• The Snark Urge@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    4 hours ago

    Okay, asked and answered. I wasn’t asking with intent to sealion here, and in fairness perhaps I should have posed this question to the top comment. There’s a lot of nuance missing from them simply calling disabled people selfish for breeding. I wouldn’t have even bothered probably, but this other fellow was conflating your view with the idea that it’s the same kind of selfishness to have kids at all given the state of the world, which begins to sound deeply nihilistic. In my defense I was at pains to ask in the least accusatory way I could think of, giving them the benefit of the doubt. Thanks for taking the time to make sense on their behalf.

    • GrammarPolice@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      4 hours ago

      No problem. I probably should have been less presumptive and snarky in my reply. I’m just tired of seeing it branded as eugenics when the situation is simply prophylaxis. Adoption is always an option for these couples, so i think it would be selfish for them to breed knowing there are risks.

      On the other hand, the person you replied to is probably an antinatalist. They believe it’s morally wrong to reproduce. A radical philosophy that has its flaws, but i see the appeal.