Political rants

I have perhaps an unusually nuanced stance on that front. In general I believe abortion to be morally wrong. I however think that lawmaking has no place in this matter. I would not want to see a law banning or endorsing it in any capacity. I think it should be an available option. Society will make something taboo felt and discouraged even without a law in the appropriate situations. The women that want to unilaterally abort when they're in an established relationship frustrate me. They want to pretend it somehow only affects them at that point. Another gripe. Pro-life and pro-choice are platforms that prescribe a set of actions. The vast majority of people don't read the details or they would quickly realize the two word utterance doesn't quite match what they believe it to.

Talk about gun control is down. First time gun buying is up. Hmm, maybe some people have had a change of heart after realizing protecting yourself might just have some value.

While my stance on abortion remains that of morally unjust. I agree government should have no say in what an adult wants to do with their body. To include selling it. (Their body not the baby) the government sort of overreaches on those fronts but yeah pro-life/choice aside the government shouldnt be able to tell you what to do as long as it doesnt infringe on the rights of others (well in this case it infringes on the baby's life but you know what i mean)

Speaking of abortion, WHO congratulated India for expanding abortion laws (ergo, making them more accessible) under therapeutic, humanitarian and EUGENIC grounds [1]. And to be honest, India isn't the first to do this at all. Iceland allows women to abort children with disabilities (physical and mental), no matter the period of gestation. Iceland is almost eradicating Down Syndrome via abortion [2]. We should at least spread word of advances at surgeries on the fetus still at the mother's womb, to prevent disabilities, and even to save their lives and avoid risks to the mother. If the pro-life people just press the "Abortion" key, they will be only seen as misogynistic demagogues due to feminists and progressives' constant whining, even going as far to mop eugenics with the excuse "muh wymmen's raits" "duh cumpenceition". Abortion causes long-term psychological (and sometimes even physical) problems to the mother, meaning it's a bad choice in its entirety, not entering the whole philosophical and scientific debate of it. The mere argument of "saving the child from a miserable life" is akin to euthanasia, when it is actually eugenic in nature, since for them, it's better for a miserable person to be dead than to live on with tremendous adversity. Pope Francis is right when he says that eugenic abortion is "nazism with white hands". [1] https://www.who.int/india/news/detail/13-04-2021-india-s-amended-law-makes-abortion-safer-and-more-accessible "- Upper gestation limit to not apply in cases of substantial foetal abnormalities diagnosed by a Medical Board." in Key amendments [2] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/down-syndrome-iceland/

At a society level eugenics make a lot of sense, and frankly its how the world worked in the past to some degree. We put so much emphasis on protecting children these days. Go back two centuries it was the exact opposite. The baby was the last priority in a family structure. You prioritized those contributing to the household. The mindset was very much "you can just have another kid if that one doesn't work out." Animals exhibit this behavior as well. They will abandon offspring to save themselves or if they turn out unhealthy. The saying "don't throw the baby out with the bath water" came the practice of prioritizing them lower. The baby was the last to bathe, because they were the most expendable and thus got the dirtiest water. We also didn't have the medical knowledge to keep severely ill children alive and dependent on medicine for the rest of their lives. Nature would claim them. Nowadays you're a certified criminal if you don't financially ruin yourself just attempting to save a kid with severe heart complications at age 2.

A problem of that reasoning is that we aren't pure, irrational beasts that would kill their offspring bc we're programmed this way. We can circumvent our natural instincts by the use of reason, which brings forth sciences and philosophies. That alone makes us superior to them, and the need for more complex solutions to our problems, unlike irrational animals. It would be complete utilitarism to accept things because it would "make sense" or "work". And that coming from a mild utilitarian such as myself. Eugenics make sense in society-level, you're partially right. It would be, centuries ago. Mostly due to the lack of advances on medicine. However, this isn't just a scientifical debate, this is also a philosophical one. No matter the era, it continues being morally unacceptable. And in a time where medicine has developed so much (and continues to!), abortion is just a short-term "solution" that brings more problems to the individual than it brings benefits. We could also add up the rising hedonism of society and liberty towards sex, which contributes to this rise of malthusian and materialistic mentality, fostering eugenistic thought. It's completely one's problem if you got the risk of fucking their finances, not their child's, as they wanted to get laid. Of course, when we talk about unconsented sex, that's another whole discussion.

"No matter the era, it continues being morally unacceptable." Right so you disagree with my historic recount of the not so distant past. Did you not talk to your great grandparents or something? Whelp. I can ask you to take the blinders off, but I can't make you. Oh and I would take strong genetics over robust technology any day.

Well. My great grandparents aren't necessarity the voice of truth. What would you expect them to say, in that case? The only reason to push eugenics forward nowadays is to cater to people who would throw their principles away for material or even hedonistic reasons, which degrades us to irrational animals. We are better than that.

Why assume they're throwing away "their" principles? Not conforming to your principles is not the same as throwing away ones own. You're also now conflating the two topics and trying to use arguments against A to justify that B is without worth.

Well. Almost everyone who defend eugenics I have met range from die-hard traditionalists, intersectional progressives or people who doesn't give a fuck to a sense of community. Traditionalists and Intersectionals (*) believe life is sacred and reject pragmatism, but those I mentioned gladly accept eugenics in order to make their envisioned society stand above the others. *: Intersectionals only believe their lives are "sacred" because they were "systematically oppressed" by society, so eigenics against others are fine to them. And about people who doesn't care. They say eugenics are wrong, but gladly defend abortion as a solution to solve the future financial problems caused by parenthood or to "save the child from dying early". Also. True enough. I am indeed making this a mess by mixing a lot of things, my bad. It even seems I want to "win by exhaustion".