People with serious inheritable disabilities should not be allowed to reproduce?

[nick]

Just curious what you guys think about this one.

I always have a hard time with this one.

[Grad Students are the Worst]

Strongly disagree.

The government should not regulate something like this!  It is beyond reasonable scope.  What, do we prosecute them for assault for having a kid?  Do we establish a Department of Reproductive Monitoring?

Ick, ick, ick...

[Max Power]

Strongly Disagree. Do we live in f**k'n China? No.

[nick]

The only reason I hesitate on this question is the kids.  I think about the kids involved.

[Ebowed]

Strongly Disagree.  I oppose eugenics.

[dazzleman]

Ambivalent.

Philosophically, I'd say the government has no right to limit reproduction.

Practically, if the inheritable disability is really serious, like severe mental retardation, and the disability will not only be passed on, but the parent(s) is/are incapable of caring for offspring due to the disability, then it would seem kinder to prevent reproduction.  But I still don't think it can be done.

Now as for crack-addicted unwed welfare mothers who keep popping out babies that they neglect and abuse......tie their f**king tubes.

[Grad Students are the Worst]

Well, if the disease means they are capable enough to reproduce without it being rape, it can't be that serious.  That is a consideration.

[Storebought]

Disagree.

Most inheritable disabilities are recessive-linked traits. Just because the present generation is afflicted doesn't imply that they will have diseased children.

Then again, many serious genetic disabilities cause sterility in any case.

[Emsworth]

Strongly Disagree. The idea of prohibiting some people from reproducing is utterly repugnant to liberty.

[IDS Judicial Overlord John Dibble]

Disagree.

Most inheritable disabilities are recessive-linked traits. Just because the present generation is afflicted doesn't imply that they will have diseased children.

Then again, many serious genetic disabilities cause sterility in any case.

I think this post sums up things pretty well. In most cases like this, I would vote 'Strongly Disagree', but I say Disagree simply because in certain cases those disabilities are mental, putting the disabled in the mental state of a child, so someone having sex with them would be somewhat equivalent to child molestation.

[MODU]

I disagree, but not strongly.  I think potential parents need to understand the risks they take by reproducing.  Their kid might come out completely healthy with no signs of a disability.  On the other hand, the kid could be so sick that he/she dies within a matter of weeks or lives such a miserable life because they can't function.  Of course, those are the extreme ends of possibility . . . but something that must be considered.

Fortunately, our understanding of the human body is growing rapidly each year, and we can now improve the lives of those who are disabled.  Maybe one of these days, we'll actually be able to reverse the genetic defects all together.

[??????????]

Strongly agree. That is of course if the disability is SERIOUS as the question says.

[Joe Republic]

I really don't care if they want to reproduce or not - it's not up to me or the government to decide.

For the people who agree with the statement, if you're worried that the inheritable diseases will lower the quality of the gene pool or somesuch, you have little to worry about.  Natural selection will eventually filter out these diseases.

[??????????]

I really don't care if they want to reproduce or not - it's not up to me or the government to decide.

For the people who agree with the statement, if you're worried that the inheritable diseases will lower the quality of the gene pool or somesuch, you have little to worry about.  Natural selection will eventually filter out these diseases.

I'm not necessarily saying it's the governments role to prevent such things but its definately a strong personal belief of mine. Why should two people who themselves are suffering from some crippling disease reproduce and create another human who will be born in suffering or suffer shortly after birth? Is that fair to put a new life into the world who will do nothing but suffer?

[Joe Republic]

You're correct in saying it's not fair on that child, because it's not fair in the slightest.  But like I said, natural selection will eventually put a stop to that particular bloodline's continuation.

[??????????]

You're correct in saying it's not fair on that child, because it's not fair in the slightest.  But like I said, natural selection will eventually put a stop to that particular bloodline's continuation.

Thats why this test is so flawed. You could give like 4 different answers to the same question on each choice.

[Democratic Hawk]

I think this is just about the most dilemnifying question on the compass

I can understand the rationale for not allowing people with serious inheritable diseases to reproduce - but what inheritable diseases?

Are we talking about heriditary neurological diseases, like Huntington's Disease (where children have a 50-50 chance of inheriting it if one parent is afflicted), or some genetic predisposition to developing cancer (in which case, maybe I ought not to have come along )? What about socio- or psychopathological disorders, if they, indeed, do have a genetic basis?

But despite understanding any preventative rationale, I disagree. Is it not a matter of choice whether to have children or not regardless of any consequences

I agree with Nick, it's not the easiest question to answer

Dave

[??????????]

Are we talking about heriditary neurological diseases, like Huntington's Disease (where children have a 50-50 chance of inheriting it if one parent is afflicted),

That runs in my family as well and is what killed all my grandfathers & his brothers other siblings. Their were about 12 siblings if I recall and only my grandfather and his brother never got Huntingtons. A genetic counselor told me I'd never have to worry about getting it though I'm not sure whether to believe her or not.

[Democratic Hawk]

Are we talking about heriditary neurological diseases, like Huntington's Disease (where children have a 50-50 chance of inheriting it if one parent is afflicted),

That runs in my family as well and is what killed all my grandfathers & his brothers other siblings. Their were about 12 siblings if I recall and only my grandfather and his brother never got Huntingtons. A genetic counselor told me I'd never have to worry about getting it though I'm not sure whether to believe her or not.

From what I've read unless it affects your parents you're OK. One of your great-grand parents must have had it and their children had a 50-50 chance of inheriting the gene and, therefore, developing the disease at some stage

The cancer thing in my family is not something I worry about. My dad was one of seven (he was the middle one) and he lost his two youngest sisters to cancer: one died from leukaemia aged 13 and the other aged 10 from a brain tumour. His younger sister has had bowel cancer twice. My dad had metastatic biliary cancer and died in March this year. It's probably not genetic since they were all different primary cancers

Dave

[jokerman]

If it's something like AIDS then I would probably say yes.  I'm not sure about the question in general.

[Jake]

Obvious answer is Strongly Agree if you use common sense. Banning people from producing children with very high chances of having sickle cell disease or hemophilia is plain and simple common sense. Get it done and screw all you want, adopt if you want kids.

[Joe Republic]

Obvious answer is Strongly Agree if you use common sense. Banning people from producing children with very high chances of having sickle cell disease or hemophilia is plain and simple common sense. Get it done and screw all you want, adopt if you want kids.

How do you propose such a ban be enforced?

[© Tweed the Younger]

Reluctantly agree.

[Jake]

Obvious answer is Strongly Agree if you use common sense. Banning people from producing children with very high chances of having sickle cell disease or hemophilia is plain and simple common sense. Get it done and screw all you want, adopt if you want kids.

How do you propose such a ban be enforced?

By identifying those with the inheritable disease and giving the males a vasectomy and the females a hysterectomy or something similar.

[Joe Republic]

Obvious answer is Strongly Agree if you use common sense. Banning people from producing children with very high chances of having sickle cell disease or hemophilia is plain and simple common sense. Get it done and screw all you want, adopt if you want kids.

How do you propose such a ban be enforced?

By identifying those with the inheritable disease and giving the males a vasectomy and the females a hysterectomy or something similar.

I didn't realize you support statutory eugenics.