Should people with certain genetic diseases be allowed to procreate (drug, highway)
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.
Wrong. I do know. Not a chance! Not a chance in hell. What you are talking about takes thousands of years. 10's of thousands. We haven't got that long.
But that's what I'm talking about. 10 thousand years is nothing, and I stand by that statement. Remove yourself from you limited scope.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leisesturm
We haven't got that long.
Well, you might be right there... but it's probably something bigger than genetic disease. In fact, "genetic disease" is all that life has known. I think it's done okay so far.
One more thing. The genome can silence its own genes.
Last edited by Haksel257; 11-06-2017 at 07:22 PM..
But where would you draw the line? Eugenics is really a terrible concept. The Nazi's took it too extremes, but even in a more sane world, the concept of genetic engineering is heavily swayed by government policies. If you have green eyes, fair skin and red hair then you are statistically more likely to have issues with skin cancers. So should we stop redheads from procreating? It's a very slippery slope. What about Alzheimers? Maybe there is a genetic link, but in this case it might only come to play in the last 5-10 years of someone life. Should we deny someone 60 years of quality life because they might be more prone to Alzheimers? What about genetic conditions that are not 100% but some roll of the dice? Let's stop that by prohibiting procreation on the off chance....
For example Huntington's disease is an absolutely devastating and horrible condition. What makes it worse also is that it is an autosomal dominant defect, meaning you only need one copy from one afflicted parent (not two).
Should someone with Huntington's disease be allowed to procreate and have kids that can suffer the same horrific consequence as them with a condition that has no cure?
Most people with Huntington's are already middle aged when they discover it, so probably already had kids. Same thing with MS, they are often not found until after children. So then the next step if you really want to stop them procreating would be requiring genetic testing for everyone, which would be horrible and IMO unconstitutional.
Who draws the line here in any case? Is there some panel who decides what diseases are okay to pass on and which aren't?
When we start "allowing" people to procrreate or stopping them from procreating, we are China, North Korea, certainly not America.
Most people with Huntington's are already middle aged when they discover it, so probably already had kids. Same thing with MS, they are often not found until after children. So then the next step if you really want to stop them procreating would be requiring genetic testing for everyone, which would be horrible and IMO unconstitutional.
Who draws the line here in any case? Is there some panel who decides what diseases are okay to pass on and which aren't?
When we start "allowing" people to procrreate or stopping them from procreating, we are China, North Korea, certainly not America.
Very true.
I had a cousin who developed MS (at least I think that's what it was) after he and wife already had 3 boys and a girl. All 3 boys also later developed it.
This article offers a different point of view from the pervasive fear mongering.
Quote:
For some developed countries such as the United States, sub-replacement fertility is being masked by immigration from poorer countries that are still growing in population. However, the number of such developing countries is shrinking as they convert to developed status.
Stress on infrastructure and services would diminish. Land might be abandoned and natural habitats could reappear, along with fauna and flora.
For example Huntington's disease is an absolutely devastating and horrible condition. What makes it worse also is that it is an autosomal dominant defect, meaning you only need one copy from one afflicted parent (not two).
Should someone with Huntington's disease be allowed to procreate and have kids that can suffer the same horrific consequence as them with a condition that has no cure?
NO
Ever see the movie, Gattaca?
I saw it years ago and have always prayed our humanity does not come to this.
Although, part me believes it will.
I think that someone with Huntingtons disease would probably want to take the precautions to prevent passing the disease on to their child, I doubt that anyone would "knowingly" do that. I don't believe that there should ever be any kind of restrictions, prerequisites, or any other criteria to be met before anyone should be "allowed" to procreate....just the word"allowing" gives me the shivers.
Sure, people with a genetic-disease should be able to procreate.......but maybe they should think long and hard about what problems/defects they may be passing-on to their offspring.
I say this as someone who has quite a few genetic defects.
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.
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.
