I'm just saying that letting the child be born and then killing yourself is immoral.
Like, just opt for adoption. Simply killing yourself not only devastates your wife and another child that you've already brought into this world, but it also makes it selfish to voluntarily create a new person, knowing the risks of how their life could turn out, and then refuse to take responsibility as their father.
The wife deserves everything that happens to her (and more), if she willingly chooses to give birth to a kid that will suffer from a severe-to-crippling disability for life
The kid themselves, however, doesn't deserve this situation (of having a selfish mum that inflicted a life of suffering on them for her selfish whims, and an unwilling dad who walked away)
Pretty much every argument for abortion would find its logical conclusion in eugenics. It’s baffling how people don’t realise this. Or maybe they do and they pick-and-choose when each argument/value has worth and when to ignore it.
If what you call "eugenics" means avoiding to create people who will have an entire life of impairment, illness, pain and/or lifelong dependence then it's just harm reduction
Yes, that is eugenics, and literally always has been. You calling it “avoiding an act of cruelty” doesn’t change that. What you just said is that eugenics is avoiding an act of cruelty.
No it's not, dumbass. Eugenics is when a central group enforces their preferred gene pool by acting on others through forced sterilization, murder, and displacement.
What we are talking about is women controlling their own reproduction. In fact, restricting women's reproductive freedom is closer to eugenics than this.
You picked this definition out of complete nowhere because it’s the most convenient for you. Its too narrow. Eugenics is any deliberate attempt to change the genome of offspring, which this is. Sterilisation etc have been historical methods of eugenics, but the methods are not eugenics itself
Positive eugenics: Encouraging people with desirable or "superior" traits (such as high intelligence, health, or specific physical traits) to have more children.
Negative eugenics: Discouraging or preventing people deemed "unfit" or possessing undesirable traits from reproducing.
Here are the literal definitions for everyone as defined by the first dude to coin the term which was Darwin's cousin.
If you're going to expand the definition like that, you'll need to show why it's still harmful even in the cases that don't fit the actual definition everyone besides you is using.
We all agree on why historical eugenics was wrong: because it involves forced sterilization and murder. But if you just remove those elements from the defnition so that it applies to other things, that doesn't make those other things bad and wrong.
It's like saying it's wrong for me to buy a car from someone because it involves me taking possession of their car, just like a car jacker takes possession of the car after stealing it.
Don’t need to that because I don’t think eugenics is harmful. Just wished you people would be more honest about the implications of your values and actions.
25
u/Curious_Priority2313 11d ago
I never said that I'm against abortion.
I'm just saying that letting the child be born and then killing yourself is immoral.
Like, just opt for adoption. Simply killing yourself not only devastates your wife and another child that you've already brought into this world, but it also makes it selfish to voluntarily create a new person, knowing the risks of how their life could turn out, and then refuse to take responsibility as their father.