Down syndrome, abortion, and genetic screening

Recently there was a stupid social media controversy about George Church and an interview on 60 Minutes. I say stupid because it seems likely many people were angry at Church’s association with Jeffrey Epstein, but the conversation somehow ended up mostly focusing on the “eugenics” of a potential “dating app” using DNA (at last in some quarters).

Well, Antonio Regalado was on it, and he came back with this: Here are some actual facts about George Church’s DNA dating company. What this app seems to be is a souped-up consumer version of carrier screening. This isn’t controversial, many people get carrier screening routinely now (I’ve had it done). The Ashkenazi Jewish community has famously had a registry for Tay Sachs for decades.

Nevertheless, some people still worried about a “slippery slope.” To me, this whole discussion is very bizarre in light of the widespread abortion of fetuses which come back with positive tests for Down syndrome right now. These screens are so ubiquitous that the majority of the women who receive them in the United States are now under the age of 35. Maternal age trends support uptake of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) in the low-risk population:

There was a significant increase in the proportion of specimens submitted by patients under 35, from 47.3% in 2014 to 60.3% in 2017 (Chi-square test, p < .001).

Ariosa Diagnostics alone received over 900,000 samples over a 4-year period from 65 countries. Some nations, such as Denmark, now have universal screening for Down syndrome.

What’s the point of reviewing all this? It’s that we already live in an age where someone’s genetic characteristics determined whether they will live or not live. From what I can gather the usual types who are alarmed by “eugenics” of a dating app that seems to be a glammed-up consumer carrier screen engage in benign neglect of noninvasive prenatal screening, and its consequences. Though there are many Down syndrome babies being born today, taking into account a higher median maternal age the number is probably around 30% or so lower than would otherwise be the case (in nations with universal screening it’s a much larger drop).

When “test-tube babies” became much more common, ethical worries faded. We don’t talk about the issue now. Many people from professional backgrounds made recourse to in vitro fertilization (I know many people personally who had to use assisted reproduction). Similarly, prenatal screening is very common among more educated professionals, who tend to delay starting a family. But, eugenics is what other people do. They’re just engaging in “planned parenthood.”

My own view on this is strongly libertarian. I believe that parents make the final decision when it comes to something so important. But we as a society can also talk about it because the line is probably going to be drawn at different places for different people. I have had pretty acrimonious tussles with the pro-life community which sees itself defending those with Down syndrome against genocide in the past, but the differences were clearly based on values and priors (I don’t think first and second trimester fetuses are people if you are pro-life you do).

In 2018 the General Social Survey asked if the respondent “would want to abort fetus if there were genetic defects.” It got responses from about 1,000 people. Obviously what people tell a survey is different from what they might do, but there are some notable demographic variations.

Yes, would want to abort fetus if there were genetic defects
Supports legal abortion for any reason49
No Religion45

25 thoughts on “Down syndrome, abortion, and genetic screening

  1. Such surveys just prove why American “conservatives” are to a large degree incapable of making a difference: They are irrational and superstitious all too often.

    Even in many right wing groups “new Christian” ideas fused with cultural Marxist ideology and they are no longer aware of it.

    The Jewish religion is functional insofar, as it doesnt create hindrances for its followers where it really matters. Like if its about family planning.

    For Christians the same cant be said, for 2000 years actually. Christianity worked the best when it was altered to fit the needs of a people. Like after the Fall of Rome, the Christian fanatics had to compromise with the “Barbarian” warlords and the more reasonable clergy presented itself as “educated state builders” and culture bearers. What they even were in the given context, after the antique non-Christian culture was largely erradicated.

    But Christianity with all its good and bad aspects, I see both, started as a disruptive doomsday religion which didnt care too much for the real world at all.

    It had to adapt when doomsday was not coming, but these are the roots and you can still smell it in every aspect of the theology. Even the best are often tainted somewhat, somehow and this can be exploited.

    So did Liberalism and Marxism. They exploited the weak spots in the occidental armour.

    And nothing is better to show this than this debate. First and foremost, what are people living for? Does it matter who they are and what they can achieve at all in this world?
    What makes people happy, gives them satisfaction and improves their individual life?

    Now you can ask this question for not born yet, potential humans in three ways, look at it from three perspectives:
    1st: Community
    2nd: Parents
    3rd: Children

    Now from a rational perspective, if you can count two, should realise that its in the best interest of the community and parents if they get healthy children. The more potential the children have, the more they could achieve and rely upon themselves, contribute to the community and family, the better.

    So only the third remains from a purely individualistic perspective. But like you said, this relates to when a person is actually existing. And the defining moment for a human is consciousness. If you are very basal, its the ability to feel and react on an at least mammal level.

    That’s completely out of question for the first months of life if you don’t Fall back on “magic” and religious concepts of human life. And even if you do, its specific to some religions, especially Christianity.

    If you can’t think straight for your own family and local community, how can you ever defend yourself from something much more complex as Cultural Marxism and Capitalist corruption, control by the Oligarchy?

    Answer is they can’t, because their cultural defense has more holes than it offers protection from exploitation and manipulation.

    You rather believe in a Communist conspiracy and see sin, rather than looking at the systemic weaknesses.

    And this naivety being exploited in the United States, left and right alike.
    Christian conservatives which care more for the abortion of drug babies than their own demography, Cultural Marxist lemmings which think they make the World a better place with identity politics, the destruction of Europeans and “the patriarchat” while leaving the Financial Capitalism unchecked.

    And these too, extreme Christians and extreme Cultural Marxists are the main opponents of abortion and selection for genetic improvement.

    This is, quite obviously, no coincidence at all. Because both propagate irrational moral concepts which actually don’t care for the real world as it is. They live in a fantasy bubble!

    And they believe in an absurd form of “equality” for which only the religious or pseudo-religious “moral compass” decides whos good or not. They even love dysfunctionality for its own sake, because this is supposed to be the “real love”, like in Christ, without ulterior, ultimately Egoist interests.

    And because of their unbelievable naivety they are both so easy to trick. Since they care more for attitudes and atmosphere than real world issues, they are easy to satisfy by corrupted politicians which are hypocrites! It suffices to “pray with them”, the politically correct Mob demands the same… and do some nonsense for appeasement.

    But they are both hopeless, what do you want to achieve with this? And its really different from European Christian or Leftist movements of the past which had some substance at least.

    This kind of irrational politics and life choices is good for the systems Oligarchy, because its just distracting. The electorate can have petty disputes about such beliefs.

    Now I for sure don’t want the Plutocrat new order, but Christian, Islamist or Cultural Marxist fanatism (elements of CM being used by te Oligarchy for social engineering since decades) is for sure not the better alternative.

    Since many think the same way, the Oligarchy will try its best to prevent Amy rational debate about the Future of Western societies and keep up this heated debates led by irrational fringe groups.

    I for myself would use every method to prevent genetic defects in my offspring. My only problem was with invasive methods, because if after all non-invasive methods, including NIPT, chances for a major deficit were much lower than the risk of an amniocentesis doing damage, I couldn’t justify it for myself.

    So I’m all for non-invasive methods being improved and taken to the next level. What follows will be repair and improvement, one way or another, but that should be up to state control in the sense of whats allowed and what not. State controlled and sponsored, but free choice for the parents to what they want to apply.

    What’s definitely not good, relates to the American Capitalist Oligarchy, would be wild West methods with dangerous things being done with genetic manipulation and/or improvements only for the elite which can afford it and define probably even bad traits (like specific psychopathy) to improve their offsprings dominance in society.

    That could become a nightmare, but since gene editing tools become easier to get, hard to control even with good will.
    But the greatest threat comes with bioterrorism anyway. People will develop genetically modiified viruses as weapons.

    That’s a real serious threat. Any human individual or animal which “went wrong” can never pose a threat like that, yet people feel more threatened by the idea of “perfect humans”, whatever they have in mind when saying that. Talking about irrational people with their minds twisted by propaganda…

  2. My cousin’s fetus tested positive for Downs Syndrome. She refused to abort and so her husband left her over it (though tbh I think he was just looking for any excuse).
    Anyway, it turned out to be an error because the boy was born normal and healthy. In fact he’s overly precocious.

  3. @Jason: By amniocentesis? Because the usual procedure for us would have been like:
    – ultrasound and blood screening
    – NIPT
    – Chorionbiopsy/Amniocentesis
    – 2nd Amniocentesis and ultrasound professional opinion to be sure
    – Consider abortion

    Always if the test before would have raised suspicion/being positive for any kind of serious genetic defect.

    If I would have ever let a healthy child of mine getting aborted because of a false positive, that would have hit me very hard. Would have never wanted that to happen and prevent it if anyhow possible.

    So I would try very hard,
    do everything I can to be sure about the diagnosis. Its very bad if the false diagnosis led to the break up, but I can relate to the decision. I hope he takes care of the boy, because I would for one mine. It was just a mistake after all.

  4. Even in many right wing groups “new Christian” ideas fused with cultural Marxist ideology and they are no longer aware of it.

    Wow, that Cultural Marxism is everywhere–like Satan.

  5. when a person is actually existing. And the defining moment for a human is consciousness.

    But what if it’s false consciousness? The Red Queen knew what to do.

  6. There is no question that the public sees one thing in clinical genetic testing and counseling for conceiving couples, and a completely different thing in the idea of genetic screening of dates. Despite the obvious (for us) fact that the two are largely the same.

    So the real question is, what does the public mis-perceive so drastically in the 2nd idea? We have two important clues, the words “eugenics” (banning reproduction of people who in all likelihood would have born healthy children) and “racism” (rejecting the genetically dissimilar and impure)

    My guess is that people imagine that some applicants will be completely rejected from dating because of their clinical genetic makeup. Indeed, George Church didn’t bother to explain that being a carrier for a recessive condition doesn’t shrink one’s pool of potential dates by more than a few percentage points. Neither did he mention that PGD and NPT are alternative (albeit expensive) ways to take care of the problems of carrier couples. He didn’t mention that his proposal doesn’t include dominant traits (this probably explains the ire of activists like Andrea Downing who knows DNA well but is primarily concerned about dominant mutations). He didn’t quite explain the disclosure process (and there were instances in this country of discriminating against carriers of recessive diseases, some but not all of them were taken care of by the GINA law which is also not discussed).

    As to racism, most people know by now that DNA is a way to validate (or dispel) one’s ethnic purity. It is the #1 selling point of consumer genetics, discovery of one’s ethnic roots. It is already widely exploited by the racists for the proof of belonging. George Church hasn’t explained that his proposal doesn’t screen people on ethnic identity and purity, but we have to assume that the public believes that it will be a part of the screen, because that’s what they were told about DNA testing in general.

  7. “we already live in an age where someone’s genetic characteristics determined whether they will live or not live.”

    Sort of. In ages past, children born with Down died more quickly, and more frequently than normal children.

  8. To me psychological characteristics are very interesting, because the general health and ethnicity can be seen anyway. I personally can’t stand some personality traits and don’t want my children to have it.
    That might become, at some point, much more interesting than it is now, because the knowledge expands.

    Like a male which is notoriously unfaithful, aggressive, criminal, violent, loud, psychopathic, doesnt like children and has no emotional responsibility for them etc.
    Generally speaking whether a male/female can be a trustworthy partner and parent. So I would love if my daughters could use such means.

    We all know there is a lot of environmental factors involved, but sooner or later, a large portion will be proven to be genetic.
    And some attitudes are much harder to evaluate at the start of a relationship than intelligence, health or ethnicity obviously, which are all rather easy to asses statistically (exceptions).

    The rest is genetic counseling more than anything else.

    People are afraid, especially the dumb and not self-reflexive ones, of what the tests might say about them.
    But so far this is not fully unjustified because of the limited knowledge we can use for an evaluation.

    I read a lot of studies on genetic variants which ended up with completely contradictory interpretations of the same allel!

    Imagine someone tells you, that you are too cold harded to be a good father because of an erroneous interpretation of a premature study which didnt get it right.

    There are people which don’t want a partner because of the “wrong” zodiac sign!
    People talk about race, but most make far reaching decisions about partnerships for the smallest and most stupid reasons all the time. Especially in our individualised, hedonist and promiscuous society.

    So getting a mark on your profile is unwanted, even more so if its undeserved. That’s like prenatal testing about reliable results also.
    If people judge you, it should be at least about what you really are and not based on a distorted interpretation of the data.

    Even then the system matters, because the Oligarchy might pathologise people which are in opposition to them.

    Like in some American studies with an obvious bias which just considered “happy, optimistic idiots” normal. As if higher function doesnt matter. But “the healthist” are the happy slaves I guess.
    If you are the slave master, thats understandable.

    So the interpretation of the data on personality traits is a highly political thing. It says a lot about the people and society you want to have.
    This is all so clear in many American psychological studies.

  9. What people think they would do if confronted with a Down Syndrome fetus and what they actually do are two different things. As an obstetrician I saw many women and their families deal with a diagnosis of DS. Despite pro-life beliefs, Catholic faith, etc. all but one of the dozen or so women chose to abort. Any obstetrician gets used to hearing, “I don’t believe in abortion, but…”

  10. People always died because of genetic characteristics, thats the main reason and a lot of us wouldnt got adults 200 years ago.
    There was infanticide all the time, it just got more humane than it ever was.

  11. George Church hasn’t explained that his proposal doesn’t screen people on ethnic identity and purity, but we have to assume that the public believes that it will be a part of the screen, because that’s what they were told about DNA testing in general.

    the racism thing is stupid. the stats for asian males on dating apps are atrocious. most of the ppl decrying eugenics have strong same-race preferences in their own habits.

  12. @Obs “By amniocentesis?”

    To be honest I don’t know. I remember her ex telling me about it at the time, and then her, but I never thought to ask how the diagnosis was made.

    This occurred in the UK.

  13. A friend of mine has a Down Syndrome nephew that she recently described as “really smart.” I didn’t pursue the matter. A little later she mentioned that she is trying to teach him how to spell his name. He’s ten. Again, no comment from me…

  14. @Jason: Then I guess she was just screened by ultrasound (neck fold, proportions etc.) and bloodtest, which is not a secure way to go either way. If you have an extremely low risk factor by the first trimester test, you might say it is quite unlikely to have a chromosomal defect, but its not save. But many women with a bad outcome don’t proceed with chorionbiopsy/amniocenteses if they don’t want to abort anyway. So probably she refused to make it sure to begin with. Making e.g. NIPT and amniocentesis after the first positive, to get two positive by NIPT AND amnio but being not affected is highly unlikely. But I guess its possible, like its possible to win in the lottery.
    If you go for first trimester screening, NIPT and amniocentesis and all tests are positive, but the child is healthy, that’s really like a miracle or medical phenomenon.

    I heard about ultrasound mis-measurments all the time, like from one who was a doctor himself, the ultrasound professional said his daughter would be microcephalic and completely disabled, he better should abort. But he recalculated and the gyn miscalculated.

    But blood, ultrasound and double time genetic testing should be more save than giving birth. A lot of bad things can happen during labour. Its not like if you have a genetically perfect child in the womb, you can be sure you get a perfect adult son or daughter unfortunately.
    People, especially of the Marxist kind, always speak about environmental factors, as if it would be something better than genetic heritage. But most environmental factors have bigger negative than positive impacts on an individuals development. Because your genetic potential is what you get at fertilisation, it doesn’t change at all, you can’t get smarter, faster, taller or more attractive than what is written in your genome. But you can get a lot of bad or insufficient influences which make you dumber, slower, shorter or less attractive. To ruin something is almost always easier than to fix it.

    All the programs dealing with “equality” and those which despise ancestry and genetic heritage as a major factor for differences between individuals and groups of people, dismiss that. But being a mouldable blob which can be pressed in any form a horrible environment might force you into is nothing which makes me feel better at all. Even on the contrary. Because you can’t change your genes nor environment, its both working ON YOU. You can change it for others, probably, but not for yourself, because you are a product of these two factors. Nothing an individual can do will change that. You don’t control your fate or traits, whether they being determined by your genes or environment, doesn’t matter at all. It only matters for finding a solution to problems, like preventing diseases and criminal behaviour, or stimulate excellence and social cohesion. If you don’t know the cause, you can’t fix the problem. That’s why it matters.

  15. Similar to the other commentator who appears to have wondered about a compartmentalisation in people’s minds concerning the two issues of screening-and-abortion-for-Down-syndrome-etc.-fetuses and people-having-non-correct-preferences-in-dating-etc., I posited for myself a similar view on reading the article by Razib Khan but mine involved the intellectuals of the left rather than the common people themselves whom I know nothing much about, especially the people of the Western world. I thought us left might have quite carefully already decided what is acceptable eugenics-like-activity and what is not, given our penchant to try to have grand solutions for every problem. I continued further to think that perhaps to an extremely empathetic mind coupled with a bit of a god-complex such as of the leftists, people probably fall into two classes: those who can be assimilated and those who cannot. Unrestrained empathy then dictates that all the people who can be assimilated (according to some narrow, highly rational naturalistic criteria devised by the leftist mind) must be assimilated and nobody should think of doing anything to them that would be unpalatable to the leftist, AND those who cannot be assimilated should be tried to be periodically purged out of the society in as humane a manner as possible, and cent percent for the benefit of the beings purged themselves, to eliminate their inevitable suffering if and when they would be born. No limbos and purgatories. The grand engineering project. (The pure religious mind looks like it is the opposite in that they consign everything to God and let suffering people suffer (because their suffering is a test and they must pass the test after all to be able to go closer to God) and don’t develop extreme levels of empathy and most definitely not a god-complex.)

    But then Mr. Razib Khan came out and reminded me of the fact that Asian males do so atrociously in all these dating apps (probably more atrociously than expected) so probably it’s a simpler case of the left not being good at following what it preaches.

  16. A friend of mine has a Down Syndrome nephew that she recently described as “really smart.” I didn’t pursue the matter. A little later she mentioned that she is trying to teach him how to spell his name. He’s ten. Again, no comment from me…

    i worked with special ed kids in HS. a large minority of down kids were non-verbal. some of them were moderately verbal at the other extreme. so i think ‘really smart’ makes sense in that light.

  17. It will be interesting to see if all these rather ridiculous-looking first-world-problems-like things apparent to middle-class Indians like me will painfully get imported verbatim to India one day in the near future when the prosperity of India increases and its culture and religion both become more and more Westernised. As Mr. Razib Khan pointed out once before (am extremely sorry if I am mischaracterising him so badly), India is intermediate between the West and China in terms of religiosity so perhaps two types of factions – the pro-life, pro-eugenics ones, but both bit milder compared to the West, may emerge in India in the near future too.

    Classical religion itself dictates that a lot of the suffering that a soul will undergo in a given birth is mathematically decided before its birth taking into account its past actions in previous births. And coupled with the fact that murder is completely anathema to classical religion, it might follow that all souls must be allowed to be born and to suffer in a more mundane way, rather than by creating a few new types of fake semantic constructs to appease religious people and tricking them by saying stuff like “see; this is a new type of suffering I created for the being; it’s after all being killed while in the womb itself; that must be a grave new suffering itself; so your requirement of the soul living out all its karma is being satisfied”, etc. But then, many practising Hindus of at least the recent past committed female feticides without much problem so I don’t know how high an impact classical religion has on common Hindus. (In the past it probably did not have much of an impact but due to increasing Westernisation, the impact of classical religion on all Hindus will probably increase more and more.)

  18. Seeing how even seemingly simpler identifications like a potential Down Syndrome birth (simpler to me only perhaps, please try to forgive me if I am so so horribly wrong here) have chances of getting false positives, I have ever-reducing hope for people involving more complicated things, like psychopaths, sociopaths, paraphiliacs, (homosexuals), etc. in the future. (I personally have this grand vision in which I consider only religious conservatives should be allowed to be born and everyone else (definitely including me; but by that point in the future whenever it comes I will have died a more mundane death) should be humanely made to skip the world before they are born, but of course this is only a pipe dream and I am sure that this dream of mine will never come to fruition in the world.)

  19. the racism thing is stupid. the stats for asian males on dating apps are atrocious. most of the ppl decrying eugenics have strong same-race preferences in their own habits.

    They always have a convenient defense that they are using a cultural and social construct instead of a blood-biological-race 🙂 and therefore it isn’t really racist, just culture-informed. Whereas DNA is really beyond the pale.

    And in a way I agree. To qualify a mate by the ancestral content of one’s DNA is a whole different higher standard of racism. Octaroons and sh*t. The problem is that George Church’s proposed app doesn’t do any of it, but the public expects it to do it.

  20. They always have a convenient defense that they are using a cultural and social construct instead of a blood-biological-race and therefore it isn’t really racist, just culture-informed.

    yeah. tell that to my asian brothers.

  21. tell that to my asian brothers
    A Taiwanese acquaintance who grew up in the US recently married a Latina BTW. One anecdotal point as it is, it might nevertheless tell that there is a grain of truth in the (largely but not always misleading) talk about “cultural affinities” which are correlates of DNA ancestry, but by no means perfect correlates.

    Apropos DNA testing and suspect intentions, today’s WaPo has a piece claiming that pretty much all consumer DNA testing is fraught with racism and serves to further disenfranchise the oppressed 🙁

  22. I hope the person who upvoted my comments did so majorly out of compassion and their signaling of good will towards me as a fellow human, and not for the merit of the content therein, because I realise (as usual) how extremely biased it was towards a leftist perspective (that’s the one thing I have noticed, God only knows how much more misleading I potentially did (I might not have done much actual harm though, since the audience of this site are very good at detecting intellectual inferiority easily); it’s a great thing though that I usually don’t comment on this site (or at least I try not to!)). For example, I so stupidly said that pure religious people don’t develop extreme empathy when it’s just the case that they don’t have the extreme empathy of the materialistic kind and believe it or not (much more easy to believe given my track record lol), I was totally oblivious to this at the time of writing because of my strong leftist (materialistic empath) natural biases. Empathy being some type of a classical virtue is of course be present in loads and loads among religious people (probably more than everybody else) – no question about that – it’s just of the tough-love type spiritual thing in their case.

    Boy have I been noticing several other major problems in those also though (some of these I knew at the time of writing also to be honest), but let me mention those off since I am making this comment anyway. The most ridiculous thing has got to be the most wonderful superficiality and no respect for depth and detail whatsoever. If I did my day-to-day engineering work like that, I would end up becoming a bad engineer of a certain type (another type of a bad engineer is the one who lacks creativity, which I already am, and am okay with it, so no hard feelings there lol). It all had that illusion of profundity to me because it all mostly arose from deep personal feeling, and that was how it was intended to be received as too (if anybody would be interested in receiving, that is), in my defense I’d think.

    Another that obviously shows is my strong lack of a lucid natural ability to abstract beyond one dimension. Not possessing an easy capability of visualising structure, quantity, motion, etc. (mathematically challenged, that is; those study fields of mathematics that I listed above also I simply stole from Wikipedia at an older point of time; when was I ever so creative and even minimally still and thoughtful to discover such insights for myself).

    Of course the blunders in logic are so fanciful, I discover more and more – for example, would it necessarily follow that a pure leftist makes the conclusion that a being that has the potential to be harmful to society after it was born has to stay unborn and die before birth? If this conclusion was reached from the empathetic perspective, then it must be for only those categories where specimens born and gone through life before the era of eugenics felt suicide as a legitimate form of alleviation of their misery (and this is me being drastically incompetent at distilling the pure leftist: the purest pure one would perhaps viciously attack me by saying that every individual is different and we cannot make judgments about new individuals, born/unborn, based on evidence from the lives of previous individuals, though they belong to the same category, and that we are bound by the requirements of rationality (we should not lose track of his somewhat silly assumption that all individuals are so extraordinarily unique though) to do nothing but to risk granting the new individuals their life resigning ourselves to the hope that they will lead a careful life that does not harm anybody). For cases like psychopaths, for example, empathetic reasoning would not allow a leftist to make the conclusion I’d like him to make. I tend to imagine at this point that, a strong sense of requirement of the well-being of society is what is the ideal probably required here to be able to make the conclusions, and not empathy. Which I don’t know if it’s unique to a leftist or even one of his features. Sounds like a core virtue of the pragmatist (is that a thing?)? A socialist? A centrist? Or a person of the non-religious right? I have no idea. Another is possibly a hypothetical ideal of progress-for-its-own-sake and not for the sake of humanity and all human persons, and I don’t even know if there are even any people existent who advocate for such virtues. Lol! Anyway, it seems to turn out ultimately that the arguments I want somebody to make could not be made by a pure leftist after all, and instead could be made by a socialist. (See again, here, how I was totally oblivious to the dimension of collectivism vs. individualism existent to internally distinguish among leftists until I was forced to land upon a dichotomy of the socialist vs. the construct clumsily described by my term “the purest leftist” (just code for ‘the most individualist Anglo-American-type leftist’)? That there perfectly illustrates my general cluelessness and absolute limitedness of brainpower haha. So turns out that I am intellectually a goddamn socialist, after all, with respect to the thing that I care so deeply about. All the CPI(M)-sympathetic ancestors of my family would be so proud lol!

    Of course an honourable mention is the absolute lack of notice of irony (a delightfully weird one at that) in making a crude joke about Indians feeling oh-so-traumatised by discussion of “first-world problems” and then casually proceeding to declare views about the need to euthanise unborn psychopath souls, etc.- topics that probably even the first-world intellectual person with the largest workload and research grants is not considering yet. Hahahaha!

  23. There is definitely a truth in the cultural aspect, because I guarantee you that an South Asian which could pass as Latin would score better with European women if faking his ethnic identity.
    That’s not the direct result of racial-genetic distance obviously.

    Another issue is the general cultural and demographic compatibility, because we are talking mostly about male immigrants with European women.
    Especially in South Asian and generally Muslim communities, rules for the women are much more strict, which is reasonable from their perspective, but essentially much more intolerant and about self-preservation. If Europeans act that way, they are “racist”, in the other case its just anything else.

    In that sense, the numbers for white non-muslims (and not converting) having muslim Asian women as partner is for sure much lower than vice versa. This is even more about cultural affinity and even race-ancestry than in the other case, considering the attitudes of young Western women.

  24. Also, “Asian” is an imprecise term for talking about race issues, considering the continent has so much diversity. Racially it can mean anything. Like if someone says “ethnicity: US American”.
    Doesnt tell you a lot.


Comments are closed.