Welcome to INTJ Forum

This is a community where INTJs can meet others with similar personalities and discuss a wide variety of both serious and casual topics. If you aren't an INTJ, you're welcome to join anyway if you would like to learn more about this personality type or participate in our discussions. Registration is free and will allow you to post messages, see hidden subforums, customize your account and use other features only available to our members.

Seablue

Moderators
  • Content count

    22,005
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Seablue

  • Rank
    Core Member

Personality

  • MBTI
    INTJ
  • Enneagram
    5
  • Brain Dominance
    Balanced

Converted

  • Homepage
    https://intjforum.com/topic/155753-otterwatch/
  • Location
    France
  • Gender
    Female
  • Personal Text
    beauty the brave, the exemplary,
    blazing open
  1. In response to this and the PM: you don't seem to get my qualms with your argument. Yes, the poor have access to birth control and abortion. So do the rich - more easily. The healthy do as well as the sick, the pretty and the ugly, etc. The State also gives money to parents - to poor parents especially. Everyone has access to sexual education. Nobody's reproductive rights are determined through race or social class or any such characteristic. And fertility treatments are by definition not for completely healthy people... So sure you can nitpick about this or that that the government does but is there any coherent, efficient effort to enact eugenics? No. And what is outrageous is to claim that when individuals make choices people have made for millenias, like having an healthy child or aborting an unwanted pregnancy, an eugenics forefather is applauding. Maybe inflammatory is a better word.
  2. Awesome. You just gave a «definition» of eugenics that could also define tomatoes and birds. What is a tomato? Not nazism. Brilliant. Also, I was well aware, thanks. I'm going going further down the E7 rabbit hole of outrageous claims and evasion.
  3. And conveniently you are not giving the correct definition. No they don't. I've seen how hysterical white supremacists get about white women having abortions, no matter her class or her wishes. (Unless the father was not white of course.) You are making it sound like eugenists = anti-natalists. Riiight, and every time you have gay sex, Satan rejoices
  4. Just so you know I corrected the post. Also I am going to cut short to this because I can feel that this is going to become tedious. Aborting an unwanted child is not in itself eugenics. If a woman aborts because she wants to be child free, or she is poor, or her life is in danger, she is not aborting to improve the genes of the population. And like I said abortion vastly precedes the notion of heritable traits or genes. In fact even I would argue that even if she aborts because of a genetic defect, unless improval of the population is her purpose, it is not eugenics.
  5. The only thing uncomfortable in this is falsehood. Like I said, when it comes to PP, your statement is misleading. Just because Sanger believed in (pre-WW2) eugenics does not mean it was the purpose behind PP. And it's a flat out lie when it comes to abortion in general, which existed long before humans knew about heredity, or genes, or had diagnostic tools to examine a fetus inside the womb.
  6. As in...?
  7. I hope the smiley is here to indicate that this is a joke.
  8. Of course abortion would be a tool of eugenics. It's calling it the "true" purpose behind abortion, something that has been practiced since Antiquity at least, because for as long as there have been pregnancies there have been some unwanted pregnancies, that I find absurd.
  9. Pretty sure that's a lie when it comes to PP, and certain it's one for abortion in general.
  10. For what it's worth, I think when (if) the kids learn about this, although it may be tough to learn things got ugly between their parents, they'll be happy to know you fought to maintain this relationship.
  11. No, regular books really. It's just that my father took them because "I'm the one who read them" and my mother was angry because "of course I won't ever be able to read them now if you take them" and some of them were gifts that had been made to her personally by other people. She has claimed some back over the years though. As for your friend, that sucks. That's the sort of situation where splitting assets or even possibly alimony would be reasonable imo. Better plan now than have it happen in a panic later.
  12. Pretty sure they need to a talk to a professional (lawyer?) and bring them the specifics of their marital/financial situation. Since "it depends" like you said, any answer here isn't going to be indicative of how it might go for this person. [For the anecdote, the biggest drama during my parents' divorce was that my father took almost all the books.]
  13. It's not «advice». It's just the type of dismissal that those who advocate for treatment of homosexuals deserve.
  14. Ill-ease? Ok. Violence? I don't think so.
  15. Aaaand we have a winner here.