A while back, I made a post comparing people who solicit for designer donor eggs to Nazis. As always, art and humor can never find ways to be as awful as real life. Lookie what we have here from Sunday.
Because these are dominant physical traits. And they did specify height. Seriously...
The naturalistic fallacy requires an ethical component. When talking about what color a baby of a pair of parents should come out, it's pretty damn natural. That mothers want babies to look like they are naturally theirs is simply a statement of truth, not an ethical judgment.
Lastly, are you sure you're reading the right definition of race?
"an arbitrary classification of modern humans, sometimes, esp. formerly, based on any or a combination of various physical characteristics, as skin color, facial form, or eye shape, and now frequently based on such genetic markers as blood groups."
What makes them dominant traits? You've got a chicken/egg problem.
It is natural that people do X... used to argue "it isn't wrong that people do X"-- sounds like a naturalistic fallacy to me.
By what standards does a mother decide (or specify) that a baby looks like her own?
Right. "Blacks" are not a race. They can be arbitrarily reclassified into any number of groups, and classifying races based on skin color is something which was formerly done.
They're dominant because they're highly noticeable. People simply notice hair and eye color more than nose structure or earlobes.
Amoral and immoral are entirely different ethical statements. A mother may wish to avoid question regarding the origin of the baby so as to live a "normal" family life. Not good, not bad, just an issue she doesn't wish herself or her child to deal with.
You may be surprised when viewing official racial demographics then, since "Black or African American" is very much a racial designation.
How far away do you have to be, in good light, to spot someone's eye color?
How far away do you have to be to spot whether someone has earlobes of a particular shape or a nose of a particular shape?
You're wrong.
As regards demographics, you're wrong there as well. That isn't the definition of race you were using, or the one you presented. That form is asking after origin and self-identity (that is why there is a separate slot for 'hispanic').
Again, define: would be instructive.
eg: Race is often seen to be an arbitrary, socially constructed category. This is not to say that there are not differences between people, but that the means by which certain peoples have been distinguished, categorized and subordinated across history, are usually spurious.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
The naturalistic fallacy requires an ethical component. When talking about what color a baby of a pair of parents should come out, it's pretty damn natural. That mothers want babies to look like they are naturally theirs is simply a statement of truth, not an ethical judgment.
Lastly, are you sure you're reading the right definition of race?
"an arbitrary classification of modern humans, sometimes, esp. formerly, based on any or a combination of various physical characteristics, as skin color, facial form, or eye shape, and now frequently based on such genetic markers as blood groups."
What definition are you using?
no subject
It is natural that people do X... used to argue "it isn't wrong that people do X"-- sounds like a naturalistic fallacy to me.
By what standards does a mother decide (or specify) that a baby looks like her own?
Right. "Blacks" are not a race. They can be arbitrarily reclassified into any number of groups, and classifying races based on skin color is something which was formerly done.
no subject
Amoral and immoral are entirely different ethical statements. A mother may wish to avoid question regarding the origin of the baby so as to live a "normal" family life. Not good, not bad, just an issue she doesn't wish herself or her child to deal with.
You may be surprised when viewing official racial demographics then, since "Black or African American" is very much a racial designation.
no subject
How far away do you have to be to spot whether someone has earlobes of a particular shape or a nose of a particular shape?
You're wrong.
As regards demographics, you're wrong there as well. That isn't the definition of race you were using, or the one you presented. That form is asking after origin and self-identity (that is why there is a separate slot for 'hispanic').
Again, define: would be instructive.
eg: Race is often seen to be an arbitrary, socially constructed category. This is not to say that there are not differences between people, but that the means by which certain peoples have been distinguished, categorized and subordinated across history, are usually spurious.