okay thanks for reading my essay.

1

Anonymous #3 1w

That’s what I was wondering. I definitely get the slippery slope of the og post but this seems like a pretty loose definition of discouraging, esp in the context of historical movement. Based on that logic someone saying it was a good thing would be encouraging and therefore also pro in the opposite direction since it’s based on desired/undesired traits right? Like the only way to not be pro-E would be if you’re completely neutral on the subject of traits or giving birth altogether right?

-1

Anonymous #2 1w

It’s a slippery slope both ways. It’s one of those things where thinking about it will never be an issue for you unless you’re disabled yourself, and in that case it doesn’t matter because ppl have the rights to have kids or not. I also think that the person who posted the thing that OP took a screenshot of just should have stayed quiet because while it CAN be a valid opinion depending on the reasoning the only real motivation they could have for posting it is attention/validation/ragebait

1

Anonymous #3 1w

I do want to mention though that while legally I am ‘disabled enough’ to live off of a check from the govt. if I wanted to (I personally do not, any choice is valid) my disability is not visible and therefore I am hardly ever on the receiving ends of comments like these. So if anyone else with that experience wants to pitch in please do I’m always open to new opinions.

1

Anonymous #2 1w

Okay ik we just talked earlier but there’s a big difference between SAYING it is selfish and THINKING it. I think the person in the screenshot was a little odd because what does anyone gain from them saying that? Nothing. Besides the off chance that a disabled person might see it and feel shit about themselves.

1

Anonymous #3 1w

Also thanks! This helped me figure out what I was confused about in the back and forth. It’s not the eu aspect for me but what are/aren’t good reasons for ANYONE to have kids or not in general and that’s something a lot of people without disabilities have never had to think about really. That’d be a much more interesting than fixating on conditions.

1

Anonymous #3 1w

Yeah our talks helped me figure out the actual issue and discussion here. My disabled friends know their life better than us and have already had to think about what having kids would mean. Even I have some mental health stuff I’ve had to think about. So this isn’t anything new for them/us. It’s just new for people who’ve never had to think about it themselves. And in that case it should be a bigger issue on having kids you aren’t equipped to care for, not if passing on conditions is bad.

0

Anonymous #3 1w

is this just a general comment?

1