Tzelofachad

On one hand, selecting for disability and disorder absolutely is eugenics and should not be encouraged.

On the other hand, we already select for some disabilities and disorders in order to protect the kids who would have them! Tay-Sachs is the obvious example; we do not want these children to die horribly so we try to make sure they're not conceived in the first place.

On the other hand, a potential parent selecting for disability is concerning because not all disabilities show up in the womb, and some are acquired. Do we want to encourage people to become parents if they're already wanting to walk away from any difficulty?

On the other hand, there are disabilities and there are disabilities. What if a potential parent is like "listen, ADHD I can handle, but the disability you're talking about is so severe I don't think I could handle it"? Is that eugenics, or recognizing one's own limits?

On the other hand, if we could ask the fetus "here's what you'll deal with; do you want to live?" would it say yes or no? Some quadriplegics love living. Some amputees who lost part of a leg will say they wish they'd died instead. Every disabled person will have a different answer, including two who have near-identical disabilities and life circumstances. Hell, I'm disabled and whether I'm saying "it doesn't bother me" or "I wish I was anyone else" comes down to the day.

On the other hand, does it make a difference if the answer to "why do you want an abortion" is "I don't want a baby" or "I don't want a baby I perceive as defective"? Do we judge one but not the other? Why?

I could go on like this for hours. I don't think OP is right and I also don't think they're wrong. I'm not sure there is a "right" answer. I definitely don't think there's a one-size-fits-all answer. Life is THE most annoying bitch on earth that way sometimes. And insofar as there is an answer, I actually think it lies with creating support, not restricting abortion. Would you still say "abort" if you had an extra $10k a year? What about someone to watch the kiddo on Saturdays so you could have some decompression time? Is there a load-bearing straw we can remove to spare the camel's back, or is the camel simply not capable of hauling this particular shipment of straw?

the issue is “having the abortion BECAUSE the baby is disabled.” Having an abortion because you learn the baby is going to be abled also could be problematic.

And to be clear, the woman still has the right to choose, it’s just that we are allowed to talk about which choices are more ethical than others (like how saying that it is more ethical to give money to charity does not mean that someone does not have the RIGHT to do whatever they want with their money)

Classic eugenics was the opposite of choice and reproductive rights. Regardless of if eugenics started as a societal movement, it quickly moved to the hands of government.

A lot of eugenics discussions talk about forced sterilizations and murder of people the government deemed undesirable but it also came with governmental pressure for “the successful” to breed. Preventing certain pregnant people from carrying desired pregnancies to term and preventing other pregnant people from terminating undesired pregnancies went hand in hand with eugenics.

China sees a similar issue of a disregard for reproductive autonomy. The One Child Policy led to forced IUDs, sterilizations, and abortions for decades. Due to a daughter needing to take care of her in-laws, boys were valued a lot more in China to varying degrees. Now that the population is gender-imbalanced and aging, the Chinese government went the complete other way while still intruding on reproductive autonomy.

In my view, eugenics is the exact opposite of reproductive autonomy based on the desire to “improve the population.” It is a population-level phenomenon not an individual phenomenon. I want to become a parent someday. However, there are many conditions that I don’t feel I am equipped to handle in children even with all the money in the world. I am have multiple disabilities, one of which is a hereditary disability (Hypermobility syndrome). My disability leads to chronic pain and fatigue combined with mental health issues that can become severe. If I knew what gene specifically caused my disability*, I could choose to select only embryos without this gene. This would not be eugenics. There are over people with the same conditions that feel differently. If I were to enforce my choice for everyone, that would be eugenics. There are people who claim that simply choosing to engage in pre-selection is new eugenics. These people that talk about “new eugenics” often don’t live with certain conditions just as I don’t live with other conditions. The disabled community is heterogeneous and varies dependent on the disability and the individual.

We can talk about genetic inequality as a problem, but this is completely separate from abortion right. It is also not eugenics.

Why would you want to harm a disabled child by having them born to parents who can’t or won’t care for them? There’s already a problem with disabled people getting murdered by their caregivers.

No one should be forced to carry a pregnancy that they’re not ready for. It is nobody’s business on why someone terminated a pregnancy. It was the ethical decision for the individual. Restricting abortion for any reason even for “protecting disabled children” is like trying to prevent divorce: ineffective and unethical.

Y'all really got me on this app in 2026 talking about how freeing the Black enslaved and actually giving them the 40 acres and a mule promised, was more unreasonable and less feasible... Than the logistics of owning slaves. Plus the rhetoric of "they were safer as slaves" for some extra zing. Jesùs Christo, there has to be a hell for some of you. 🤣🤣🤣🤣

On one hand, selecting for disability and disorder absolutely is eugenics and should not be encouraged.

On the other hand, we already select for some disabilities and disorders in order to protect the kids who would have them! Tay-Sachs is the obvious example; we do not want these children to die horribly so we try to make sure they're not conceived in the first place.

On the other hand, a potential parent selecting for disability is concerning because not all disabilities show up in the womb, and some are acquired. Do we want to encourage people to become parents if they're already wanting to walk away from any difficulty?

On the other hand, there are disabilities and there are disabilities. What if a potential parent is like "listen, ADHD I can handle, but the disability you're talking about is so severe I don't think I could handle it"? Is that eugenics, or recognizing one's own limits?

On the other hand, if we could ask the fetus "here's what you'll deal with; do you want to live?" would it say yes or no? Some quadriplegics love living. Some amputees who lost part of a leg will say they wish they'd died instead. Every disabled person will have a different answer, including two who have near-identical disabilities and life circumstances. Hell, I'm disabled and whether I'm saying "it doesn't bother me" or "I wish I was anyone else" comes down to the day.

On the other hand, does it make a difference if the answer to "why do you want an abortion" is "I don't want a baby" or "I don't want a baby I perceive as defective"? Do we judge one but not the other? Why?

I could go on like this for hours. I don't think OP is right and I also don't think they're wrong. I'm not sure there is a "right" answer. I definitely don't think there's a one-size-fits-all answer. Life is THE most annoying bitch on earth that way sometimes. And insofar as there is an answer, I actually think it lies with creating support, not restricting abortion. Would you still say "abort" if you had an extra $10k a year? What about someone to watch the kiddo on Saturdays so you could have some decompression time? Is there a load-bearing straw we can remove to spare the camel's back, or is the camel simply not capable of hauling this particular shipment of straw?

the issue is “having the abortion BECAUSE the baby is disabled.” Having an abortion because you learn the baby is going to be abled also could be problematic.

And to be clear, the woman still has the right to choose, it’s just that we are allowed to talk about which choices are more ethical than others (like how saying that it is more ethical to give money to charity does not mean that someone does not have the RIGHT to do whatever they want with their money)

i should be allowed to kill alloromantic people. like. ugh.

It's unhealthy and if something is unhealthy it's also can't be beautiful. It's just how attractivness works lol.

I don't support any kind of eating disorders, but as a part of society you should be productive to it and not a burden to health-care.

I'm not trying to offend anyone and if I did I'm sorry. Its just a really interesting topic for me and I want to discuss it

Women used to wear lead-based cosmetics to make themselves appear paler.

Women used to use belladonna to cover up redness and dilate their eyes.

Some people take up smoking with the express purpose of losing weight so that they'll be "more attractive."

The desired level of extreme skinnyness in the 90s and 00s was called "heroin chic" because women were expected to look like addicts wasting away.

Young men are taking hammers to their jaws to "looksmaxx."

On one hand, selecting for disability and disorder absolutely is eugenics and should not be encouraged.

On the other hand, we already select for some disabilities and disorders in order to protect the kids who would have them! Tay-Sachs is the obvious example; we do not want these children to die horribly so we try to make sure they're not conceived in the first place.

On the other hand, a potential parent selecting for disability is concerning because not all disabilities show up in the womb, and some are acquired. Do we want to encourage people to become parents if they're already wanting to walk away from any difficulty?

On the other hand, there are disabilities and there are disabilities. What if a potential parent is like "listen, ADHD I can handle, but the disability you're talking about is so severe I don't think I could handle it"? Is that eugenics, or recognizing one's own limits?

On the other hand, if we could ask the fetus "here's what you'll deal with; do you want to live?" would it say yes or no? Some quadriplegics love living. Some amputees who lost part of a leg will say they wish they'd died instead. Every disabled person will have a different answer, including two who have near-identical disabilities and life circumstances. Hell, I'm disabled and whether I'm saying "it doesn't bother me" or "I wish I was anyone else" comes down to the day.

On the other hand, does it make a difference if the answer to "why do you want an abortion" is "I don't want a baby" or "I don't want a baby I perceive as defective"? Do we judge one but not the other? Why?

I could go on like this for hours. I don't think OP is right and I also don't think they're wrong. I'm not sure there is a "right" answer. I definitely don't think there's a one-size-fits-all answer. Life is THE most annoying bitch on earth that way sometimes. And insofar as there is an answer, I actually think it lies with creating support, not restricting abortion. Would you still say "abort" if you had an extra $10k a year? What about someone to watch the kiddo on Saturdays so you could have some decompression time? Is there a load-bearing straw we can remove to spare the camel's back, or is the camel simply not capable of hauling this particular shipment of straw?

the issue is “having the abortion BECAUSE the baby is disabled.” Having an abortion because you learn the baby is going to be abled also could be problematic.

And to be clear, the woman still has the right to choose, it’s just that we are allowed to talk about which choices are more ethical than others (like how saying that it is more ethical to give money to charity does not mean that someone does not have the RIGHT to do whatever they want with their money)

I spent way too much time on this

And I was watching a YouTube video the other day that said that Mira and Zoey mock Celine, and Rumi should've taken the opportunity to tell Mira and Zoey about her patterns at that moment....completely ignoring the fact that RIGHT AFTER Mira and Zoey mock Celine, they double down and are like, "yeah, but she's right, we have to hide this problem with your voice until we can fix it." You can even see Rumi get a sad, resigned sort of disappointed look in that scene right after they say that.

So yeah, if you can't tell, I really hate it when people bash Rumi for not telling Mira and Zoey her secret, or at least, when people insist that Rumi had ample opportunities to share her secret during the movie and had no reason to believe that Mira and Zoey wouldn't accept and forgive her.

It's bad situation overall. No matter what, if a significant time period passed between Mira and Zoey meeting Rumi and them discovering her patterns, they would be hurt and feel betrayed by her keeping such a massive secret from them regardless of the circumstances they discovered the secret, and Rumi (and Celine) likely think, not wrongly, that them discovering her secret, even if she just tells them, could cause a rift in their relationship and cause the Honmoon to weaken/the girls to be uncoordinated in being a united front against demons, putting Korea at risk.

But on the other hand, I can completely understand if Celine didn't want to start of her and Rumi's new relationship when they first met Mira and Zoey by saying, "Hello, you have been recruited to fight demons. Also, this girl that I've raised who will be part of your team is part demon." Setting aside the fact that teaching Mira and Zoey that there's complexity among demons could easily get them killed if they hesitated for just a moment while killing demon, I feel like telling Mira and Zoey that they've been recruited to kill demons with a half-demon would lead to them starting out their new mentorship under Celine by not trusting her or Rumi.

Either way, it's a shitty situation from all ends no matter how you slice it. But I'll firmly stand by the fact that it's completely understandable why Rumi gravitated towards Jinu, why she didn't tell Mira and Zoey about her patterns, and how their behavior reinforced her idea that they would not be happy and would not accept her if she revealed her secret.

So telling Mira and Zoey about the patterns becomes less, "maybe demons are morally complicated" and more "this one way we can detect shapeshifting demons is accurate except for this one specific instance"

Cartoon Network cancelled the show. They viciously and intentionally fucked over Rebecca Sugar, Ian Jones-Quartey, and the entire rest of the crew. It is documented in the SU art books and in multiple statements from Rebecca Sugar that pushing for the Garnet wedding is what caused the show to get cancelled. The crew had to FIGHT to get any episodes past the wedding. There was supposed to be so much more.

I recognize that the social media team is not the same as the executives making decisions, but holy fucking hell is it a special kind of infuriating. The network won't support the show while it airs, they won't support the crew in their attempts to add queer representation, but the second they can use the cancelled show for corporate Pride promos? Better believe they'll try to take credit for being progressive and queer-friendly, never mind how many queer artists and workers the company fucked over along the way.