How do you feel about eugenics?

Because you're doing it to a genetically distinct organism.

A fertilized egg growing inside you is not a genetically distinct organism any more than the bacteria that chews your food for you is. Are antibiotics also genocide?

Bacteria aren't human.

1. Pseudo science built upon justifying imperialism and oppression
2. Gene therapy and editing, rather then oppressive sterilization of unwilling people. Or I don't know not being an arsehole and caring for people
3. No and people who advocate for this get a one way trip to a gulag
4. Nope totally own choice

So only humans can be "genetically distinct organism"?
If not, go back and rewrite your prior post to something sensible.

Is a genetically distinct human organism.

Are you done being a pedant or are we going to continue playing this game?

eugenics is for pseuds.
just get genetic counseling.

It was the most extreme form of biopolitics, a way for the ruling class to control society up to its very supposed genetic make-up by way of medical technocrats.

Errr, "secular science" and "irrational tradition" are not mutually exclusive. Eugenicists have historically seen themselves as harbinger of a new era of scientific progress. Nazis were adamant about the scientificity of their racial policies.

The state imposing eugenic programs is a gross, obvious violation of individual liberties. A government getting involved in or enabling eugenics is simply outstepping its bounds.

Abortion is a woman's choice, not the state's. And they shouldn't have to face financial difficulties, administrative discrimination or social ostracism if they make the choice of terminating their pregnancy whatever their motivation might have been.

genetic modification is the future, and will end up being eugenics 2: it's good for you boogaloo.
Dare I say it'll pick up the fucking shambles that early eugenics left of the idea of an objective genetic "healthiness?" For example, do autistic reproductive rights exist as a social need or as the ethical choice? And should they be allowed to have children even w/ risk of autism?

Abortion is not always the woman's choice. After a pregnant woman walks into a Planned Parenthood she's harassed with phone calls at all hours of the day until she finally becomes one of the 96% of women who go back to get the abortion.

Would like to see some evidence for this claim. My assertion wouldn't change anyway — it is illegitimate to interfere in a woman's choice to have or not to have an abortion.

Bacteria have genes and DNA.

1. We didn't map out the genome, we didn't know a fraction of what we know today.
2. With all of our knowledge, it isn't a question of 'should we', it's a question of 'when we will'. Science is amoral.
3. Compulsory.
4. Compulsory.

Discussion regarding eugenics won't be worth having as long as racial spooks keeps flying around.

But they aren't human.

Humans are still animals, don't fool yourself. You're pushing this strawman that his analogy comparing organisms means that he somehow meant they are equivalent. I'm not sure if you're reading between the lines or just reacting emotionally, but go back and reread his sentence.
He is saying they are both, at that stage, the same effective organism. The egg will grow to be a human, the parasites and the bacteria will not. Killing the unborn egg is like cutting the bud of a flower before it can bloom: we can, we have done so, and we will continue to do so. The question of morality comes second. Science is amoral.

It's unironically the only way to be build a more egalitarian society.

At the end of the day, we're all just clumps of cells.

And that's a human clump of cells. A living human organism genetically distinct from its mother.

And don't try this post-ideology bullshit on me. You know very well the reason we keep up this charade is because conservatives are shitheads who do everything in their power to frustrate the creation of a reasonable family planning and sex education program that would work to eliminate unwanted pregnancies, while neoliberals in general have ravaged us all economically so an unexpected child could mean a life of abject poverty for whoever bears it, and the only solution we have available to avoid the impending social disaster is killing the fetus in the womb, so we all need a high priest wearing a lab coat to tell us that it's all okay because the fetus was just a clump of cells and try not to think to hard about it.

I can accept this as a sort of social necessity for our time, but I object to this nonsense logic being used to justify eugenics. Fuck off.

I'm 100% pro eugenics, as in 100% of people should not procreate.

Aren't all societies hierarchical in some ways or another?

Completely unethical, irrespective of whatever it's perceived benefits.

The only non-dystopian way to implement eugenics is to incentivize people to get themselves sterilized. People forget it was once a progressive idea.

Eugenics is good and should 100% be implemented.

Imagine an alternate reality where Anti-Smoking laws became taboo because of an association with Nazi Germany.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-tobacco_movement_in_Nazi_Germany

Somewhere out there, there are many elderly retired tobacco advertisers face-palming in regret.

Except unborn clumps of cells are worthless, and if they have disabilities or any undesirable traits that the family doesn't want to propagate, it is rightfully terminated. They can always create another life easily.
Seems like the whole stages of life point I made went over your head. No, it doesn't matter if it is 'genetically distinct', so are all the parasites living in between your eyebrows. You will them all the time. All the parasites and whatnot are also 'genetically distinct'. That is irrelevant, not a factor that is worth an ounce of concern.
The fact that the cells will form a human being that will live in society is all the more reason to terminate inferior versions who have defects, or are carriers of defective/inferior genes. Given the choice, most parents will choose not to have a child with a disability prior to conception. It's a logical choice.
Sure thing

Abortion is eugenic

You need to go back and you need to stay there.

Guilt by association.

lol, is CRISPR a nazi, too?

Compulsory eugenic practices are liberalism invading biology. Genetic engineering is the future.

Stopping down syndrome kids from being born isn't eugenics. Eugenics comes with it's own teleology that is derived from the theory of breeding. Stop being autistic OP.

This tbqh.

That's not what a theory means.

t. Brainlet who doesn't understand what a theory is

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thoroughbred_breeding_theories

Debilitating genetic diseases like Cystic Fibrosis, and Huntingtons disease could have been almost entirely eradicated during the 20th century.

That still isn't what a theory is. That is observing and predicting of how organisms, in your case horses, procreate. There is no such thing as a 'theory' of breeding, that has already been dealt with by actual scientific theories that don't just deal with one organism. It doesn't formally exist.

Theories don't have to be correct to exist, faggot

let's just do genetic resequencing. No point controlling reproduction, just make it so racist shit heads can literally be like "remove all african from me lel." Like who gives a shit? Then just perfect genetics with tech and leave our species behind, showing these nazi type fucks how naive and romantic they are to want to preserve genetic code which has always been mutating to wholly new forms

I'm 100% for it and can't wait for the Chinese to perfect the new human species.

Nothing wrong with using eugenics to weed out actual genetic disorders. The problem is that people are too damn spooked about eugenics and also to consider not having children, and enacting it by force is, needless to say, a very bad idea. Like the communist party with the workers, which would guide them to communism instead of forcing them there, this has to be done via a culture shift.

I think eugenics would be a must in a future communist society in order to ensure real equality. Because let's be honest, there are a lot of people who were dealt a shitty hand by nature, whether it is health-wise or aesthetics-wise (some people just be ugly). This means that even if the economic system were perfectly just, social life would be far from equal in terms of more attractive, physically healthy people living happier, more fulfilling lives and the opposite for unattractive, unhealthy people. In effect this is a class system and in my view, it wouldn't truly be a communist system if genetically lucky people are better off than genetically unlucky people.

But the thing is, that only a truly communist society could be trusted to implement eugenics, because any capitalist or fascist society would use it to amplify oppressive power relations. E.g. only rich people could afford to genetically optimize their children, they would sterilize the poor.

Not familiar with the history of eugenics, but I assume it was not good.

A secular scientific ideal doesn't mean shit because its the capitalists who have the power and they will ultimately decide how to implement the eugenics.

Voluntary - the state would pay out benefits for more attractive/healthy people to have more children, and less attractive/healthy people to have fewer. Compulsory in the case of severe genetic defects that would ensure children would have miserable lives.

Same answer as #3.

Eugenics is literally psuedoscience.

CRISPR is something I honestly don't trust capitalists to use responsibly. Until such time as technologies can be controlled in a democratic way, they're better off not existing.

But the theory has already been created and it works. The theory 'of breeding' is just basic evolutionary biology. Look, from your own article.
That isn't a scientific theory, it's just Mendelian inheritance.

Voluntary eugenics–as long as it is based on good science–would be fine under higher stage communism. Under class society however, nothing is truly voluntary, and thus: eugenics is fucked.

It's an interesting subject. Take Hotwheels, for example. His mother came from a family with osteogenesis imperfecta, which is passed on genetically. She knew that any child she had would live a torturous existence, yet she chose to create a life anyway. What is the ideal way to handle that situation? Do we give those people full reproductive rights, and let them create children that will live horribly painful lives, even under the best circumstances? Or, if the tech is available, do we only give them reproduction rights if they submit to gene therapy, removing the defects and letting them have perfectly healthy children? Obviously gene therapy has an enormous potential for evil, but assuming we were living in a true egalitarian communist society, what is more egalitarian than removing all heritable illnesses, and ensuring every baby is perfectly healthy?

…by voluntary eugenics, I mean incentivized sterilization for those with undesirable traits, and genetic engineering of embryos. No exterminations plz.

To expand on this, I think that if the technology was implemented under capitalism, the only way it could play out would be Gattaca, so it's probably in our best interest to fight this in the short term. In the long term, I think that curing every heritable disease or disorder, and creating a universally healthy population will be a requirement to achieving true equality after material conditions are accounted for.

Hotwheels wrote an article in support of Eugenics. It was published on some Nazi website

Do you mean hypothesis?
Theory doesn't mean what you think it means, retard.
When something is a theory, it has already been favorably peer reviewed and successfully applied to predict outcomes.

...

if it's voluntary why do you need sterilization?

Well he did say incentivized so I assume they'd be benefiting in some way, maybe with reduced work hours or more food or a shiny red car or some stupid shit that people would want. Sterilization would ensure they don't take the deal but then have a kid anyways.

Pic kinda related?

Yeah, genetic selection isn't dependent on politics, it just is you daft cunt

see

Sir, you are a sick man, and your children will be sick too. You will cost the state a very large amount of expert time and resources just to keep alive, while being unlikely to contribute anything of worth. This will likely also be the case for any potential children you have in your short and depressing life, that they too will lead. So here is X amounts of money we are willing to pay you to sterilize yourself. This way you will be able to afford some comfort to make your existence more tolerable, while we will actually save money from not having to pay for your children's horrible existence.

Man wins, because he will be able to go on vacations and buy nice wine or whatever.
State wins, because having sick people around is expensive, and then save money on the potential sick people the man could spawn.
Children win, because not coming into existence probably beats a horrible existence.
Relatives win, because a deformed human entering your family destroys the family.

We have to prevent this, for the good of all. People with hereditary serious problems need to be incentivized to not breed. They need to be educated and bribed in order to make that call, if you insist for it to be voluntary.

See:

Shhhh, let the babbies think that artificial selection is good for other organisms to increase fitness, but not ours.

my point was that if the whole hypothesis of this discussion is to have a voluntary population, wht use is to actually sterilze them? Saying they are voluntarily joining the program already means they are fine with not having children.
Not to mention science gets better with time. An hereditary problem can be insormuontable now, but it might not be so in a decade or two, allowing the man to have healthy children despite his condition.

True democracy can never exist.

You realize that you only need to twist the reasoning here slightly to justify euthanasia and infanticide, right? Even 'incentives' are the equivalent of playing with fire when you use rhetoric that characterizes people as a drain on the state.

If the organism is disabled, it's fine. DNA competes with other DNA and those who cannot compete will fail.

So who decides what DNA can't compete?

DNA that succeed is the DNA that collaborates, not compete you closet nazi brainlet.

Pretty clear when people fail. Everyone with a disability, mentally/physically, for example. I don't decide it, their genome does.

I don't mean a single strand of DNA, moron. You cannot collaborate with someone who has Downs syndrome. Maybe retards like you who think artificial selection of genes is always associated with muh boogeyman that doesn't even exist anymore, then yeah.

It's good for making dogs look stupid but other then that it is useless, no matter what you do to the genetics of the human race it'll never be worth anything.

False. You can breed the smartest, fastest, and most 'fit' (in terms of rate of reproductive output among a class of genetic variants) organisms. It is possible, humans are organisms with genes after all. Not all people are created equal.

Reminder that Marx wasn't even an egalitarian and communism is not about making people equal in this literal way.

All you science-fetishists need to kill yourselves.

And where does the materialism go when you bring up genetics? This thread is good evidence that the majority of this board is still not Marxist and certainly not Stirnerite. Today I learned I'm a Holla Forumstard for not blindly swallowing the exact same anti-materialist rhetoric conservatives use IRL to argue with people in the dead center against abortion lmao

Except when people use succeed when others fail, right? What do you have to say to people succeeding while others failing? If you want to be a creationist and think we are all equivalent in our abilities, the existence of accidents to cause people to not be able to compete or succeed socio-economically means that, from this fact alone, there will be a hierarchy of ability.
The answer is to jump on a soapbox and cry victim just because others are doing well while others have failed. The funniest part is that many, but not all, of the communists were from middle class families who were not 'failures' by any stretch of the imagination (failure, socio-economically speaking), but just your average, run-of-the-mill champagne socialist.

What the hell did cripples ever do to you fam?

Yes, I realize that. Which is why I ask that you don't strawman men.
Protip: I meant what I wrote, and not what you wish I wrote.

Look into basic historical or anthropological textbooks about more primitive societies. A basic example is the Indian Chief, he only actually had power in times of war. The rest of the time he was only chief because the rest of the tribe viewed him as the one most fit to be the chief, and even then they didn't have to listen to him, his job was to mediate and advise. He was basically like a manager, a manager isn't above a worker in a hierarchy, they're generally just more experienced/qualified and thus lead and direct a group. e.g. an experienced electrician overseeing a group of electricians and planning out how to accomplish the task at hand. Hierarchy is imposed on this Manager/Laborer relationship by capitalism, but it isn't inherently hierarchical, it's co-operative. Laborers need a manager with experience to lead, and the manager needs a team to delegate to in order to achieve a goal in a timely fashion.

no.

bumping this to say i don't get what you're trying to say

Stupid enough for an inbred to have conceived.

Funny in a meme knid of way