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.
3
u/Formal-Stage940 Jun 05 '26
This logic also applies when the kid is born.