If reproductive choice is better than reproductive chance, one way to show the affinity with the "pro-Choice vs pro-Life" debate is to speak to a woman currently doing PGT-P, and follow their odyssey to find a clinic allowing (or denying) her choice.
If you had access to a woman doing this, Parrhesia, would you be willing to do a video interview of her over Skype or video conference, and then release the interview as a video?
China imprisoned someone that did it, but they also just made IVF free.
In the USA there is no pushback of any kind against pgt-p or IVF of any kind in any state or political party.
Some people are worried that in theory the left might want to ban it on egalitarian grounds or the right might want to ban it on religious grounds, but nobody has actually banned anything or moved towards doing so in any way.
Banning sibling marriage (going back at least to Roman times) is probably not a good example of eugenics. It’s more likely based on what Jonathan Haidt would call the purity moral foundation, the ick factor, not any specific identifiable harm.
“I don’t want to get into the semantics about whether something counts as eugenics.”
Most observers would see that as saying “I’m actually in favor of evil but want to call it somewhere else.” I would just grant them the term “eugenics” to just mean “whatever Hitler did” and say you oppose that of course like all decent people, but you believe in reproductive choice and people living happy, healthy lives. Why become hung up on a word?
An Irony of the Eugenics Objection to PGT-P
If reproductive choice is better than reproductive chance, one way to show the affinity with the "pro-Choice vs pro-Life" debate is to speak to a woman currently doing PGT-P, and follow their odyssey to find a clinic allowing (or denying) her choice.
If you had access to a woman doing this, Parrhesia, would you be willing to do a video interview of her over Skype or video conference, and then release the interview as a video?
China imprisoned someone that did it, but they also just made IVF free.
In the USA there is no pushback of any kind against pgt-p or IVF of any kind in any state or political party.
Some people are worried that in theory the left might want to ban it on egalitarian grounds or the right might want to ban it on religious grounds, but nobody has actually banned anything or moved towards doing so in any way.
Banning sibling marriage (going back at least to Roman times) is probably not a good example of eugenics. It’s more likely based on what Jonathan Haidt would call the purity moral foundation, the ick factor, not any specific identifiable harm.
“I don’t want to get into the semantics about whether something counts as eugenics.”
Most observers would see that as saying “I’m actually in favor of evil but want to call it somewhere else.” I would just grant them the term “eugenics” to just mean “whatever Hitler did” and say you oppose that of course like all decent people, but you believe in reproductive choice and people living happy, healthy lives. Why become hung up on a word?
Who actually wants to ban this? Has any jurisdiction done so?