this post was submitted on 28 Mar 2024
155 points (100.0% liked)
[Outdated, please look at pinned post] Casual Conversation
6591 readers
1 users here now
Share a story, ask a question, or start a conversation about (almost) anything you desire. Maybe you'll make some friends in the process.
RULES
- Be respectful: no harassment, hate speech, bigotry, and/or trolling
- Encourage conversation in your post
- Avoid controversial topics such as politics or societal debates
- Keep it clean and SFW: No illegal content or anything gross and inappropriate
- No solicitation such as ads, promotional content, spam, surveys etc.
- Respect privacy: Don’t ask for or share any personal information
Related discussion-focused communities
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I think a legitimate concern for that one is what do you define as a disability worth terminating the baby's life for. Some would likely abuse it for eugenics.
Good investment and R&D for better early pregnancy testing would be a good start, if we can accurately predict disabilities early enough for an abortion it would head off a lot of issues later on
But for post birth disabilities, yea, but it's hard to even have that conversation because many would just shut the conversation down entirely with "life is life" or some BS like that
That literally already is eugenics.
And the fact that you consider people advocating that disabled lives have just as much value as abled lives as "BS" tells me you really don't care, because even if you won't admit it, you are a eugenicist.
^ see, found one already lmao
Yea no, to cross the line into eugenics the state or other authority needs to mandate that X or Y disabilities need to be aborted even over the objections of the parents
Simply giving the parents and their doctors the tools and legalities to detect and come to their own decisions, is not
If life is life... why do I have to pay a monthly tribute to a labded lord? I thought my life is sacred!
Not being able to live without any assistance and no hope of improving seems like a reasonable criteria. In fact, with that criteria they can remove the assistance and let the child (or adults) suffocate and die right now, but they can't use drugs to ease the suffering and speed up the process or it is 'murder'.
There are many things we can put in place to mitigate the concerns about eugenics, like requiring two doctor's to agree that it is appropriate in addition to consent of family/guardians/other legally responsible persons.
None of us could live without any assistance.
With minimal reading comprehension you could have inferred that the assistance in the example was breathing for the person since they would suffocate without the assistance.
Im the hopes of avoiding a similar stupid post, that does not mean I think anyone who need needs a machine should die. That was an example of a situation where doctors can currently let a patient die through 'inaction' by removing the assistance that is taking care of vital functions like breathing. Think brain dead people or someone whose cancer is so bad that they refuse care that could keep them alive, but have no option to end the suffering faster.