Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
December 21, 2014, 05:46:57 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Don't forget to get your 2013 Gubernatorial Endorsements and Predictions in!

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Forum Community
| |-+  Forum Community (Moderators: afleitch, Bacon King, Badger)
| | |-+  People with serious inheritable disabilities should not be allowed to reproduce?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 Print
Poll
Question: ...
Strongly Disagree   -19 (38.8%)
Disagree   -13 (26.5%)
Agree   -10 (20.4%)
Strongly Agree   -7 (14.3%)
Show Pie Chart
Total Voters: 49

Author Topic: People with serious inheritable disabilities should not be allowed to reproduce?  (Read 6540 times)
Jake
dubya2004
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18731
Cuba


Political Matrix
E: -0.90, S: -0.35

View Profile
« Reply #25 on: September 08, 2005, 08:03:00 pm »
Ignore

You learn something everyday
Logged
Peter
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6065


Political Matrix
E: -0.77, S: -7.48

View Profile
« Reply #26 on: September 09, 2005, 01:09:11 pm »
Ignore

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.

Except in areas such as Africa where people actually have to be capable of surviving to survive, natural selection does not really occur in the human race anymore.

Reluctantly agree since some form of selection is necessary to ensure our survival as a species.

My definition of a serious inheritable disability is the following:
1. A disability that has an 80% or greater chance of being inherited.
2. A disability that will place a severe burden on the state/healthcare services in caring for the offspring. By severe, I mean near constant medical procedures to keep them alive and/or a substantially reduced intelligence (and I'm talking much lower than Naso/Josh22 levels here) that means that the state/healthcare services must care for them for effectively their entire lives.

Before I'm asked, methods of enforcement will need to be statutory neutering, as in vasectomy or tubal ligation, preferably reversibly since we may one day be able to "cure" the disability.

Jake, a hysterectomy is not the same as tubal ligation - a hysterectomy is a major operation that involves the removal of the entire womb in most cases and is usually only performed to treat cancer these days.
Logged

Retarded babies should be fed to crocodiles.
jokerman
Cosmo Kramer
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7050
View Profile
« Reply #27 on: September 09, 2005, 04:15:44 pm »
Ignore

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.

Except in areas such as Africa where people actually have to be capable of surviving to survive, natural selection does not really occur in the human race anymore.

I would completely agree.  At our techinological level, genetic diseases won't disapear natural.  As far as the ones that are life threatening and could cause the potentional offspring to die young anyway, I would think it better to prevent that from happening.
Logged
Grad Students are the Worst
Alcon
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 29691
United States


View Profile
« Reply #28 on: September 09, 2005, 05:45:21 pm »
Ignore

The number of people posting that agree is much lower than on the poll.

Anyone want to step up here?
Logged

n/c
Ebowed
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16561
Australia


Political Matrix
E: -8.32, S: -9.30

View Profile WWW
« Reply #29 on: September 09, 2005, 05:46:29 pm »
Ignore

Retarded babies should be fed to crocodiles.
The sad thing is, I'm sure some of our eugenics supporters will agree.
Logged

A tidal wave of healthcare has swept across coal country. 
Grad Students are the Worst
Alcon
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 29691
United States


View Profile
« Reply #30 on: September 09, 2005, 05:58:09 pm »
Ignore

Retarded babies should be fed to crocodiles.
The sad thing is, I'm sure some of our eugenics supporters will agree.

I'm being a bit sarcastic, of course. However, I don't see why some drooling/screaming retard who can only run into walls deserves their own personal tutor and an education. A disgusting waste of money, if you ask me. They don't need an education to drool around their parents' house for the rest of their lives.

Education helps them not be drooling/screeming, I suppose.
Logged

n/c
Grad Students are the Worst
Alcon
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 29691
United States


View Profile
« Reply #31 on: September 09, 2005, 06:00:25 pm »
Ignore

Retarded babies should be fed to crocodiles.
The sad thing is, I'm sure some of our eugenics supporters will agree.

I'm being a bit sarcastic, of course. However, I don't see why some drooling/screaming retard who can only run into walls deserves their own personal tutor and an education. A disgusting waste of money, if you ask me. They don't need an education to drool around their parents' house for the rest of their lives.

Education helps them not be drooling/screeming, I suppose.

What are you talking about?

"I'm being a bit sarcastic, of course. However, I don't see why some drooling/screaming retard who can only run into walls deserves their own personal tutor and an education."

I've worked with profoundly autistic kids in school, and the point is not to educate them but to civilise them because their parents can't do that with them all day at home.
Logged

n/c
patrick1
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7744


View Profile
« Reply #32 on: September 09, 2005, 07:47:44 pm »
Ignore

Vehemently disagree.

Who are we to pre-judge and determine the value of a human life?

A person like Mattie Stepanek is never allowed to be born while we collectively fawn over the prowess of an egotistical, pampered athelete on the field of play?? 

Mattie Stepanek exhibited real courage and wisdom in his short life.  He saw the beauty in this world and offered a message of peace and hope. 

 
Logged
IDS Judicial Overlord John Dibble
John Dibble
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18786
Japan


View Profile
« Reply #33 on: September 09, 2005, 08:33:41 pm »
Ignore

I've already replied, but still, I just have to say this: Strongly Agree, opebo's parents definitely should not have been allowed to reproduce. Wink
Logged

Citizen James
James42
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2554


Political Matrix
E: -3.87, S: -2.78

View Profile
« Reply #34 on: September 10, 2005, 03:08:22 am »
Ignore

ALS has a genetic component.

I don't know what opinion others here may have of Lou Gherig or Steven Hawking, but I think they have made decent contributions to society.

Very rarely is it cut and dry, and where it is I think that it is better for the parents to be well informed enough of the risks to make the right choices for themselves, rather than being forced upon them by the government.
Logged

We do what we must
because we can.
For the good of all of us.
Except the ones who are dead.
But there's no sense crying over every mistake.
You just keep on trying till you run out of cake.
opebo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 47606


View Profile
« Reply #35 on: September 10, 2005, 04:10:31 am »
Ignore

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?

The same could be said for working class couples who reproduce.
Logged

The essence of democracy at its purest is a lynch mob

Platypus
hughento
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21488
Australia


View Profile
« Reply #36 on: September 10, 2005, 04:34:22 am »
Ignore


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.

what he said.
Logged

IDS Judicial Overlord John Dibble
John Dibble
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18786
Japan


View Profile
« Reply #37 on: September 10, 2005, 09:10:43 am »
Ignore

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?

The same could be said for working class couples who reproduce.

Opebo, just shut up already. Working isn't nearly as bad as you make it out to be. In fact, I think you're probably one of the most miserable people on this board - my evidence is that you seem to come here simply to look down on everyone else, feeding your need to feel superior, likely due to your small penis.

Oh, and by the way, psychological studies show that wealth and happiness aren't significantly linked - in fact the one thing that is linked to a general significant and long term rise in a person's happiness level is being married.
Logged

Clay
GWBFan
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3617


Political Matrix
E: 1.03, S: -6.61

P

View Profile
« Reply #38 on: September 10, 2005, 10:01:33 am »
Ignore

Would bipolar disorder and body dysmorphic disorder be considered inheritable disabilities?

Ah, I reckon so....
Logged

??????????
StatesRights
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 31302
Political Matrix
E: 7.61, S: 0.00

View Profile
« Reply #39 on: September 10, 2005, 10:45:27 am »
Ignore

Would bipolar disorder and body dysmorphic disorder be considered inheritable disabilities?

Ah, I reckon so....

The question says "SERIOUS" inheritable disabilities.
Logged
Peter
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6065


Political Matrix
E: -0.77, S: -7.48

View Profile
« Reply #40 on: September 10, 2005, 11:47:21 am »
Ignore

Would bipolar disorder and body dysmorphic disorder be considered inheritable disabilities?

Ah, I reckon so....

Neither of these conditions require an effective lifetime commitment by the state to look after the afflicted, nor is there a high chance that inheritance will take place.
Logged

Retarded babies should be fed to crocodiles.
nclib
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8903


View Profile
« Reply #41 on: September 10, 2005, 03:55:00 pm »
Ignore

Strongly disagree. It is not ethical to deny someone the right to reproduce.
Logged



[George W. Bush] has shattered the myth of white supremacy once and for all. -- Congressman Charles Rangel (D-NY)

"George Bush supports abstinence. Lucky Laura."
- sign seen at the March for Women's Lives, 4/25/04

nclib
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8903


View Profile
« Reply #42 on: September 10, 2005, 03:57:08 pm »
Ignore

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?

So should they be aborted if their disease is detected in the womb?
Logged



[George W. Bush] has shattered the myth of white supremacy once and for all. -- Congressman Charles Rangel (D-NY)

"George Bush supports abstinence. Lucky Laura."
- sign seen at the March for Women's Lives, 4/25/04

??????????
StatesRights
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 31302
Political Matrix
E: 7.61, S: 0.00

View Profile
« Reply #43 on: September 10, 2005, 07:52:09 pm »
Ignore

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?

So should they be aborted if their disease is detected in the womb?

No, I don't believe in murder or "mercy" killings.
Logged
Clay
GWBFan
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3617


Political Matrix
E: 1.03, S: -6.61

P

View Profile
« Reply #44 on: September 10, 2005, 08:00:26 pm »
Ignore

The question says "SERIOUS" inheritable disabilities.

"SERIOUS"......like homosexuality?
Logged

??????????
StatesRights
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 31302
Political Matrix
E: 7.61, S: 0.00

View Profile
« Reply #45 on: September 10, 2005, 08:18:16 pm »
Ignore

The question says "SERIOUS" inheritable disabilities.

"SERIOUS"......like homosexuality?

No, Homosexuality is more likely a mental illness although genetics may have some influence.
Logged
Max Power
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6234
Political Matrix
E: 1.84, S: -8.09

View Profile
« Reply #46 on: September 10, 2005, 08:20:42 pm »
Ignore

The question says "SERIOUS" inheritable disabilities.

"SERIOUS"......like homosexuality?

No, Homosexuality is more likely a mental illness although genetics may have some influence.
Homosexuality is proven to be a factor of genetics. There's also an interesting article I read about being gay and your finger length. I shall post it soon....once...I...find....it....
Logged
Platypus
hughento
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21488
Australia


View Profile
« Reply #47 on: September 10, 2005, 08:51:29 pm »
Ignore

Casey-homosexuality is sorta a bit of both. People are genetically predisposed towards it, but 'nurture' can trigger it.
Logged

Max Power
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6234
Political Matrix
E: 1.84, S: -8.09

View Profile
« Reply #48 on: September 10, 2005, 08:57:09 pm »
Ignore

Casey-homosexuality is sorta a bit of both. People are genetically predisposed towards it, but 'nurture' can trigger it.
Yeah, I know. Just let me dig for that article.....
Logged
Max Power
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6234
Political Matrix
E: 1.84, S: -8.09

View Profile
« Reply #49 on: September 10, 2005, 09:12:46 pm »
Ignore

A finger on sexuality

Finger length may be an indication of sexual orientation, a controversial study has shown.
Scientists from California found that lesbian women have a greater difference in length between their ring finger and index finger than straight women do.

The same pattern was also found for homosexual men - but only when the researchers looked at those males that had several older brothers.

The scientists from the University of California at Berkeley were testing a theory that higher levels of androgen - male sex hormones - in the womb influence both finger length and sexual orientation.

They did this by looking at the hands of 720 men and women on the streets of San Francisco. The volunteers had their fingers measured and were asked questions about their sexual orientation and the number of older brothers and sisters in the family.

In women, the ring finger and index finger tend to be about the same length. In men, however, the index finger is usually the shorter of the two digits.

'Masculine' pattern

What the study showed was that lesbian women also tended to have the more "masculine" arrangement - that is, they had shorter index fingers.

But the ratio of finger sizes in men was more complicated. Comparisons between all men showed no differences. Only gay men with several older brothers had an unusually "masculine" finger ratio - in other words, they had significantly shorter index fingers.

Having a large number of older brothers had previously been established as a factor predisposing men to homosexuality, and like finger length reflects prenatal androgen exposure.

Homosexual men without older brothers had finger length ratios indistinguishable from heterosexual men, indicating that factors other than hormones - such as genetic influences - also contribute to sexual orientation.

"The results in men are more complicated but also more interesting," Dr Marc Breedlove, one of the researchers, told the BBC. This is because they suggest younger brothers are being exposed to higher levels of androgen in the womb than their elders.

Womb 'memory'

"We think it is inescapable that the mother's body is remembering how many sons she has carried before, and somehow she is then increasing the amount of androgen that each subsequent son sees before birth. So the fascinating questions are: where is the memory being stored in the mother's body and what is she doing to change amount of androgen that each subsequent son sees."

The Berkeley study has been published in Nature. Scientists in the UK have given it a cautious reception. They say far more work is required to back up some of the ideas contained in the research.

"I think this is a possibility," said Dr Richard Sharpe, of the human reproductive science unit at Edinburgh University. "But no-one has actually measured the levels of androgens in foetuses or the womb - you can imagine it is difficult to do - so this is all speculation. It may be informed speculation, but I think when we get on to a subject as touchy as sexual orientation we need to clearly define what is speculation and what is fact."

Dr Sharpe said animal studies had shown how female sex hormones could affect sexual differentiation in the brain and regulate sexual behaviour, but this had still to be proved in humans. It could well be different, he said.

Link
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines