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

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 07:55:09 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Forum Community
  Forum Community (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, YE, KoopaDaQuick 🇵🇸)
  People with serious inheritable disabilities should not be allowed to reproduce?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3
Poll
Question: ...
#1
Strongly Disagree
 
#2
Disagree
 
#3
Agree
 
#4
Strongly Agree
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 52

Author Topic: People with serious inheritable disabilities should not be allowed to reproduce?  (Read 14736 times)
Moooooo
nickshepDEM
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,909


Political Matrix
E: -0.52, S: 3.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: September 07, 2005, 09:16:33 PM »

Just curious what you guys think about this one.

I always have a hard time with this one.
Logged
Alcon
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,867
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: September 07, 2005, 09:18:11 PM »

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...
Logged
Max Power
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,182
Political Matrix
E: 1.84, S: -8.09

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: September 07, 2005, 09:18:35 PM »

Strongly Disagree. Do we live in f**k'n China? No.
Logged
Moooooo
nickshepDEM
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,909


Political Matrix
E: -0.52, S: 3.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: September 07, 2005, 09:20:18 PM »

The only reason I hesitate on this question is the kids.  I think about the kids involved.
Logged
Ebowed
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,597


Political Matrix
E: 4.13, S: 2.09

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: September 07, 2005, 09:21:33 PM »

Strongly Disagree.  I oppose eugenics.
Logged
dazzleman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,777
Political Matrix
E: 1.88, S: 1.59

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: September 07, 2005, 09:22:54 PM »

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.
Logged
Alcon
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,867
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: September 07, 2005, 09:25:08 PM »

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.
Logged
Storebought
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,326
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: September 07, 2005, 09:26:56 PM »

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.
Logged
Emsworth
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,054


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: September 07, 2005, 09:27:41 PM »

Strongly Disagree. The idea of prohibiting some people from reproducing is utterly repugnant to liberty.
Logged
John Dibble
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,733
Japan


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: September 07, 2005, 10:27:54 PM »

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.
Logged
MODU
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,024
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: September 08, 2005, 11:45:32 AM »


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.
Logged
??????????
StatesRights
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,126
Political Matrix
E: 7.61, S: 0.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: September 08, 2005, 12:08:22 PM »

Strongly agree. That is of course if the disability is SERIOUS as the question says.
Logged
Joe Republic
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,042
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: September 08, 2005, 12:18:11 PM »

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.
Logged
??????????
StatesRights
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,126
Political Matrix
E: 7.61, S: 0.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: September 08, 2005, 12:32:23 PM »

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?
Logged
Joe Republic
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,042
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: September 08, 2005, 12:36:09 PM »

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.
Logged
??????????
StatesRights
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,126
Political Matrix
E: 7.61, S: 0.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: September 08, 2005, 12:38:32 PM »

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.
Logged
Democratic Hawk
LucysBeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,703
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: -2.58, S: 2.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: September 08, 2005, 12:44:15 PM »

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 Wink)? 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
Logged
??????????
StatesRights
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,126
Political Matrix
E: 7.61, S: 0.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: September 08, 2005, 12:49:12 PM »

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.
Logged
Democratic Hawk
LucysBeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,703
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: -2.58, S: 2.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: September 08, 2005, 01:25:29 PM »

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
Logged
jokerman
Cosmo Kramer
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,808
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: September 08, 2005, 03:41:28 PM »

If it's something like AIDS then I would probably say yes.  I'm not sure about the question in general.
Logged
Jake
dubya2004
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,621
Cuba


Political Matrix
E: -0.90, S: -0.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: September 08, 2005, 06:51:04 PM »

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.
Logged
Joe Republic
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,042
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: September 08, 2005, 07:35:35 PM »

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?
Logged
© tweed
Miamiu1027
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,563
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: September 08, 2005, 07:43:45 PM »

Reluctantly agree.
Logged
Jake
dubya2004
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,621
Cuba


Political Matrix
E: -0.90, S: -0.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: September 08, 2005, 07:52:19 PM »

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.
Logged
Joe Republic
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,042
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: September 08, 2005, 07:58:52 PM »

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


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.055 seconds with 14 queries.