“Neuter your ex” campaigns popped up across the country this year, from Maryland to Michigan to Washington state. Getting back at an ex can now mean neutering or spaying a cat because “some things shouldn’t breed,” as one New Jersey animal shelter put it.
I give you full marks for honesty and conviction. I’ve already taken my sleepy pills so I’ll be increasingly stupid until I pass out. That said, I want to take this point up: I ought to take you to task on this point of eugenics in the “feebleminded” (another word that fell off the euphemism treadmill in the 40s or so) but I would have to frankly learn a lot about that specifically, and while I think a good comparison is there to be made (which is I guess why I made it), I’m not convinced that it’s a perfect or generally useful comparison to the point that I’m trying to make, and was only offered in response to my perception of similarity to authors of eugenics papers, including Down himself. I will say that I think you’re painting with a very broad brush, especially in that last paragraph. I gave the specific example of down syndrome. Based on what I’ve read of you, I don’t think you’ll laugh when I point out that a woman with down syndrome was recently appointed to the spanish parliament. I don’t know whether that woman has a carer or if the genetic syndrome is even compatible with reproduction, but
oh no im rambling i’ve lost the thread help no please i want my brain for a little while longerrr
Look i dont know if you even want (or wanted for that matter) to have me write all the things I was going to say. If you do, I’ll write them tomorrow. If you don’t. thanks for this brief debate, it was genuinely stimulating, and I figuroed out my library has access to most of the NIH library and several important scholarly journals which I have always thought to be locked behind paywalls forever. I thank you for that boon, even if You did not grant it to me.
stupid bipolar disorder stupid insomnia
I intentionally avoided making any reference specifically to Down’s syndrome because I’ve known people with Down’s syndrome who are high functioning and independent, but I’ve also known people with Down’s syndrome who can’t get their own pants on without assistance (I mean this literally and objectively as a reference point for cognitive function, not as a joke).
So I’m not going to suggest that all people with Down’s syndrome should be actively prevented from birthing children. But I think anyone with a hereditary disorder that severely affects quality of life should be carefully and empathetically counseled through the question of procreation with an honest discussion of the risks involved. Someone with high functioning Down’s syndrome may be able to live a perfectly happy life without much assistance, but what kind of risk would they be putting on their prospective child who will have a high likelihood of also getting the syndrome and may have a much worse case of it?
I don’t believe in forced sterilization or forced prevention, and I don’t believe in selecting for genes based on race or “positive” qualities, so what I’m suggesting is not eugenics. It’s simply encouraging people to consider the long term consequences of their decisions and evaluate the risks they are placing on other people (their prospective children) who cannot consent to being born under those risks.
As for individuals with cognitive faculties that are too limited to make any assessment about those risks, they will not be living independently, so I hope their caretaker would not put them in a situation where procreation is a concern to begin with.
And going back to the original matter of non-human animals, I stand by my point that those animals won’t be burdened by the knowledge that they can no longer procreate so they won’t have any long lasting trauma from the operation. That combined with the importance of reducing unhoused dog and cat populations (which are extremely difficult to control because of how quickly they reproduce) makes the value judgment on this matter a very easy one for me.