• 7112@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    13 hours ago

    But do they support it now… because I’m pretty sure the other side still does.

  • rumschlumpel@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    13 hours ago

    Eugenics can sound pretty appealing until you take a moment to really think about it and aren’t the type to just be okay with whatever suffering you may cause in the name of the “greater good”.

    And making it illegal to have children with close relatives is a form of eugenics, i.e. it’s still practiced and widely accepted in most western countries.

    • Porto881@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      12 hours ago

      Hell, providing free condoms to low-income public schools is eugenics and we all agree that it’s a good thing

      • dogslayeggs@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        9 hours ago

        No, it isn’t. Eugenics is about changing genetic distributions, and low-income is not a genetically passed trait. If you ONLY gave the free condoms to black students at those schools and encouraged the white students to not use condoms, then I’d agree with you. Or if you only gave the condoms to kids who weren’t getting good grades or were bad at sports, then I’d agree with you.

        But blindly giving out condoms to a large population without any look at genetics is not eugenics.

        • Nollij@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          6 hours ago

          How exact does it need to be? There are plenty of ways to collect and organize the data. There are plenty of low-income schools. If you only gave out free condoms at the ones that were 90% black (but given to all students there), would that count?

  • slazer2au@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    13 hours ago

    Yea no shit. There will always be people on both sides who support horrific things.

  • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    13 hours ago

    During the four decades that passed between implementation and abolition, almost 63,000 Swedes were rendered infertile, in many cases in response to pressure from the state and sometimes as a result of outright compulsion. Furthermore, it was chiefly those regarded as “unproductive” who were the targets of that social policy.

    So it sounds like the vast majority wasn’t compulsory…

    But in a few rare cases it was, which were likely when the patient couldn’t legally give consent considering the subject.

    Quick edit:

    Was also in the 1930s when there was less options for non permanent birth control.