Your personal choice is yours, and nobody can comment it. But making it a legal interdiction? That’s something else entirely. People with disabilities or illnesses can live long, happy and meaningful lives. Even more so if the society weren’t ableist.
Abort a child who will live their life in pain. It won’t only be pain, for sure, but it will mostly be a life where their ability to interact with life will be severely limited
It’s a hard topic, but I can probably say that my partner and I would probably abort and try again
I think you’re trying to make this more binary than it needs to be.
If they’re born mentally disabled, I will love and care for them and do my best to provide them all the opportunities life has to offer. If I can prevent them from being born with a debilitating illness, I will do my best to do so
I mean it sounds harsh, but some people really shouldn‘t have kids. Some because of genetics (adoption is fine) and some because they are clinically insane and would destroy their children‘s psyche (these kids would be better off given up for adoption)
In reality that‘s hard to achieve, but it is true.
If childcare resources were abundant and free that would offset the problem a great deal, but capitalism and rugged individualism and all that. Like, given all the stupid out there I definitely see the appeal of it, and even things like eliminating genetic disorders would qualify so the line gets kinda fuzzy insofar as the ethics are concerned. The issue is that once systems are in place for wide scale eugenics of any flavor, some asshole will absolutely use it to genocide an ethnic group or other minority.
Oops that’s eugenics! I get the sentiment but instead we should have a ridiculous amount of resources freely available to children and new parents, healthcare childcare food assistance socialization education. It takes a village and all that.
Eh, eugenics work. If not dog breeds wouldn’t exist.
We’re just really, really bad at agreeing on what genes are good ones and attempts at filtering for good genes in humans tend to more or less immediately become about skin color because of course they do. And also it being basically impossible to do without massive human rights violations.
But being difficult, massively immoral and unethical and usually in practice just an excuse for simple racism doesn’t mean it doesn’t work.
Eh I mostly don’t disagree, hell eliminating conditions like Huntington’s disease could qualify as eugenics so I don’t really have an issue with it in concept. Problem is if there’s a system in place for widespread eugenics some asshole is gonna use it for a genocide.
Wiping out Huntington’s would be a genocide in the most literal possible sense.
To be fair, if not for the whole massively immoral and unethical part, we could wipe out Huntington’s in a generation or two with mandatory testing and sterilizations. But again that whole massively immoral and unethical thing.
I say we invert it. To prevent aristicracy and nepotism, the wealthy will be prohibited from reproducting. No one in the top 10% of income or wealth gets a baby license.
What if we just make them adopt a kid for every multiple over the 3x over the national average income. So Musk would have to have like 4 million kids. Then you heavily follow them with CPS and fine them for any infraction. Basically making CPS the biggest taxing authority.
We should get the government to put a licence on breeding so only the genetically strong can have children
That may be the best use of that meme I’ve seen. I appreciated the chuckle.
I mean, genetics are genetics.
I may have epilepsy and am strongly considering getting a vasectomy so I don’t accidentaly create a fucked up kid that can’t live normally.
Adoption is always an option an all’at. And plenty of romance can happen without kids… Hell, ESPECIALLY without kids lol.
Your personal choice is yours, and nobody can comment it. But making it a legal interdiction? That’s something else entirely. People with disabilities or illnesses can live long, happy and meaningful lives. Even more so if the society weren’t ableist.
Yea maybe not that far
Did not expect eugenics to make a comeback in 2026 😭
Really? I’ve seen it creeping into the collective conscience for at least a few years now.
I mean, if you could screen your kid for known debillatating chronic diseases, you probably will, no?
Will what? Kill them?
Abort a child who will live their life in pain. It won’t only be pain, for sure, but it will mostly be a life where their ability to interact with life will be severely limited
It’s a hard topic, but I can probably say that my partner and I would probably abort and try again
WTF? That’s not only ableism, that’s basically nazi eugenics, claiming that disabled people are less entitled to life than able-bodied children.
No, I won’t kill my child due to disability. I will love my child no matter if they are disabled or not. I am not an ableist bigot.
I think you’re trying to make this more binary than it needs to be.
If they’re born mentally disabled, I will love and care for them and do my best to provide them all the opportunities life has to offer. If I can prevent them from being born with a debilitating illness, I will do my best to do so
This thread went into eugenics stuff waaay too fast
I thought it had a pretty even pace
I mean it sounds harsh, but some people really shouldn‘t have kids. Some because of genetics (adoption is fine) and some because they are clinically insane and would destroy their children‘s psyche (these kids would be better off given up for adoption)
In reality that‘s hard to achieve, but it is true.
it’s one thing to believe in that at a high level, and another to enshrine it into law & enforce it.
The potential of abuse is wayyy to high to actually make laws about that.
It would be like saying that eating unhealthy is bad and then passing laws that may lead to someone being executed for eating a Twix.
If childcare resources were abundant and free that would offset the problem a great deal, but capitalism and rugged individualism and all that. Like, given all the stupid out there I definitely see the appeal of it, and even things like eliminating genetic disorders would qualify so the line gets kinda fuzzy insofar as the ethics are concerned. The issue is that once systems are in place for wide scale eugenics of any flavor, some asshole will absolutely use it to genocide an ethnic group or other minority.
Sir this is
Wendy’sgreentextdeleted by creator
Very predictable plot 4/10 would read again. 7/10 with rice.
Oops that’s eugenics! I get the sentiment but instead we should have a ridiculous amount of resources freely available to children and new parents, healthcare childcare food assistance socialization education. It takes a village and all that.
Eh, eugenics work. If not dog breeds wouldn’t exist.
We’re just really, really bad at agreeing on what genes are good ones and attempts at filtering for good genes in humans tend to more or less immediately become about skin color because of course they do. And also it being basically impossible to do without massive human rights violations.
But being difficult, massively immoral and unethical and usually in practice just an excuse for simple racism doesn’t mean it doesn’t work.
Eh I mostly don’t disagree, hell eliminating conditions like Huntington’s disease could qualify as eugenics so I don’t really have an issue with it in concept. Problem is if there’s a system in place for widespread eugenics some asshole is gonna use it for a genocide.
Wiping out Huntington’s would be a genocide in the most literal possible sense.
To be fair, if not for the whole massively immoral and unethical part, we could wipe out Huntington’s in a generation or two with mandatory testing and sterilizations. But again that whole massively immoral and unethical thing.
I’m a mentally unstable trans woman and have 4 kids. The government can suck my giant girl dick.
I say we invert it. To prevent aristicracy and nepotism, the wealthy will be prohibited from reproducting. No one in the top 10% of income or wealth gets a baby license.
if the 2 richest people were forced to fight to death every year, imagine the rush of wealth donations there’d be every year to not be at the top
What if we just make them adopt a kid for every multiple over the 3x over the national average income. So Musk would have to have like 4 million kids. Then you heavily follow them with CPS and fine them for any infraction. Basically making CPS the biggest taxing authority.
Oops that’s how you get rich people stealing babies from poor people
I get your argument but the broaderidea here is that people in the psych ward aren’t generally making good decisions
Some countries are just big psych wards
you really should put an /s to that
Sir this is a 4chan greentext community
You really want Trump telling you who you can fuck.