I cannot equate eugenics to aborting medically maligned fetuses. The former is based on superficial features of people that do not impact their physical or cognitive development, such as race, gender or sexuality, while the latter does, and it does so with increased suffering for the individual.
Equivocate does not mean what you think it does. More importantly, many times in history those “superficial features” have been associated by people, rightly or wrongly, with superior cognitive or physical abilities and used as an excuse for eugenics. Even more importantly, having known many people with Down’s I would caution you against saying that they have greater suffering and therefore would be better off not existing. Countless people feel differently about that.
They feel differently because they are already born. However, if they never existed in the first place, they would not have the capacity to feel that way, or feel any way at all actually. It is the same argument as the abortion debate, where those against it appeal to the people already born that might have been aborted, but that is a false equivalence.
Yes, but in this case I don’t think they are experiencing the level of suffering you think they are. But if I try to stay with you for a minute and listen to your case for there being a level of suffering that would make someone better off not existing, my question would be, where do you draw that line? You already drew it way earlier than I would’ve expected you would.
Severe mental or physical disability is where. For some reason, other people in this thread are equating eye color with severe disabilities, which is asinine to me. One is superficial, one actually produces suffering.
Are you aware that some people with Down Syndrome go to college? The effects of the genetic defect vary widely amongst the population of affected. If we take your argument of suffering then what about people born into poverty? Do they not deserve to live either?
The point you are missing is that people with disabilities are people. They deserve to live same as you, despite the challenges. Have some empathy.
That is again a post hoc rationalization. Just because some go to college does not mean we shouldn't cure their medical maladies. Some people with cancer go to college, does that mean we should not cure them?
No, that is not what eugenics means. That's what the strawman version of eugenics means (even 80 years ago it was a bit strawmannish, now it's even more so).
The steelman version of eugenics does select for features that impact physical or cognitive development. Both mental and physical talents are in part hereditary. That means you can run a breeding program to boost them.
It would be at the whim of the parents, and such it coule not be equated to eugenics.
It's one step closer to Eugenics (with a capital E) in the same sense that legalizing weed is one step closer to the entire population being addicted to heroin. Same ballpark, different game.
Eh, I would say it's closer to saying legalizing weed is one step closer to legalizing heroin. Probably yes, perhaps not, but in what capacity? The fear monger says heroin will be available for sale at the corner store and frequently used recreationally in the same capacity as weed. Regardless the legalization of weed has opened up the discussion legalization of other illegal drugs, but there is discussion as to the role of legalization that is different to what happened with weed