I find this post very shocking and disturbing.
If you can't figure out the problem then how will you answer the question from a person who asks -- "my father was abusive to me and my mother so should I have been aborted? ... Should I be removed from the planet now? What about my kids?"
How about the suggestion to women that seems more like direction than choice?
The point of choice is it is up to the woman to decide. Period. It is not up to anyone else to provide advice on the decision-- just to provide support and access to whatever decision she makes -- and get out of the way.
It certainly is not up to anyone to suggest that people who are alive now should have been aborted. What a horrible message to send to children who have survived abusive homes and never been abusive.
Are you planning to advance data to suggest that being abusive is genetic?
Let me be clear -- I don't think your post was intended the way it comes across. I certainly think that I probably would agree with its intent. But as it is written the result is unbelievably disturbing.
"evolutionary biology" Wow, What we need is not an evolution of any kind but a social revolution with respect to violence. Not biological evolution with the flavour of eugenics.
Sean, Daigle's partner was an extreme case as shown by his subsequent history. I reckon that most of us have some capacity for opportunistic and exploitive sexual behaviour, and that in males it is much more likely to take the form of physical threat, coercion and violence. Children of abusive parents seem more likely to abuse than others, and I expect that some of that is hereditary. I think that in most cases it's not worth worrying about for society, and I'm content to leave the decisions about reproduction to the individual, though I would much prefer that they understand the risks and feel responsible for the outcome. I'm against capital punishment for this society, and I'm happy to have a criminal justice system that can't bury its mistakes. If we were to have capital punishment for "socially alien elements" I might be in some danger myself, as I expect that Harris and Harper would consider me a dangerous radical with strong counter-revolutionary tendencies.
I think that others (including me) have the right to suggest criteria which women in general ought to consider when making the decision whether to abort. I think that society has the right to provide relevant information. I would be very dubious about government, or any individual or private body, actively influencing the individual's decision.
I am not planning to "advance data that being abusive is genetic." I believe that almost any behaviour one can name has a genetic component as well as an environmental component, and that the genetic component may or may not be decisive.
Why are you not a fish? Do you suppose that the reason is entirely environmental?
I definitely that that we should work for cultural change reducing violence against women, but I think that is a short-term affair of a few generations. I'd like us to also work on the biological substrate, though I don't expect that can ever be wholly successful.
I don't believe in revolutions. The French have barely recovered from theirs after 225 years. The Russian revolution doesn't seem to have accomplished much. The Americans made a mild revolution aimed at quicker and more efficient land theft and genocide, with the help of terrorism, arson, expropriation of property, torture and murder, and they are still lying to themselves about it. Their republic seems to be on the skids, having become a far more corrupt and authoritarian oligarchy than its founders had in mind.
If you don't understand that evolutionary biology has a determining role in human affairs, I don't think you understand much.
Forget about eugenics, the idea was as stupid and ignorant as its application.
