Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-11-2018, 02:09 AM
 
1,717 posts, read 1,672,898 times
Reputation: 2203

Advertisements

Cancer isn't curable. Diabetes isn't curable. Some 'horrific' diseases show up later in life. Glaucoma. Lupus. Some problems are due to exposure to our environment. Like coal miners having lung problems. Smokers having emphysema. Many of the 'diseases' in later life are due to how we live our life.

Liver disease from drinking.
Kidney disease -- Most recently I read about Selena Gomez's kidney transplant.
And cancer. Some cancers are hereditary. Some can be controlled. Not all can be cured. Does this mean Angelina Jolie shouldn't have been born? Many great names like Vincent Van Gogh came from a family with mental problems. Lincoln had an inherent genetic problem that affected his growth. What would our world be like without these people?

I say no. It's up to the individual. Not up to anyone else but the parent/parents.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-12-2018, 01:05 AM
 
1,717 posts, read 1,672,898 times
Reputation: 2203
I guess I stopped the discussion.

I wanted to add that many diseases are on their way to being cured. Or managed. You don't know what may change for future generations. Like smallpox. Polio. AIDS. Think of all the research and advancement done on AIDS. Again these aren't hereditary but seeing the progress in all of these and so many others. At least diseases can be diagnosed and identified and how to manage them. So much has changed in the medical field in the last 100 years. I'm optimistic that the future will be even better, for everyone.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-13-2018, 04:06 PM
 
30,907 posts, read 32,860,195 times
Reputation: 26919
Quote:
Originally Posted by tickyul View Post
Laws against procreation by people with certain genetic-disease, nah. But I think the people who have these genetic-diseases, should really think long and hard about what they are passing-on to their potential offspring, BEFORE they make the decision about procreation.
And many, if not most OBs today strongly recommend genetic counseling when known serious genetic, inheritable conditions exist, including in children that are already born to the couple even if neither the mother nor the father has the actual issue.

So this is actually already a "thing." And it remains a choice regardless. It is pretty insane to say there should be laws against certain mentally capable (of making a choice to have sex, marry, etc.) people procreating. Come on, we all know that's a slippery slope. Many of US HERE wouldnt be here in the first place to even argue this, if such laws were in place.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-14-2018, 01:11 PM
 
Location: Pennsylvania
481 posts, read 417,290 times
Reputation: 891
They absolutely should be allowed, as opening the door to even a little bit of the opposing thought brings massive uncertainty.

Should people with schizophrenia be allowed to have children? What about familial mutations in tumor suppressor or proto-oncogenes that can lead to cancer?

Where is the line drawn here? It's easy to agree with eugenics till you find yourself on the wrong side of that line.

That being said, a form of this eugenics already is widespread in abortion. Iceland, for example, has virtually eliminated new births of down syndrome due to genetic screening.

I guess my assertion here is that if the person has reached reproductive age, they should be allowed to procreate even if they have a genetic disease. Although I understand how this can seem hypocritical, as I'm passively alright with abortions.

It's a tough subject no doubt. Adults should have the right to procreate though, simple as that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-17-2018, 12:06 AM
 
Location: THE MIDWEST
137 posts, read 100,152 times
Reputation: 439
"allowed"? Absolutely. Should they? Absolutely not. I have a genetic disease called polycystic kidney disease. Only one parent needs to have it in order to pass it on and it's a 50/50 chance your child will be born with it. That said, on my PKD forums, I see posts from women with PKD chatting about getting pregnant like it's no big deal. I think it's disgusting to KNOW that you carry a genetic disorder and to be so selfish as to have children anyway when there is a good chance that they will also get your disease. It's immoral.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-17-2018, 01:12 PM
 
924 posts, read 745,985 times
Reputation: 871
Quote:
Originally Posted by tickyul View Post
Laws against procreation by people with certain genetic-disease, nah. But I think the people who have these genetic-diseases, should really think long and hard about what they are passing-on to their potential offspring, BEFORE they make the decision about procreation.
That's about how I see it. Saying this because back when I lived in northern Arizona, we had a family in town whose two older children were healthy and "normal", but the third child was a girl with severe health/ physical issues.

The parents decided to have a fourth child, and she too, was born with severe issues. Neither she nor her older sister lived to even be a teenager, and so I've always wondered if the parents had more children after that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-17-2018, 02:21 PM
 
30,907 posts, read 32,860,195 times
Reputation: 26919
There are too many gray areas with this, though. For example, I got pregnant with my and my husband's second child before our first child was diagnosed autistic. And back then, I literally had no idea there was a genetic tie-in. Weirdly, this wasn't mentioned by the Regional Center or my child's doctor, either (unless somehow they didn't know?).

Our youngest child is loosely on the spectrum, but nowhere near as affected as his brother. He (the youngest) will not need supports when he's older. As far as we can tell, he'll grow up, get a job and contribute just like everyone else. BUT he will always have social issues and some sensory ones. "Should" we have had him? According to our elder son's future, which will involve permanent supports, people would certainly say no, but the presentation is different for every child. So how can we ever have made that call?

I mean the examples above are extremes of possibility. They are based on people electively deciding to have children who literally might die as children, with a registered, accepted very high possibility genetically. But what about the gazillion not-so-clear-cut possibilities? There are so many conditions, and so many ways to not have the perfect child. That's why there really can't be one clear-cut "law."

FTR, it pains me to write this so logically and unemotionally as I can't even imagine never having had our little guys. That's from an emotional standpoint, though. I just didn't want people to think I am some sort of monster, casually discussing whether my kids "should" have been born. That's based on the topic, not my feelings.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-20-2018, 12:19 AM
 
Location: colorado springs, CO
9,512 posts, read 6,026,871 times
Reputation: 28830
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerZ View Post
There are too many gray areas with this, though. For example, I got pregnant with my and my husband's second child before our first child was diagnosed autistic. And back then, I literally had no idea there was a genetic tie-in. Weirdly, this wasn't mentioned by the Regional Center or my child's doctor, either (unless somehow they didn't know?).

Our youngest child is loosely on the spectrum, but nowhere near as affected as his brother. He (the youngest) will not need supports when he's older. As far as we can tell, he'll grow up, get a job and contribute just like everyone else. BUT he will always have social issues and some sensory ones. "Should" we have had him? According to our elder son's future, which will involve permanent supports, people would certainly say no, but the presentation is different for every child. So how can we ever have made that call?

I mean the examples above are extremes of possibility. They are based on people electively deciding to have children who literally might die as children, with a registered, accepted very high possibility genetically. But what about the gazillion not-so-clear-cut possibilities? There are so many conditions, and so many ways to not have the perfect child. That's why there really can't be one clear-cut "law."

FTR, it pains me to write this so logically and unemotionally as I can't even imagine never having had our little guys. That's from an emotional standpoint, though. I just didn't want people to think I am some sort of monster, casually discussing whether my kids "should" have been born. That's based on the topic, not my feelings.
They didn’t know then & they still don’t.

They know of certain genes that are detected with certain variants that are found consistently in people who are Autistic. But a great deal of non-Autistic people carry these variants around as well. The genes do not cause Autism.

They already know that there is an environmental biological or chemical agent that a baby with the genetic variants must be exposed to, in order to cause the specific neuroinflammation that attacks the brain tissue which is affected in people with Autism.

They can’t predict who, with those gene variants, will develop Autism until they know what the second factor is.

Of course your sons should have been born! The world is already a better place because they are here.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-24-2018, 01:56 PM
 
Location: NY>FL>VA>NC>IN
3,563 posts, read 1,863,923 times
Reputation: 5991
I worked in genetics counseling and parents who kept nonviable pregnancies (anencephalic fetuses, holoprocencephalic fetuses, terminal trisomies, conditions sure to result in severe retardation/physical handicaps or both for example) until delivery occurred and those with two CF kids who went on to have another and another is why I left that field and instead went into research.

I have a far bigger problem with suffering -especially long term suffering as is the case with many of the genetic conditions I saw- than I do with death or with preventing a birth.

Most laypersons take the opposite view; ruled by emotion not logic.

Last edited by VexedAndSolitary; 05-24-2018 at 02:10 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-25-2018, 06:29 PM
 
20,956 posts, read 8,581,915 times
Reputation: 14048
Quote:
Originally Posted by sad_hotline View Post
They absolutely should be allowed, as opening the door to even a little bit of the opposing thought brings massive uncertainty.

It's a tough subject no doubt. Adults should have the right to procreate though, simple as that.
It's always easy to have simplistic answers to difficult questions....

But these questions get a bit more complicated if asked this way....

The cost of raising a child to age 18 is approx $250,000.
Should an adult be able to have 10 children even though they (couple, single, whatever) have no visible means of support, therefore costing other taxpayers many millions of dollars?

What if said 10 children have genetic defects that make it so THEY also are not productive ($$$-wise) and therefore we have 100 children in the next generation for you and I to pay for???

My thinking is that if most people went behind a closed door and placed a vote on this, the answer would be no.

I agree that we already practice eugenics. This is done in MANY ways....some of them quite normal

1. I always noticed in our wealthy burb that the "cheerleaders" often married "the jocks" - thereby performing selection. Of course, cheating and divorce often followed, but that's another story (and after they had kids).....

2. Most ALL pregnant women have multiple tests these days. That is Eugenics because it ends up being between the couple (or woman) and their doctor and their maker as to what to do next.

This is not a one-way or the other proposition. I support the decision in Iceland although that's not saying I would support it in a larger population like the USA. I do not support the right of, for example, those without means to have large amounts of children and spend my money for their entire lifetimes just for basic survival.

We are in the modern world. Things ARE different. We can't act like certain things are natural and god-given rights and others aren't. It often amazes me that the vast majority of Americans would support a couple having unlimited children while at the same time constantly crying about welfare, taxes and overpopulation.

Aren't these things all connected? Do we really want over a billion people? If we do, we should plan that way and start building out high speed rail, vertical cities and many other systems now.

(Note - as a side issue, we have two fairly large genetic defects in our children, both being spontaneous at birth or after...one being Lupus and the other too complicated to discuss here). We pay our way and much much more. Our parents are in their 80's and 90's, so we can't claim bad seed...it's just the breaks of life).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top