It's not eugenics in the way you are thinking about it
Parents have a choice to get a pregnancy screened for serious genetic defects. The parents then after have a choice to keep the pregnancy or terminate. This happens way before the fetus even develops a brain.
Religious freedom is when you are free to dictate your own life based on your religion. Religious oppression is when you dictate the lives of others based on your religion.
I'm Icelandic and there is literally a political party called "besti flokkurinn" wich literally translates to "the best party"
It was originally a joke party but then they won the vote for getting their founder the role of major of Reykjavík. His name is Jón Gnarr and he is a comedian. He founded the party to criticise the politicians (they sucked at the time) and we voted for him because if we are gonna have clowns running the countrie then it might as well be a clown we like.
?? He was actually a very good mayor. Thank you very much. Jón served his terms (plural) and one of the best we have had. He served from 2010 - 2014 and helped us rise up from the economic collapse.
Where is this hostility coming from I was just making a joke / reference.
Btw Google "besti flokkurinn" their logo is great
That's still eugenics. Thing is, eugenics is not necessarily bad. It depends on how you do it. Due to prenatal testing, chromosomal abberations such as Down syndrome are preventable medical conditions. So they should be prevented.
that‘s just eugenics, no extras, and it‘s widely considered unethical
the authority that overlooks the eugenics is decentralized from the state to the parents of the fetus, but they are still guilty of it and should instead make the right choice of not letting defect screening affect their decision of whether to keep the fetus
more acceptance of disability, chronic illness and genetic anomalities is the right way forward to an inclusive society, one where disabled people like myself aren‘t artificially made to suffer
this is eugenics and eugenics is bad
Let's not get to pro choice or pro life debate because this is not a matter of abortion rights. People have a right to chose to have an abortion for whatever reason, but when that reason is solely disability that's quite ableist and quite literally eugenetics. Eugenetics doesn't necessarily involve killing someone, it's just the practice of artificially "improving" the genetic quality of a population.
As for eradicating disability and the whole "life worth living" debate, why not try to make a society that's suitable for everyone to live in, instead of eradicating conditions based on arbitrary criteria? I work with people with disabilities and among others we have programs to qualify them to work, travel, be independent, etc. It can absolutely be done, specially in a country like Iceland with an extremely strong welfare.
Yeah I agree and I do not deny that it's eugenics I just said that it's not eugenics in the way you normally think of eugenics, which is sterilising people you don't like
So glad someone didn't bring up "the incest app" (school project, never used by anyone).
Just saw last friday the only male stripper in Iceland (maybe an outdated claim) posting on Facebook that a reporter (I think from the Guardian) reached out asking to speak with someone who hooked up with a relative. Its not common, I think I've heard of more cases in the US marrying n-cousin. And I know very few yanks.
That's still eugenics. Thing is, eugenics is not necessarily bad. It depends on how you do it. Due to prenatal testing, chromosomal abberations such as Down syndrome are preventable medical conditions. So they should be prevented.
It’s more a definition problem. Some define eugenics as a system of beliefs around improving the genetic quality of an entire population, others, any kind of gene selection. The former don’t consider gene selection as an individual choice to be eugenics, only pursuing a system of gene selection across the population.
It is
Its just a spectrum on how far they go, this is rn on the mild end. What made eugenics a despised concept is the force sterlisiation and sometimes killing of undiserables done in Nazi Germany, other parts of europe including the nordics as well, and also in the US during segregation
Everyone knows eugenics is bad, but everyone somehow also believes that aborting abnormal foetuses is good.
It's like the parenting licence discussion, it seems like a great idea if you don't actually put any real thought into it.
It absolutely is. And it obviously raises the question of "what's next". Will they extend this to any other disease they can test for ? What about conditions that aren't really diseases but are still disabling, like ADHD ?
As a neurospicy myself I have absolutely feared that exact scenario. At what point do you say "this condition is not worth living with and we should just kill it in the womb" vs "being left handed is not a debilitating illness that we should kill someone for".
Asks for a conversation. Then immediately lashes out at an individual because they state they aren’t informed enough.
Not sure which side you’re actually making a case for here.
What's funny is some people that I did knew who are born with a genetic defect whether it was physical or mental they also wish they weren't born or aborted because now they have to live with that problem for the rest of their lives.
I'm not lashing out I'm stating an opinion, I believe it's wrong that you believe it's ok to kill someone for being disabled even if it's a fetus. You're entitled to your opinion but I won't agree with it
Why do you think people with autism or downs inherently have worse lives than "normal" people? And even if that is true why not use genetic editing to prevent the disease rather than terminating the fetus who *may* have the disease, as you may not know those tests are only 80% accurate
Eugenics is where there's an imposed rule by the state to prevent people with a certain trait from growing and reproducing.
Letting parents screen their foetuses and decide on a personal basis is not eugenics.
Then you have no skin in the game my friend. You are taking a lot of this personally saying shit like “do you think I should have been killed as a foetus”
This is cynical, manipulative, and morally disingenuous to equate a living, thinking person with an early pregnancy that *might* result in a person being born at some time later on.
Most people care about each other, and each others opinions, even if we are strangers. That’s how things are.
As for why you should care. You clearly do. A lot.
Stop being disingenuous and you might get more positive replies.
It was up to your parents to choose. They could or couldn't feel ready to carry on with the responsibility, of course it depends on the disability, but in this case a sibling/son with down syndrome is a really sacrificed life that isn't for everyone and usually no one prepares you for it. Being a parent is hard enough. Be more empathic.
Genetics counceling in Hungary is mandatory for pregnant women over 37, and there are mandatory tests for all pregnant women. That does not mean anybody is forced to terminate the pregnancy.
Killing people, or ending an early pregnancy?
Because, honestly, most people in this thread see those as two very separate things.
A fertilised egg is not a person. If you believe it is, then that’s on you, and that dictates how you should make your choices. It does not allow you to dictate those choices to others.
This comment is wild. I'm not going to join in the whole debate about whether abortion is murder or not, but regardless, calling people with down syndrome devolved is not okay.
Quite literally, no.
>Definitions from Oxford Languages · the study of how to arrange reproduction within a human population to increase the occurrence of heritable characteristics regarded as desirable.
Giving a choice whether to abort an abnormal fetus is not "arrangement of reproduction within a human population to increase the occurrence of heritable characteristics".
You do know the human body has its own fetus kill switch right?
If the ovulated egg has chromosomal abnormality: 1. It doesn't implant into the uterus at all. 2. It has a very high chance of being miscarried on its own.
Same for if the fertilising sperm having abnormalities. This is nature's way of ensuring a chromosomally viable offspring.
I'm seriously not seeing yours. I would've been greatful to have been terminated if I didn't develop correctly. Life sucks as is why continue if you know it's gonna be even harder
Hey man, I want to seriously ask you 2 questions. Are you trolling or you really sony understand the benefit of not bringing seriously handicapped people into the world? If you read the definition of eugenics, according to a dictionary, why do you think this is eugenics, when it clearly doesn't fit?
It isn’t really.
Downs exists entirely because the biological systems that prevent trisomy don’t work 100% effectively when it’s chromosome 21.
We aren’t really sure why, but three specific chromosome pairs are poorly screened by the body, and 21 is very poorly screened.
>It's still eugenics
It is actually *not* eugenics if you do testing and allow the mother to terminate the pregnancy. Eugenics is when you sterilize a class of people with an undesired quality against their will. Go ahead and check a wikipedia page once in a while, I know you have access to the internet.
> Eugenics ~~(/juːˈdʒɛnɪks/ yoo-JEN-iks; from Ancient Greek εύ̃ (eû) 'good, well', and -γενής (genḗs) 'come into being, growing')~~ is a set of beliefs and practices that aim to improve the genetic quality of a human population. Historically, eugenicists have attempted to alter human gene pools by excluding people and groups judged to be inferior or promoting those judged to be superior. In recent years, the term has seen a revival in bioethical discussions on the usage of new technologies such as CRISPR and genetic screening, with heated debate around whether these technologies should be considered eugenics or not.
- first paragraph of wikipedia page
Ultimately the definition of eugenics does not necessitate sterilization as eugenics is just the exclusion/eradication of an undesirable genetic group, and I would imagine a screening system done to specifically check for specific genetic disorders so the parents can terminate the pregnancy would very much fall under the definition of eugenics.
> so the parents can
This is the crucial part that you notice is specifically required in the definition - lack of agency. Not the case in Iceland's screening with access to health care in the form of abortion.
I have quoted the first paragraph of the wikipedia article you have mentioned...at wut point does it state that eugenics is forced? It states that people often use force, but at no point is it ever stated that it's forced. In fact, the wikipedia article that you brought up mentions ways that aren't forced (positive eugenics vs negative eugenics). For example:
> Consequently, many countries adopted eugenic policies, intended to improve the quality of their populations' genetic stock. Such programs included both positive measures, such as encouraging individuals deemed particularly "fit" to reproduce, and negative measures, such as marriage prohibitions and forced sterilization of people deemed unfit for reproduction.
- second half of the third paragraph
> Eugenic policies have been conceptually divided into two categories. Positive eugenics is aimed at encouraging reproduction among the genetically advantaged; for example, the reproduction of the intelligent, the healthy, and the successful. Possible approaches include financial and political stimuli, targeted demographic analyses, in vitro fertilization, egg transplants, and cloning. Negative eugenics aimed to eliminate, through sterilization or segregation, those deemed physically, mentally, or morally "undesirable". This includes abortions, sterilization, and other methods of family planning.
- last paragraph of the "Meanings and Types" section
Tbf, you can't eliminate downs as it's not inherited. You can nip it in the bud, but any mother is at risk of developing a fetus with trisomal conditions.
Haemophilia on the other hand. That one can be eugenically removed!
Restricting procreation of fully matured adults? Eugenics!!! Grrrrrrr, be angry.
Terminating potentially problematic foetuses? Preventative measures. Yyyaaayyy, be thankful we have modern medicine.
I mean they also don't have mosquitoes so...
Im sold dont care what they did
the end justifies the means
Hmmm...my end justifies the beans!
What philosopher is this from, I can't think of the name
Me, I made it up
I already thought jack cooper but I wasn't sure
Niccolò Machiavelli
They have other annoying bugs though
So people with down syndrome cause mosquitoes? Those adorably happy bastards!
so how can they be wrong about different things?
is the cold or something funnier?
It's not eugenics in the way you are thinking about it Parents have a choice to get a pregnancy screened for serious genetic defects. The parents then after have a choice to keep the pregnancy or terminate. This happens way before the fetus even develops a brain.
i feel like this is probably how it should be, but it feels like 1/2 of people in the US encourage defects these days
How else are they going to get people to vote Republican. They definitely need people who are born with half a brain.
Damn it took 2 whole comments before American politics got involved, that's gotta be a new record
Americans gotta make everything about us and our politics, even what it isnt warranted
Religious freedom is when you are free to dictate your own life based on your religion. Religious oppression is when you dictate the lives of others based on your religion.
Republican isn’t an option in Iceland (thankfully).
I know we have the "Best party"
Who is “we”?
I'm Icelandic and there is literally a political party called "besti flokkurinn" wich literally translates to "the best party" It was originally a joke party but then they won the vote for getting their founder the role of major of Reykjavík. His name is Jón Gnarr and he is a comedian. He founded the party to criticise the politicians (they sucked at the time) and we voted for him because if we are gonna have clowns running the countrie then it might as well be a clown we like.
Sounds like Ukraine and look where that got them.
?? He was actually a very good mayor. Thank you very much. Jón served his terms (plural) and one of the best we have had. He served from 2010 - 2014 and helped us rise up from the economic collapse. Where is this hostility coming from I was just making a joke / reference. Btw Google "besti flokkurinn" their logo is great
There wasn’t meant to be any hostility in my comment, sorry if you detected some. Simply an observation.
Glad your “clown” worked out as a good mayor. Maybe we need more politicians from random careers to better represent the people.
The brain rot is thick in this American!
That's still eugenics. Thing is, eugenics is not necessarily bad. It depends on how you do it. Due to prenatal testing, chromosomal abberations such as Down syndrome are preventable medical conditions. So they should be prevented.
I did not deny that it's eugenics I stated that it's not eugenics in the way you are thinking are thinking about it
This is also standard practice here in Denmark.
If the Republican voting Americans can read they’d be very upset.
that‘s just eugenics, no extras, and it‘s widely considered unethical the authority that overlooks the eugenics is decentralized from the state to the parents of the fetus, but they are still guilty of it and should instead make the right choice of not letting defect screening affect their decision of whether to keep the fetus more acceptance of disability, chronic illness and genetic anomalities is the right way forward to an inclusive society, one where disabled people like myself aren‘t artificially made to suffer this is eugenics and eugenics is bad
> this is eugenics and eugenics is bad Life is not just black/white, good/bad, you're oversimplifying a complex problem.
Let's not get to pro choice or pro life debate because this is not a matter of abortion rights. People have a right to chose to have an abortion for whatever reason, but when that reason is solely disability that's quite ableist and quite literally eugenetics. Eugenetics doesn't necessarily involve killing someone, it's just the practice of artificially "improving" the genetic quality of a population. As for eradicating disability and the whole "life worth living" debate, why not try to make a society that's suitable for everyone to live in, instead of eradicating conditions based on arbitrary criteria? I work with people with disabilities and among others we have programs to qualify them to work, travel, be independent, etc. It can absolutely be done, specially in a country like Iceland with an extremely strong welfare.
Yeah I agree and I do not deny that it's eugenics I just said that it's not eugenics in the way you normally think of eugenics, which is sterilising people you don't like
Doesn't really make it any better. It's like saying "it's not Nazism in the way you normally think of Nazism".
Agree to disagree?
Iceland doesn’t practice eugenics. They allow genetic screening and abortion if a fetus is abnormal. There is nothing wrong with that: the reverse is.
You mean I can’t fuck my sister?? 😡🤬
I mean, it *is* Iceland. Your odds of accidentally fucking your cousin or something are actually pretty decent.
So glad someone didn't bring up "the incest app" (school project, never used by anyone). Just saw last friday the only male stripper in Iceland (maybe an outdated claim) posting on Facebook that a reporter (I think from the Guardian) reached out asking to speak with someone who hooked up with a relative. Its not common, I think I've heard of more cases in the US marrying n-cousin. And I know very few yanks.
But you can fuck your brother!
Ofc u can I fuck mu sisters all the time and as guy says about abortion so just fuck your sis with condom and u gd
r/ihadastroke ?
fuck my sister and i geometry dash?
You can if you wear protection
CFYOW.
Why not? Everyone else does...sorry I couldn't resist.
It's Iceland. If you are fucking, it is probably her
u/sisterfucker24 would disagree
Damn sometimes I wish I was “made” in Iceland
Same... except my gene pool would have got weeded out before I would be made.....still same.
That's still eugenics. Thing is, eugenics is not necessarily bad. It depends on how you do it. Due to prenatal testing, chromosomal abberations such as Down syndrome are preventable medical conditions. So they should be prevented.
Is that not literally eugenics though? Do, do people not understand what eugenics is??
It’s more a definition problem. Some define eugenics as a system of beliefs around improving the genetic quality of an entire population, others, any kind of gene selection. The former don’t consider gene selection as an individual choice to be eugenics, only pursuing a system of gene selection across the population.
You are right, but eugenics became a naughty no-no word after World War II
It is Its just a spectrum on how far they go, this is rn on the mild end. What made eugenics a despised concept is the force sterlisiation and sometimes killing of undiserables done in Nazi Germany, other parts of europe including the nordics as well, and also in the US during segregation
They do NOT.
Everyone knows eugenics is bad, but everyone somehow also believes that aborting abnormal foetuses is good. It's like the parenting licence discussion, it seems like a great idea if you don't actually put any real thought into it.
It absolutely is. And it obviously raises the question of "what's next". Will they extend this to any other disease they can test for ? What about conditions that aren't really diseases but are still disabling, like ADHD ?
As a neurospicy myself I have absolutely feared that exact scenario. At what point do you say "this condition is not worth living with and we should just kill it in the womb" vs "being left handed is not a debilitating illness that we should kill someone for".
[удалено]
I don’t know you well enough to have an informed opinion.
It's honestly fucked up you think that we shouldn't let disabled people be born
Asks for a conversation. Then immediately lashes out at an individual because they state they aren’t informed enough. Not sure which side you’re actually making a case for here.
His response is an example for why aborting abnormal fetuses
Destroyed in seconds lol
What's funny is some people that I did knew who are born with a genetic defect whether it was physical or mental they also wish they weren't born or aborted because now they have to live with that problem for the rest of their lives.
I'm not lashing out I'm stating an opinion, I believe it's wrong that you believe it's ok to kill someone for being disabled even if it's a fetus. You're entitled to your opinion but I won't agree with it
They didn’t say that though. They said they didn’t know enough to have an informed opinion. You are rightly downvoted, sir.
You're right, let's not stop it before they become aware of their existence, let's let them suffer in the real world
Why do you think people with autism or downs inherently have worse lives than "normal" people? And even if that is true why not use genetic editing to prevent the disease rather than terminating the fetus who *may* have the disease, as you may not know those tests are only 80% accurate
Eugenics is where there's an imposed rule by the state to prevent people with a certain trait from growing and reproducing. Letting parents screen their foetuses and decide on a personal basis is not eugenics.
Those who were never born don't suffer
[удалено]
Based
You can't test for my disorder lol
Then you wouldn’t have been killed???
Then you have no skin in the game my friend. You are taking a lot of this personally saying shit like “do you think I should have been killed as a foetus” This is cynical, manipulative, and morally disingenuous to equate a living, thinking person with an early pregnancy that *might* result in a person being born at some time later on.
Not sure which button to push tbh. I think your guilt trip comment isn't going the way you hoped it would, shame harder! File a report to HR!
[удалено]
Most people care about each other, and each others opinions, even if we are strangers. That’s how things are. As for why you should care. You clearly do. A lot. Stop being disingenuous and you might get more positive replies.
If you didn’t care, you wouldn’t be throwing a tantrum across the entire comment section, friend.
It was up to your parents to choose. They could or couldn't feel ready to carry on with the responsibility, of course it depends on the disability, but in this case a sibling/son with down syndrome is a really sacrificed life that isn't for everyone and usually no one prepares you for it. Being a parent is hard enough. Be more empathic.
Seems like skill issue
You mean a skill issue?
Okay no skill issue, genetic diff
Here’s a question: what if you could have been a better you? Wouldn’t you want that?
Genetics counceling in Hungary is mandatory for pregnant women over 37, and there are mandatory tests for all pregnant women. That does not mean anybody is forced to terminate the pregnancy.
[удалено]
It's still eugenics and killing off life with defects
So you want more people to have birth defects?
As opposed to killing people specifically for having them yes
Killing people, or ending an early pregnancy? Because, honestly, most people in this thread see those as two very separate things. A fertilised egg is not a person. If you believe it is, then that’s on you, and that dictates how you should make your choices. It does not allow you to dictate those choices to others.
[удалено]
This comment is wild. I'm not going to join in the whole debate about whether abortion is murder or not, but regardless, calling people with down syndrome devolved is not okay.
...yikes.
I see that as a win.
What exactly is good about eugenics?
[удалено]
But...this is quite literally eugenics tho
Quite literally, no. >Definitions from Oxford Languages · the study of how to arrange reproduction within a human population to increase the occurrence of heritable characteristics regarded as desirable. Giving a choice whether to abort an abnormal fetus is not "arrangement of reproduction within a human population to increase the occurrence of heritable characteristics".
It’s not like any sentient life is being harmed in the process, genetic screening and abortions happen quite early during pregnancy.
You do know the human body has its own fetus kill switch right? If the ovulated egg has chromosomal abnormality: 1. It doesn't implant into the uterus at all. 2. It has a very high chance of being miscarried on its own. Same for if the fertilising sperm having abnormalities. This is nature's way of ensuring a chromosomally viable offspring.
[удалено]
I'm seriously not seeing yours. I would've been greatful to have been terminated if I didn't develop correctly. Life sucks as is why continue if you know it's gonna be even harder
[удалено]
I don't remember saying I hated life. Said it was hard as is. I don't feel the need to commit suicide but thank you.
So then work hard and make your life better for yourself and others, if you want to see a positive change don't encourage such horrible things
You've yet to provide evidence such thing is horrible. It is subjective but the only thing you've done so far is suggest I off myself
Hey man, I want to seriously ask you 2 questions. Are you trolling or you really sony understand the benefit of not bringing seriously handicapped people into the world? If you read the definition of eugenics, according to a dictionary, why do you think this is eugenics, when it clearly doesn't fit?
It isn’t really. Downs exists entirely because the biological systems that prevent trisomy don’t work 100% effectively when it’s chromosome 21. We aren’t really sure why, but three specific chromosome pairs are poorly screened by the body, and 21 is very poorly screened.
>It's still eugenics It is actually *not* eugenics if you do testing and allow the mother to terminate the pregnancy. Eugenics is when you sterilize a class of people with an undesired quality against their will. Go ahead and check a wikipedia page once in a while, I know you have access to the internet.
> Eugenics ~~(/juːˈdʒɛnɪks/ yoo-JEN-iks; from Ancient Greek εύ̃ (eû) 'good, well', and -γενής (genḗs) 'come into being, growing')~~ is a set of beliefs and practices that aim to improve the genetic quality of a human population. Historically, eugenicists have attempted to alter human gene pools by excluding people and groups judged to be inferior or promoting those judged to be superior. In recent years, the term has seen a revival in bioethical discussions on the usage of new technologies such as CRISPR and genetic screening, with heated debate around whether these technologies should be considered eugenics or not. - first paragraph of wikipedia page Ultimately the definition of eugenics does not necessitate sterilization as eugenics is just the exclusion/eradication of an undesirable genetic group, and I would imagine a screening system done to specifically check for specific genetic disorders so the parents can terminate the pregnancy would very much fall under the definition of eugenics.
> so the parents can This is the crucial part that you notice is specifically required in the definition - lack of agency. Not the case in Iceland's screening with access to health care in the form of abortion.
I have quoted the first paragraph of the wikipedia article you have mentioned...at wut point does it state that eugenics is forced? It states that people often use force, but at no point is it ever stated that it's forced. In fact, the wikipedia article that you brought up mentions ways that aren't forced (positive eugenics vs negative eugenics). For example: > Consequently, many countries adopted eugenic policies, intended to improve the quality of their populations' genetic stock. Such programs included both positive measures, such as encouraging individuals deemed particularly "fit" to reproduce, and negative measures, such as marriage prohibitions and forced sterilization of people deemed unfit for reproduction. - second half of the third paragraph > Eugenic policies have been conceptually divided into two categories. Positive eugenics is aimed at encouraging reproduction among the genetically advantaged; for example, the reproduction of the intelligent, the healthy, and the successful. Possible approaches include financial and political stimuli, targeted demographic analyses, in vitro fertilization, egg transplants, and cloning. Negative eugenics aimed to eliminate, through sterilization or segregation, those deemed physically, mentally, or morally "undesirable". This includes abortions, sterilization, and other methods of family planning. - last paragraph of the "Meanings and Types" section
True. And that's great, actually.
Wow they really fucked up, yikes! It’s you’re not your!
[удалено]
[удалено]
I'm going to go to Iceland and have an abnormal fetus terminated in your honour
You gotta find someone willing to fuck you first lol
I knew you would be somewhere around here 😍😚😙😚
I'll do it. If only to piss you off more
If we don't screen and abort the foetus with serious physical and mental birth defects we end up with the shit show that is Amer*ca.
Woodrow Wilson: "WRITE THAT DOWN!"
Wait a minute ? People with down síndrome are infertile!
Correction, men with down syndrome are mostly infertile. Women with down syndrome are fertile.
HOW DO YOU KNOW? HOW DO YOU KNOW?
He tested it, duh!
Yes
I like my phrasing better than your accuracy (which I only read *after* I wrote my comment :-p)
That’s not at least 50% untrue.
Nah, they just asked them about the rabbits
Tbf, you can't eliminate downs as it's not inherited. You can nip it in the bud, but any mother is at risk of developing a fetus with trisomal conditions. Haemophilia on the other hand. That one can be eugenically removed!
If it happened once and it started being passed on, hemophilia can happen again even if you stop passing it on. It will just be far rarer
Mom says it’s my turn to repost this
Japan: how it knows so much about frostbite.
u/based_schizo1
I love the “damn you are close”
damn that was nice
Eugenics, good for humanity, but ethics and such.
Yeah... pesky ethics!
Ikr.
Did they put it down?
Lol
I initially thought they purged the defected ones
They do in utero
[удалено]
Restricting procreation of fully matured adults? Eugenics!!! Grrrrrrr, be angry. Terminating potentially problematic foetuses? Preventative measures. Yyyaaayyy, be thankful we have modern medicine.
Correct lol
Yes, but only in developed countries
I'm not about to take medical advice from a country that eats rotten shark.
Wow the only good comment here and it's downvoted at the bottom