I think so. Alexander Graham Bell, Helen Keller, Winston Churchill, Plato and there are countless more. Just because we didn't have the technology to implement it humanely in the past doesn't mean it can't be done in the future.
In fact. I would consider a society, that has the capability to noninvasively eliminate for example sickle cell anemia or Huntingtons and doesn't because some people one hundred years ago did horrible things, barbaric.
Helen Keller defended a doctor's 1915 non-intervention in the case of a child that was not capable of "the possibilities of happiness, intelligence, and power that give life its sanctity, and they are absent in the case of a poor, misshapen, paralyzed creature", and then later supported adoption of disabled children, such as the a case of an infant with tumor-induced blindness saying "blindness is not the greatest evil, it is only a physical handicap. that is life. the annals of progress show that much of humanity's finest work has been wrought by persons with with a severe handicap, that she may be spared to help open the eyes of ignorance"
I hope that she can help you to open your eyes as well.
Sorry if i hit a nerve, but obviously if i wasn't "arguing in good faith" why would i have so painstakenly avoided mentioning hitler for like 10 comments?
conversely, everything i've said has been a direct analysis of what you've said.
you referenced helen keller's non-intervention in an instance of infant mortality as evidence that she supported eugenics.
It is that erroneous conflation that introduced euthanasia for discussion. (also i would say that technically intentional non-intervention is not exactly killing, so thats not even what i was implying)
I provided evidence that keller, contrarily, saw value in genetic defects.
If you have another reason for believing that helen keller was a supporter of eugenics, you have failed to provide it.
Churchill had some virtues of leadership, but he was an abominable racist and colonialist, even by the standards of his time.
>"Churchill is on record as praising “Aryan stock” and insisting it was right for “a stronger race, a higher-grade race” to take the place of indigenous peoples. He reportedly did not think “black people were as capable or as efficient as white people”. In 1911, Churchill banned interracial boxing matches so white fighters would not be seen losing to black ones. He insisted that Britain and the US shared “Anglo-Saxon superiority”. He described anticolonial campaigners as “savages armed with ideas”.
Even his contemporaries found his views on race shocking. In the context of Churchill’s hard line against providing famine relief to Bengal, the colonial secretary, Leo Amery, remarked: “On the subject of India, Winston is not quite sane … I didn’t see much difference between his outlook and Hitler’s.”"
>"He referred to Palestinians as "barbaric hordes who ate little but camel dung." When quashing insurgents in Sudan in the earlier days of his imperial career, Churchill boasted of killing three "savages." Contemplating restive populations in northwest Asia, he infamously lamented the "squeamishness" of his colleagues, who were not in "favor of using poisoned gas against uncivilized tribes.""
Also, Alexander Graham Bell supported eugenics because he was worried that deaf people procreating created human and social divisions.
Any modern medicine gene modification program would create the exact human and social divisions he sought to avoid... Unless you are somehow able to suddenly do gene modification universally throughout the entire planet..
so he doesn't really support your position either.
it has taken us 2 years to give 60% of the planet a $5 shot despite having 2x world population of shots available.
"capability" should not be confused with "universal accessibility"
and "some people one hundred years ago did horrible things" is a fictional strawman. There are real and present reasons why practically eugenics will lead to stratified and unjust conditions for humanity in practice.
