?

Log in

No account? Create an account
"The MPs also suggest there should no longer be a need to consider… - Sally's Journal
March 24th, 2005
10:10 am

[Link]

Previous Entry Share Next Entry

(13 comments | Leave a comment)

Comments
 
[User Picture]
From:the_alchemist
Date:March 24th, 2005 12:54 pm (UTC)
(Link)
[In theory, at least] there's certainly nothing wrong with discriminating agains 'people who would be likely to be bad parents' by not letting them reproduce. But here I think that Sally was talking about 'discriminating against people with fertility problems' by only helping them to reproduce under certain conditions, whereas fertile folk are allowed to reproduce no matter how bad at bringing up children they'd be. It's not clear to me why that should be considered a 'good' form of discrimination.

I suppose it's good in that it (slightly) reduces the number of bad parents in the world, but the discrimination aspect of it is not good (though it's not exactly a great evil either). I don't think it's in the same category as the kind of 'being discrimination' you're talking about.
[User Picture]
From:romauld
Date:March 24th, 2005 01:00 pm (UTC)
(Link)
I'll admit I was indulging in an abstraction. Atreic's comment made me think of a rant I occasionally have, about the discreditation of words. "Discrimination" is one of them. Because certain types of discrimination are bad (eg. social discrimination dependent on race or gender) the word has been discredited, such that exchanging the word 'discrimination' for another words, such as (for example) 'due diligence' allows one to discredit the subject by extension.

I am, indeed, talking about something slightly different from the original post.
[User Picture]
From:the_alchemist
Date:March 24th, 2005 01:02 pm (UTC)
(Link)
*nods* I'm with you there.
Powered by LiveJournal.com