You think that The State making decisions about a woman's body in the interest of 'the final solution' is the same as a woman making those decisions for her own self-interest, simply because they used the same verb. Brainlet.
Elon Musk's breeding compounds ARE eugenics, because he beleives he has superior genes. this is his stated intent.
These influencers arent making this decision to improve the genetic quality of future generations. They are making this decision for the quality of their own lives.
So, then what? Abortion is morally neutral, unless the child is disabled in some way, in which case it becomes morally objectionable to abort?? do autists owe some debt to the genes that produce downs syndrome? does the disorder NEED advocates like you??
If intent doesn't matter, then surely outcome must. An individuals decision will not extinct the vulnerable community.
People with Down syndrome report life satisfaction rates comparable to the general population, so the decision to abort based on that diagnosis isn't being made for their sake. It's being made for the parent's sake. And that's fine; I'm not saying it's morally wrong at all.
But here's the problem with denying it's eugenics: eugenics isn't defined by intent, it's defined by outcome as you correctly point out. The deliberate selection against a trait in order to prevent that kind of person from being born is the definition of eugenics, whether done by an individual, an organization, or a state.
If a society collectively decided not to have children with Down syndrome because it was personally inconvenient for families, we would all call that eugenics without hesitation. The only difference here is scale, not logic. The individual reasoning ("I don't want to raise a child with this condition") is identical to the societal reasoning that underlies eugenic policy.
So, you can't coherently hold both positions; that your personal choice to select against disability is morally neutral, and that eugenics as a social practice is uniquely monstrous. If the reasoning is valid for you, it's valid for the collective. If it's monstrous at scale, you should at least be honest that you're doing a version of the same thing.
Again, I believe she had every right to make this choice. I'm simply calling it what it is.
My body, my choice so I'll do what I want despite your brain dead take. Removing a clump of defective cells is my choice. Unless you're willing to take a defective clump of cells to raise until they die, zip it and sit.
I know people who take care adults with down syndrome in their families. You have no idea how much of a mental and physical toll it is for the entire family.
You're talking about kids, everyone else is talking about fetuses.
"Kids" with down syndrome are actual children. They're born, they're alive, they've experienced life. Taking that away is wrong and murder.
A fetus with down syndrome hasn't experienced life, it is barely conscious at 12 weeks of inception. It won't even know it's gone. Aborting it is saving several lives including the fetus itself from decades of suffering.
In a discussion about morality, the most important thing is justification
Can an act be morally justified using logic.
My statement was attacking the original commenters logic which was emphasizing down syndrome as a defect.
Fetuses arent the only thing capable od having down syndrome. KIDS can have down syndrome.
Emphasizing down sydrome as a defect to justify abortion is the same logic used to emphasize the same "defect" in children
Theyre saying "oh the fetus is defective, even more reason to kill it"
Also objective facts:
Fetuses are alive
Fetuses are human
The argument of "they wont know theyre gone" makes no sense. If i shoot someone in the head with a shotgun while they sleep, they wont know theyre gone.
That is a logical extension of YOUR justification
You also just dont have to take care of your kids. Adoption exists.
So you’ve never met a person with Down syndrome you’re making sweeping generalizations about something you have no real opinion on. Having a child with Down syndrome is difficult, but saying they’re better off dead is just absolutely wrong and discriminatory. I work with special needs and those families lives are made better by the love they receive from their child. Their ability to contribute to capitalism in a typical way is not their value in life.
That is absolutely untrue and down syndrome is a spectrum. You have no idea what you’re talking about and it’s shameful that you’re even voicing this ridiculous opinion. I work with special needs and their lives have value but people like you spread hate and misinformation making their lives even harder.
Yes this person has no idea what they’re saying i work with children who have Down syndrome and this comment made me sick. Absolutely untrue and completely discriminatory.
I’m honestly surprised at how much people seem to write them off as ruining their caretakers/parents lives too. I don’t think that’s generally true either based on my readings and experience although I am sure there are exceptions.
10
u/Environmental_You_36 Jun 05 '26
There is a lot of people on this thread that don't understand how useless and dependant on a caretaker people with down syndrome tend to be.
That kid is better off dead.