That having been said, I’d have been all in favour of applauding the German couple (especially since they didn’t grow up together) if they had only made sure they didn’t have children via e.g. vasectomy, getting tubes tied, etc...
That seems a bit unfair. Why should they have to take particular care about a small-ish increase in risk just because some people are freaked out by them?
It’s even more unfair to carelessly bestow genetical deficiencies on one’s children. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_St%C3%BCbing—“The older two children suffer from severe physical and mental disabilities. The third child was born with a heart condition but is healthy after undergoing a heart transplant”
Actually given further information in that page, and after learning how the woman was still a minor at the beginning of their relationship, I withdraw my hypothetical “applauding” anyway; though at least on 2004 the man finally did undergo a vasectomy.
just because some people are freaked out by them?
Downvoted: I don’t see how you could have legitimately misinterpreted my words to mean that people being freaked out is the reason I offered for their need for birth control.
Lots of downvotes. So do we think there’s a good case for coercive eugenics here then? That’s got a sort of Schelling-pointy feel to it to me, so that I wonder if prohibiting incest might actually be the lesser of two evils.
If a case can be made for coercive eugenics here, where else can it be made? And how does the incest ick-factor influence the arguments?
Do people without siblings feel the ick-factor? Or do you need personal experience of the Westermarck effect?
So do we think there’s a good case for coercive eugenics here then? That’s got a sort of Schelling-pointy feel to it to me, so that I wonder if prohibiting incest might actually be the lesser of two evils.
If we’re comparing two “coercions” (coercive prohibition of incestuous couples from having children) (coercive prohibition of incestuous couples from having sex), the former seems to be the lesser coercion by far, and the more easily justified.
So is it “coercive” part of “coercive eugenics” that really bugs you, or is it that you have an ick-factor against eugenics altogether, voluntary eugenics too?
That seems a bit unfair. Why should they have to take particular care about a small-ish increase in risk just because some people are freaked out by them?
It’s even more unfair to carelessly bestow genetical deficiencies on one’s children. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_St%C3%BCbing—“The older two children suffer from severe physical and mental disabilities. The third child was born with a heart condition but is healthy after undergoing a heart transplant”
Actually given further information in that page, and after learning how the woman was still a minor at the beginning of their relationship, I withdraw my hypothetical “applauding” anyway; though at least on 2004 the man finally did undergo a vasectomy.
Downvoted: I don’t see how you could have legitimately misinterpreted my words to mean that people being freaked out is the reason I offered for their need for birth control.
Lots of downvotes. So do we think there’s a good case for coercive eugenics here then? That’s got a sort of Schelling-pointy feel to it to me, so that I wonder if prohibiting incest might actually be the lesser of two evils.
If a case can be made for coercive eugenics here, where else can it be made? And how does the incest ick-factor influence the arguments?
Do people without siblings feel the ick-factor? Or do you need personal experience of the Westermarck effect?
If we’re comparing two “coercions” (coercive prohibition of incestuous couples from having children) (coercive prohibition of incestuous couples from having sex), the former seems to be the lesser coercion by far, and the more easily justified.
So is it “coercive” part of “coercive eugenics” that really bugs you, or is it that you have an ick-factor against eugenics altogether, voluntary eugenics too?