9 Comments
User's avatar
Viddao's avatar

This quite frankly is more disturbing than early 20th-century eugenics. Honestly, Romans giving retards to the gods is preferable to whatever hellish sci-fi dystopia we are currently living in. Also, these bugpeople are doing this without having sex. In the 1960s birth control was invented, so people could have sex without ever the possibility of creating new life. Why would you want to sterilize yourself to fornicate? Now, there is the technology to create babies in petri dishes without having sexual intercourse. Notice the pattern of separating sex from reproduction? Why is it surprising that pro-choicers are flabbergasted that pro-lifers would even dare to correlate sexual activity with reproduction?

Also, if you want your kids to have certain traits, maybe you should choose a spouse accordingly?

Expand full comment
Lon Guyland's avatar

“eliminate those deemed genetically unfit”

Sincere questions:

Can someone who is never conceived be said to have been “eliminated”? Are you able to estimate the annual number of never-conceived (which must be huge) and have you ever objected to this wholesale elimination? And in the never-conceived, what is the prevalence of disease and deformity?

What is the optimal prevalence of disease and deformity that we should aim for? Should disease or deformity be artificially induced should we fall below this optimal number?

Expand full comment
shhsgirl's avatar

Maybe you didn’t read the article. Although the human beings subject to selection have not yet been implanted, they have definitely been “conceived,” even if not by natural means.

Expand full comment
Aaron Kheriaty, MD's avatar

Correct.

Expand full comment
OldSysEng's avatar

At what point does a chosen - or discarded - "embryo" get the soul and spirit from the heavenly father? I'm not clear on that.

Expand full comment
Lon Guyland's avatar

Ok so what about the second question: How much disease and deformity is the right amount? What to be done if there’s too much or too little?

Expand full comment
shhsgirl's avatar

This is horrible.

Expand full comment
Wallfacer's avatar

I am divided on this. On one level, I like it. People have been engaging in soft eugenics forever. We have been doing this through mate selection. On the other hand, yeah….. the implications could be disastrous because perhaps mate selection is the limit to how far we should do eugenics.

Expand full comment
Therese Schroeder-Sheker's avatar

Heartsick. Thank you for letting us know Dr. Aaron. But simply heartsick. With your permission, I am going to share this with several friends who are not on Substack.

Expand full comment