I'm here because I have opinions the left doesn't like.

submitted by [deleted] from (self.Introductions)

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 7 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 2 fun -  (7 children)

Although the evidence is strong that gender dysphoria is developmental/epigenetic rather than genetic in nature, if evidence were to arise that it's basis is genetic (as schizophrenia, etc.) - would you support eugenic abortions of predisposed children?

If the answer is no, which mental illnesses other than gender dysphoria do you consider acceptable in the gene pool?

[–][deleted] 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

If it was proven to be genetic and furthermore proven to be particularly damaging to society in every case, then I would quite likely support the move. If it becomes evident that some cases are damaging while others are not, following a predictable pattern, I would support selectively preventing the damaging cases. If it is not proven beyond a reasonable doubt, I would not support such measures.

Certain genetic conditions can be allowed so long as they aren't damaging to society. Furthermore, I would prefer to focus on the most damaging cases at first and deal with the fine-tuning later on in the process.

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

A logical answer. I appreciate you taking the time to help me understand where you're coming from.

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Thanks, you too!

[–]BettysBitterButter 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

proven to be particularly damaging to society in every case

So... no eugenics for any diseases, then, I guess. WTH is "particularly damaging to society in every case"? Even something like CF would not fairly meet that criteria. Sickle cell wouldn't meet it. Even schizophrenia wouldn't meet it.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Schizophrenia and other genetic diseases are always damaging.

Edit: Schizophrenia isn't genetic, but BettysBitterButter claimed it was so I included it in my argument.

[–]Realwoman 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Schizophrenia isn't genetic. It has a genetic component but even though most schizophrenics don't have children, the percentage in the population stays stable. It can also be controlled with medication.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

The person I was responding too said it was, so I just included it in my argument. I'll edit in a disclaimer though.