Proposal to bring back “Combating Autism” legislation

Post Reply New Topic

This is not a court of law but a public policy decision. In general public policy decisions take into account a perceived future. The pro cure argument is no different. If we cure autism it is going save misery and money. Without the impairments of autism the cured peoples real personalities will come out, their skills will be given an opportunity to be fully realized.

So just to offer a correction after i looked it up, the definition of Eugenics is a bit vague. My interpretation of it was improving human health, which is referenced in the Wiki explanation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics

but if you google the term it is associated with the negative interpretation and has little to do with improving the health of those already here.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/eugenics

So while there probably is good and bad Eugenics all in all Eugenics is mostly a bad thing going by the definition.

Gene therapy for autism though would come under medicine or medical treatment not classed as Eugenics, simply because Autism Spectrum Disorder is officially a disorder (not all but still many). Unlike being gay which is not considered a disorder or disability .

So fixing a recognised medical disorder like the genetic causes of blindness or autism is not classed as Eugenics which is why its legal and being openly researched, as opposed to Eugenics which is illegal and is not really discussed (despite positive aspects like women taking vitamins in pregnancy for example)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6DSodmCH08

https://www.science.org/content/article ... rms-autism

When one considers the strong contribution of agricultural breeding to the eugenics movement, it is not difficult to see why eugenicists used state fairs as a venue for popular education. A majority of Americans were still living in rural areas during the first several decades of the 20th century, and fairs were major cultural events. Farmers brought their products of selective breeding — fat pigs, speedy horses, and large pumpkins — to the fair to be judged. Why not judge "human stock" to select the most eugenically fit family?

This was exactly the concept behind Fitter Families for Future Firesides — known simply as Fitter Families Contests. The contests were founded by Mary T. Watts and Florence Brown Sherbon — two pioneers of the Baby Health Examination movement, which sprang from a "Better Baby" contest at the 1911 Iowa State Fair and spread to 40 states before World War I. The first Fitter Family Contest was held at the Kansas State Free Fair in 1920. With support from the American Eugenics Society's Committee on Popular Education, the contests were held at numerous fairs throughout the United States during the 1920s.

At most contests, competitors submitted an "Abridged Record of Family Traits," and a team of medical doctors performed psychological and physical exams on family members. Each family member was given an overall letter grade of eugenic health, and the family with the highest grade average was awarded a silver trophy. Trophies were typically awarded in three family categories: small (1 child), medium (2-4 children), and large (5 or more children).

All contestants with a B+ or better received bronze medals bearing the inscription, "Yea, I have a goodly heritage." Childless couples were eligible for prizes in contests held in some states. As expected, the Fitter Families Contest mirrored the eugenics movement itself; winners were invariably White with western and northern European heritage.

"Bad eugenics" is trying to prevent the "unfit" from being born. "Good Eugenics" is an attempt to improve the human race through breeding. Towards that goal "Better Babies" and "Fitter Families" contests were popular in America during the first half of the 20th century.

Fitter Families Contest - Eugenics Archive


When parents decide to abort a fetus because testing shows the baby will be born with Down's Syndrome this is sometimes known as "Consumer Eugenics". Gene Editing technology is a potential boon to "Consumer Eugenics".

I would argue that eugenics done right is a foundation of moral morality while slavery is one of the least moral things.

Eugenics done wrong would be either killing people for having the wrong genes, or choosing the wrong criterion to filter genes by.

Eugenics done right would be sterilizations and the correct genetic criterions.

For a soul to be born into a body they don't want in a society they didn't consent to is akin to slavery.

I would argue that eugenics done right is a foundation of moral morality while slavery is one of the least moral things.

Eugenics done wrong would be either killing people for having the wrong genes, or choosing the wrong criterion to filter genes by.

Eugenics done right would be sterilizations and the correct genetic criterions.

For a soul to be born into a body they don't want in a society they didn't consent to is akin to slavery.

^ but society, which is predictable at least in the short term, does.