Should people with genetic defects be banned from reproducing?

[2952-0-0]

Also, I would like to see whether those who vote yes support mandatory abortions for fetuses with genetic diseases.

[dazzleman]

Where would we draw the line on the definition of genetic defects?

[Jake]

If the people banned from reproducing have a high probability of passing something like HIV, sicke cell disease, or something similar, then yes they should be banned from reproduction. Your claim that holding this position is hypocritical unless we support abortion for children who have diseases does not hold water, simply because the child has already been conceived and to eliminate its life by abortion is no better than giving it a life with a debilitating disease.

[jokerman]

For diseases that will cause almost certain death for the child -yes.  As far as abortions -definitly not.

[2952-0-0]

Your claim that holding this position is hypocritical unless we support abortion for children who have diseases does not hold water, simply because the child has already been conceived and to eliminate its life by abortion is no better than giving it a life with a debilitating disease.

Why??? Doesn't this defeat your purpose that they will spread their diseases around when they reproduce? How will this rule be enforced? The only way this can be enforced is if anyone who violates this gets a mandatory abortion. You can't delete someone from the universe.

[nclib]

No. This would be a violation of civil liberties.

[Jake]

You're showing your stupid again.

Why??? Doesn't this defeat your purpose that they will spread their diseases around when they reproduce?

If reproduction can be prevented before birth, go for it. It makes no sense to deliver an equally if not worse outcome to the child.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Mandatory sterilization of the people who have the diseases/disorders.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Wrong. Look above for a way that blows the sh*t out of that argument. As for the last part, lay off the crystal meth and your posts will make sense.

[Citizen James]

I seem to recall some political bigwig somewhere a while back who was for manditory sterilization of 'inferior' peoples.

I understand that his few remaining relatives have chosen to remain chaste so that his bloodline dies out completely.  (Not that I think evil is genetic, but it is an interesting gesture given the circumstances).

[2952-0-0]

Sounds pretty Soviet, eh? Why not declare that anyone who doesn't have blue eyes and white skin has genetic defect. Why not say that anyone who isn't tall enough cannot reproduce? I mean, the guy who advocated this first and foremost was short and dark eyed and haired himself.

[Jake]

Haha, I love the distortion of my position here.

Sounds pretty Soviet, eh?

Not quite. More Nazi than Soviet, but nowhere close to either.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Because they can't die or be seriously debilitated from anything that you mentioned. Once again, stop being a total f**ckhead.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

See above when you decide to stop being a douchebag.

[Everett]

Please go to hell where you belong Jake.

[2952-0-0]

Sounds pretty Soviet, eh?

Not quite. More Nazi than Soviet, but nowhere close to either.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, having white skin, BTW, increases the chance of getting skin cancer :

You must be logged in to read this quote.

nice

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, it's also possible that those who aren't tall enough won't be eligible for the compulsory military survice that you said you supported. Hey, why not grow human beings like crops, like in Brave New World? Why all the hassle of waiting nine full months to produce one measly baby?[/quote]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

very mature

[Ebowed]

No.  I agree with nclib that it is a violation of civil liberties.

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

This question is to broad. I vote no. If the defects both parents had were so severe that the child would be born dead, etc. Then I vote, yes.

[A18]

Jake has the right idea here.

[opebo]

If the people banned from reproducing have a high probability of passing something like ... a debilitating disease.

Actually Jake, the most common debilitating disease in our heirarchical society is poverty.  While I would never dream of banning anyone from reproducing, I would heartily recommend against it for the working class. 

[The Constitarian]

This sounds a lot like killing people for being different.  It seems like someone did that before.  What was his name?   Oh I remember it was Hitler.

[Peter]

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

My definition of a serious inheritable disability/genetic defect 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.

Obviously its a gross violation of the Constitution, but in the words of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes: "Three generations of imbeciles are enough." At least from a purely philosophical point of view, I can support it.

[Inverted Things]

This question is to broad. I vote no. If the defects both parents had were so severe that the child would be born dead, etc. Then I vote, yes.

I agree with States on this one: the question is much too vague. However, I am having considerable difficulty trying to find a single example for which I would answer yes.

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

My definition of a serious inheritable disability/genetic defect 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.

Obviously its a gross violation of the Constitution, but in the words of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes: "Three generations of imbeciles are enough." At least from a purely philosophical point of view, I can support it.

Let's say that it is determined that an outwardly normal person is carrying a defect that will appear in 85% of his/her children. Should this person be allowed to reproduce?

[Jake]

Well, having white skin, BTW, increases the chance of getting skin cancer :

Which is not a seriously debilitating inheritable disease. Nice to see you passed on everything else though. You lost this one pal.

[A18]

Obviously its a gross violation of the Constitution...

How so? I'm not really sure that much can be said.

[2952-0-0]

Which is not a seriously debilitating inheritable disease. Nice to see you passed on everything else though. You lost this one pal.

Why have people reproduce? Why do two people have to get laid and then wait for nine agonizing months to get a single measly baby? Why can't we reengineer the human race so that we will all be hermaphrodites instead of being classified into Male or Female? It's far less painful.

[Jake]

Why have people reproduce?

Because we'd die out if we didn't.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's all that can happen to have a child at the present.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Hemaphrodites cannot reproduce.

[DanielX]

Please go to hell where you belong Jake.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

That's what the Bilderberger's WANTED you to say, Everett! You probably originally wanted to give Jake some smiley-faces, but the mind-control rays from the moon are EFFECTING YOU! THE BILDERBERGERS ARE ALTERING YOUR PERSONALITY!!!!!

[2952-0-0]

Why have people reproduce?

Because we'd die out if we didn't.

We definitely have technology to "grow" people like crops now, like in THE Matrix. What's to stop that from actually happening now?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's all that can happen to have a child at the present.[/quote]See above. We already have test-tube babies, cloning, stem-cell research, etc. What's to stop humans from becoming crops?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Hemaphrodites cannot reproduce.
[/quote][/quote]
Funny, since worms can reproduce.