āEugenicsā is the worst word. (Is there any other word in the English language where the connotations diverge so wildly from the literal denotation?) āLiberal eugenicsā is effectively a scissor-statement to generate utterly unnecessary conflict between low and high decouplers. Imagine if the literal definition of ārapeā didnāt actually include anything about coercion or lack of consent, and then a bunch of sex-positive philosophers described themselves as being in favor of āconsensual rapeā instead of picking a less inflammatory way of describing being sex-positive. Thatās eugenics discourse today.
ETA: my point being that it would seem most helpful (both for clear thinking and for avoiding unnecessary conflict) for people to use more precise language when discussing technologically-aided reproductive freedom and technologically-aided reproductive coercion. The two opposites are not the same, just because both involve technology and goal-directedness in relation to reproduction!
āEugenicsā is the worst word. (Is there any other word in the English language where the connotations diverge so wildly from the literal denotation?) āLiberal eugenicsā is effectively a scissor-statement to generate utterly unnecessary conflict between low and high decouplers. Imagine if the literal definition of ārapeā didnāt actually include anything about coercion or lack of consent, and then a bunch of sex-positive philosophers described themselves as being in favor of āconsensual rapeā instead of picking a less inflammatory way of describing being sex-positive. Thatās eugenics discourse today.
ETA: my point being that it would seem most helpful (both for clear thinking and for avoiding unnecessary conflict) for people to use more precise language when discussing technologically-aided reproductive freedom and technologically-aided reproductive coercion. The two opposites are not the same, just because both involve technology and goal-directedness in relation to reproduction!