PC Principal V: What The Fuck Am I Reading

[Fiye]

A pregnant woman trips down a flight of stairs and in the process kills her 6 month old fetus. Is she supposed to be placed on trial for manslaughter?

[Milkster]

okay, fair. How about if I do some DNA testing and eh, the fetus is not gonna have the IQ range I'm looking for in the baby, I don't want it anymore. Still ok?

Reread that quoted post you replied to.

[guartz]

A pregnant woman trips down a flight of stairs and in the process kills her 6 month old fetus. Is she supposed to be placed on trial for manslaughter?

the rabbit hole of moral dilemmas is endless but in the interest of the conversation;
in ethics no, because of intent. In law, again no because manslaughter requires some sort of criminal offense (like criminal traffic violation) I'm pretty sure at least. Not a lawyer.

Here is another one, do women have any ethical obligations to avoid alcohol consumption, smoking or drug use during pregnancy?

that question is just an example that it's already a very complicated subject, not from the legal perspective only, but from ethical one as well. If we, culturally, stop accepting the sanctity of human life, even in fetus form, it opens up even more complications then it solves. Eugenics being chief among them. If we accept that intentionally ending pregnancies is not ethically wrong, why is eugenics ethically wrong? Or was the sole mistake of the Nazis is that they didn't get the women's consent?

[arus2001]

It's fun how we've jumped from letting women control their bodies to nazis.

[Gredival]

Ethically there is probably something wrong with using abortion as a way to baby shop for upgrades.

You cannot get to a justification for a legal restrictions on abortion from that, much less equivocate the legality of abortion to the sanctioning of eugenics.

[Ksandra]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...al/2968872002/

Judge rules male-only draft unconstitutional.

Thanks feminists.




To be fair, though, if either of my kids were to get drafted once of age we getting the fuck outta here.

[Ksandra]

much less equivocate the legality of abortion to the sanctioning of eugenics.

Idk man. I'm pro choice (because I think there are no better options atm), but we do need to be careful of the eugenics results that can come from it. It's already happened to a small degree in other countries (China=male only and Iceland=Down's Syndrome). And while I am not saying we should make abortions illegal, I do think there is something to be vocally against an action in hopes to make it unacceptable to society even if it's not illegal (eugenics that is, not abortions).

[guartz]

Ethically there is probably something wrong with using abortion as a way to baby shop for upgrades.

You cannot get to a justification for a legal restrictions on abortion from that, much less equivocate the legality of abortion to the sanctioning of eugenics.

You wont find disagreement with me from those statements.

[guartz]

Idk man. I'm pro choice (because I think there are no better options atm), but we do need to be careful of the eugenics results that can come from it. It's already happened to a small degree in other countries (China=male only and Iceland=Down's Syndrome). And while I am not saying we should make abortions illegal, I do think there is something to be vocally against an action in hopes to make it unacceptable to society even if it's not illegal (eugenics that is, not abortions).

Exactly, not everything ethically wrong is illegal, nor should it be. Banning abortions is fool's errand for huge complexity of reasons, but man that subject cannot, absolutely cannot be reduced to "her body her choice" because it undermines the morality of it.

[Gredival]

Idk man. I'm pro choice (because I think there are no better options atm), but we do need to be careful of the eugenics results that can come from it. It's already happened to a small degree in other countries (China=male only and Iceland=Down's Syndrome). And while I am not saying we should make abortions illegal, I do think there is something to be vocally against an action in hopes to make it unacceptable to society even if it's not illegal (eugenics that is, not abortions).

I don't think abortion of a fetus with an identified genetic condition, including down's syndrome, should be seen as the practice of eugenics. There is the reality that many parents are not equipped, emotionally or financially, to deal with raising a child with special needs.

That is a far cry from the practice of "eugenics" that the Nazis evoke wherein we chose children to forcibly cull.

There is also something to be said about the use of genetic testing in deciding not to carry a child to full term if they have inherited a problematic condition such as Huntington's Disease.

that subject cannot, absolutely cannot be reduced to "her body her choice" because it undermines the morality of it.

Yes it can because the law is not concerned with moral judgments, it is concerned with navigating conflicting rights of different parties.

Legally speaking, there is no coherent system except one in which the woman's bodily autonomy should ALWAYS supersede the fetus. That may mean a few instances in which a woman is not legally liable for a morally bankrupt decision (refusing to do a C-Section to save the life of a viable child for an inane reason), but it is the only workable system in a legal system where the concept of bodily autonomy exists.

[Mrbeansman]

edit gred said it better

[archibaldcrane]

Idk man. I'm pro choice (because I think there are no better options atm), but we do need to be careful of the eugenics results that can come from it. It's already happened to a small degree in other countries (China=male only and Iceland=Down's Syndrome). And while I am not saying we should make abortions illegal, I do think there is something to be vocally against an action in hopes to make it unacceptable to society even if it's not illegal (eugenics that is, not abortions).

Aborting downs babies is happening everywhere, not just tiny Iceland

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[Ksandra]

Aborting downs babies is happening everywhere, not just tiny Iceland

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

I used Iceland as an example as they are almost at a 100% abortion rate for Down's, nor did I ever claim it was the only one, just an example of one.

[Ksandra]

I don't think abortion of a fetus with an identified genetic condition, including down's syndrome, should be seen as the practice of eugenics. There is the reality that many parents are not equipped, emotionally or financially, to deal with raising a child with special needs.

There is a difference between parents choosing to abort because they emotionally and/or physically cannot deal with raising a child with special needs, and having a countrywide push to abort all babies with that special needs whether the parents are emotionally/financially equipped or not. I definitely would consider extreme cases like Iceland eugenics.

That is a far cry from the practice of "eugenics" that the Nazis evoke wherein we chose children to forcibly cull.

While I understand the horrors of eugenics are often linked to what happened in the Holocaust, and it is easily is the most extreme and blatant incident of it, I don't think we have to be "Nazi level" in order for it to be a bad thing.

[Gredival]

There is a difference between parents choosing to abort because they emotionally and/or physically cannot deal with raising a child with special needs, and having a countrywide push to abort all babies with that special needs whether the parents are emotionally/financially equipped or not. I definitely would consider extreme cases like Iceland eugenics.

While I understand the horrors of eugenics are often linked to what happened in the Holocaust, and it is easily is the most extreme and blatant incident of it, I don't think we have to be "Nazi level" in order for it to be a bad thing

But is the fact that Icelandic parents just so happen to uniformly reject the proposition of raising babies with down syndrome equivalent to state-sanctioned eugenics?

Like even if the coercion isn't to the level of the Nazis, does the government there actively promote the abortion of genetically abnormal fetuses?

I don't think it's eugenics if Iceland's culture is at the point where there is no shame with parents not wanting to deal with the challenge of raising a special needs child such that abortion is taken for granted. Or even just not wanting to deal with the trial of pregnancy just to give a special needs baby up for adoption.

[Fiye]

I definitely would consider extreme cases like Iceland eugenics.

Uh... why?

Edit: Dont' mind me just gawking.

[Ksandra]

But is the fact that Icelandic parents just so happen to uniformly reject the proposition of raising babies with down syndrome equivalent to state-sanctioned eugenics?

Like even if the coercion isn't to the level of the Nazis, does the government there actively promote the abortion of genetically abnormal fetuses?

I never said it was state-sanctioned. No where does the term "eugenics" require for it to be law. If it's at 100% because of culture, that's still eugenics.

With that being said, I'll see if I can find the article I read about a year ago. It was a mom who refused to abort her baby and her experiences with it. She got a lot of shit from the doctors, and while that's not law that's pretty dangerous to have as a society.

edit: I can't remember what country the mom was from, and in this case might not be Iceland, but wasn't the US iirc.

Uh... why?

I said why.

[Ksandra]

Not the same mom, as I remember it being a couple of incidents with the doctor instead of one, but here's one:

https://www.nowtolove.com.au/parenti...y-mccain-45896

[Gredival]

I never said it was state-sanctioned. No where does the term "eugenics" require for it to be law. If it's at 100% because of culture, that's still eugenics.

Eugenics is the applied science or the biosocial movement which advocates the use of practices aimed at improving the genetic composition of a population (Unified Medical Language System)

When we think of eugenics we think of those practices -- in the extreme it would be the ones the Nazis used, such as forced sterilizations. Aborting undesirables fits into that conception. Or even more benign forms of coercion, like if they had to pay a tax for having undesirable child either directly or indirectly (e.g. more taxes on parents because of increases healthcare costs for their child or because the state believes it will have to collect money to support an 'unproductive' public charge)

Each individual couple freely making the decision to abort does not amount to a movement because there are no practices in place.

[Gredival]

Like if you were to argue that in Iceland there was a culture of hostility such that it would dissuade parents from keeping a special needs child, I could be convinced that might fit. Especially if it was ubiquitos from medical professionals.

Or if there was a dearth of resources for these children, like if schools did not have special needs classes and refused to accommodate children who needed them, such that potential parents felt that they would be unable to raise their special needs children.

But if these parents all freely decide "Yeah, no, I'm not dealing with that" and just abort them, then I don't think that is eugenic at all.