Opinion of our pro-eugenics socialist newbies

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I am (and always have been) against considering "morality", a notion I thoroughly oppose but whose effects I do not particularly abhor in respect to efficacy, in the making of law. Such consideration would be  tantamount to legislating based off of religious doctrine, in the face of that for which America stands.

The relationship itself is questionable but not inherently dangerous. The line is clearly vaginal sex with insertion of the penis. Anything short of that, in my opinion, should be well legal. However, it is neither the government's duty nor right to legislate exactly what actions may be taken in the bedroom.

Considering all of this, I conclude that such a relationship should be legal, and were there to be a pregnancy, abortion should be mandatory.

Legal, but if there's a pregnancy it should be aborted. Regardless of how icky it is, it's not the business of the state to legislate sex acts between consenting adults.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Instead of passing judgement based on the title, click on the link to see the actual context. The position I was advocating was NOT what is traditionally considered eugenics, but instead advocating for mandatory abortion only if the two parents were first-degree genetic relatives to each other(Siblings or parents).

Oh, SO much better.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Instead of passing judgement based on the title, click on the link to see the actual context. The position I was advocating was NOT what is traditionally considered eugenics, but instead advocating for mandatory abortion only if the two parents were first-degree genetic relatives to each other(Siblings or parents).

Oh, SO much better.

When you believe that abortion isn't a big deal, it is a lot better.

Okay, but do you believe that the opinions, desires, feelings, and wellbeing of women who are forced to have abortions against their will are a big deal?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

So this seems to be a thing again?

I'd like to think omegascarlet at least will improve in this respect--she has in others. The unapologetically pro-eugenics posters right now are, depressingly, significantly more mainstream in their other views.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

So this seems to be a thing again?

I'd like to think omegascarlet at least will improve in this respect--she has in others. The unapologetically pro-eugenics posters right now are, depressingly, significantly more mainstream in their other views.

If you actually read my quote, it says that it should be at least discussed because eugenics is a very broad term (ie methods, motives, extremity, etc can vary so much that two "eugenics" policies can be wildly different from each other. Reducing child tax credits for people with severe genetic disabilities and the holocaust both fit the term), thus not all eugenics stems from racism, and people can (and likely do) believe in policies under the eugenics umbrella because they think it would make the world a better place(and thus are not evil).

I wasn't taking a position on the matter itself.

I was reading a position into what you were saying based on past interactions. I apologize.