Reminds me of The Concept of Evil AKA God in Berserk. Love it

Oh okay, I was trying to use eugenics in the same way as the author is proposing the term should be used, and you are not. That's why this conversation doesn't make any sense. I didn't realized you were just hard disagreeing about the terminology.

Okay I can understand that, can you care about people not passing down Parkinson's disease to future generations because Parkinson's is really painful and hard to live with? I can, I think it would be great if people chose not to role the dice with the dangerous disease and it was reduced in future generations. What does that make me?

What if I know a couple that both have schizophrenia and I think they shouldn't reproduce because they're child has a 40% to have a schizoid type disorder and I've seen how difficult that is to live with?

What about the part of the article that talks about Ashkenazi Jews reducing genetic disorders by using genetic testing in mate selection, is that compassion for their future children? Or "purifying" their race? If the person administering the tests is more concerned about purity than individuals does that become eugenics and does it become dangerous?

I know a couple from my life that were told they were incompatible genetically, and they decided to trust Jesus and have two disabled children who both suffer far more than average and require lifelong support. I think what they did is wrong, both because of the suffering of their children, the burden on society and their family that they knowingly created, and because they're children are on the same ethical dilemma that they were in should they want to have children. Now that the children exist I believe they should get full community support, and they do. There is no reason to punish the child for the parents mistake. But I also don't see the point in pretending the parents didn't make a mistake. (Twice)

I have bad genes, my parents didn't know, but I do know, and I can't imagine feeling good about purposefully passing that down to another generation, my compassion isn't just for my own potential children, but their progeny too. I have trouble respecting people who knowingly, and proudly pass down traits much worse than mine, it seems incredibly selfish and inhumane. I don't understand why being critical of this is off limits for so many people.

I know good and bad traits are subjective at times, but when we go to great lengths to medicate away certain traits, because people can't live with having them, I don't see the harm in trying to prevent those traits from occuring in subtle, non-invasive ways, like education about ways to create legacy and positively influence future generations without reproduction. A lot of people live in reality of "die alone or make babies", helping people see alternatives and making other lifestyles equal could help people make more ethical decisions regarding reproduction.

I see why the distinction is important to you, but I don't think you can have a whole view without both, the suffering of individuals and the suffering of society is so closely related, if you only focus on one you blind yourself to the other and that makes it really easy for people to make horrible decisions.

This is already really long and ranty, but last point is, I know what Nazis are, and just like they're bad socialists that interpret socialist ideals in horrible ways, they are also bad eugenicists, that interpreted the ideas in the worst ways, there are non-fascist compassion motivated alternatives.

Isn't the decision to reproduce with your sibling deeply private? Or to take shots in the privacy of your home while pregnant deeply private? Isn't prohibiting and shaming these things collectivizing decisions about procreation?

I really don't understand your point then, isn't the health of the overall population the welfare of many individuals on a greater scale? Like, one child of incest with a disability is a tragedy, and a single individual that is suffering, 100 of them in a single town is a health problem for the population. I really don't understand the distinction you're trying to make and why it's important.

I think the author does include that in their very broad definition of eugenics, as not drinking during pregnancy is also a form of eugenics according to the author.

I don't think the term loses all meaning opening it up this much, it just becomes something that is irrational to oppose, of course people want children to born healthy, the question is just which measures and policies are worth having to produce this result.

In turns eugenics from a yes/no question to a which option question.

Yeah that's also terrible.

I mean, I'm glad they stopped at least.

Ahh I didn't know about that, that is indeed very troubling, I'll look more into that when I have time.

I'm not really familiar with anything other than what was mentioned in the article, access to abortion, pre-screening of pregnancies to give women the option to abort when the pregnancy is likely to result in a disabled person, access and encouragement to abort when a mother has been actively using drugs that damage the fetus during pregnancy.

As far as I know nothing forced, just a destigmatized culture around abortion and a lot of education about how to prevent disability. Coupled with government programs to aid the disabled that do exist.

I think similar policies in the US and other countries would be great, nothing extreme or forced.

I think encouraging people who are likely to produce disabled offspring to adopt and making it easier for them to do so could be great for society. Again, not forcing anyone, just providing better alternatives to people concerned for their health of their offspring than just hoping the genetic lottery is in your favor.

Denmark seems to be doing pretty well in integrating eugenics motivated policies that are not turning the country into a dystopian nightmare (as far as I know that is, I've never been.)

It is a dangerous thing, which means it needs to be handled with care and precautions need to be in place, just like Uranium, nuclear power is fantastic and benefits many, many people. But it does have the capacity to go horrible wrong and cause massive environmental and economic problems when things go wrong. This is a reason to be very careful and be cautious when implementing new technology and ideas, but I still think we should pursue the lowest risk highest benefit possibilities.

EDIT Denmark has problems

I really like this use of the term "positive eugenics" to help distinguish it from the very negative associations with the worst kinds of eugenics.

Yeah, the point is there is a huge ethically middle ground in-between Nazism and Incest, a middle ground that reasonable people already occupy, but we are afraid to have conversations about policy and ideas that could benefit the future because we are afraid of being called Nazis.

I, for example, have decided not to have children because of various psychological disorders that run on both sides of my family, as well as actual gene damage from my grandfather studying uranium before we understood how dangerous it is. There is a high chance for my children to have disabilities, so I've decided not to have any. And I encourage other people in similar situations to voluntarily not reproduce and consider adoption. This is definitely a "eugenics" mindset, but I don't think encouraging people to consider the welfare of their potential children before having them to be Nazi behavior.

People could also use this to keep their religious leaders around forever.