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.
What about two idiots ? Severely handicapped people marry, and want children. How about a fertile imbecile ? Should he/she be "allowed' to reproduce ? Is it ok for two people with Down's syndrome to keep having children ? Say, 12. Is that okay ? I am not joking, or mocking. There are people who have a lot of problems, and want children badly. Is society "heartless" to deny them a huge family ?
The real question is who gets to choose what is the measure?
There are certainly those I don't think should keep their kids because of their own decisions. You see them on the news that do drugs and go driving about with their kids in the car or lock their kids up and feed them dog food. I hear people on the commuter bus that have 12 kids, many in jail and they can't understand why because robbing a store and shooting the clerk is "Not so bad" or running over a biker when drunk.
Those who have some sort of genetic anomaly it depends on the chance and what it is. I think those who both have the genetic markers for things like Huntington's should not if they know. It has nothing to do with how they are as parents, but disease's like that are a 100% to a degenerative nightmare of pain and suffering for the child (faster if both parents have the marker).
Regarding the absurd OP... It should be noted that it's usually "healthy and normal" couples who produce handicapped offspring. Down Syndrome babies are not born to couples who have Down Syndrome.
Therefore, the entire premise is flawed and ridiculous - not to mention sinister.
I've talked about this a few times, but I was curious as to peoples opinions here.
If you take evolution to be true, then you believe in the science of "only the strong survive". However, are we really following this montra? We allow people with genetic disorders to breed, and have children, thus passing their genes on to future generations, increasing the possibility of continuing the disease or disorder. This makes our species weaker over time doesn't it?
We are allowing people to live, through modern science, that would have never made it without the aid of modern medical assistance.
Now I can see both sides of this coin. I have family members who have childhood diabetes, so I understand her wanting to have a life and a child. However, for the good of the species, should she have a child.
Humans got to this point in our history by having bigger brains, and being physically fit and capable of adapting to our environment. However, by accepting the contamination of our gene pool by people who would never have made it to child bearing age, are we not handicapping ourselves in the future?
Even if the answer was overwhelmingly, "No, not everyone should be allowed to breed," what do you propose? Sterilization by force? How you you forsee that actually happening, given that we cannot even require children to have vaccinations if their parents object? Do you honestly think our bodies should not be sovereign? I don't know about you, but I don't relish the thought of being injected or implanted with something against my will, or being subjected to surgery. That's against some people's religions, so what should we do about that?
Location: 23.7 million to 162 million miles North of Venus
23,543 posts, read 12,517,887 times
Reputation: 10463
Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis1979
If you take evolution to be true, then you believe in the science of "only the strong survive". However, are we really following this montra? We allow people with genetic disorders to breed, and have children, thus passing their genes on to future generations, increasing the possibility of continuing the disease or disorder. This makes our species weaker over time doesn't it?
I would imagine that if you could test everyone who had ever lived for any and every type of genetic disorder, you would probably find everyone coming up positive for one thing or another.
Quote:
Now I can see both sides of this coin. I have family members who have childhood diabetes, so I understand her wanting to have a life and a child. However, for the good of the species, should she have a child.
People can have a genetic disability trait without having the actual disease themselves. You stated that your family has a genetic disability trait which you probably carry yourself. You also state that you don't want to see that trait passed on, did you have yourself sterilized before you could breed? If you've already had children would you hand them over for sterilization, or death, for the sake of genetically healthy future generations?
Or is it a case of - you have the right to carry on those traits through your own kids but others with the same genetic traits should not have kids?
Even Hitler wasn't the "perfect" person since it is suspected that he suffered with manic depression and Parkinson's.
I think the world would be much poorer without the likes of:
Stephen Hawking, Vincent Price, Walt Disney, Albert Einstein, John F. Kennedy, Henry Ford, Bill Cosby, Benjamin Franklin, Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Edison, Beethoven, Toulouse Lautrec, Vincent van Gogh, Muhammad Ali, King George III, Bill Gates, General George Patton .... just to name a very few.
Those on that list, and others not listed, suffered from various genetic weaknesses .. physical or emotional. But you feel that they, and other great people like them, should not have lived?
Did your parents think of this topic before you were born? I'd say like all parents the answer is no.....and here you are asking this lame question.
Listen,
First, I'm not for or against this issue, I just see it as an interesting question.
Its full of all kinds of pitfalls, and I can calmly and rationally think through them all.
To the poster who pointed out that I may have genetic markers that predispose my child to childhood diabetes, and did I get myself sterilized. The answer is no, but my aunt had a different mother. Her mothers side of the family had several cases of diabetes, and it tended to stay in the women of the family.
No one is going to be completely free of genetic markers showing that they will get a disease. However, with DNA mapping, we have found certain genes that increase yours and your childrens chances of getting things like heart disease.
Fines wouldn't keep people from breeding. Fines don't even keep people from speeding. They are a moneymaker, not a major deterrent. Too low, and nobody cares. Too high wouldn't help either. People would either be rich enough to pay and breed anyway, or they'd simply not pay the fines. Are you going to hold babies hostage at the hospital and threaten to put the tots in foster care for fines unpaid? Or maybe let the undesirable babies go home but garnish their parents' wages--that's a good thing to do to poor people. (The rich simply paid their fines, remember.) And in any case, the babies still exist.
In order to effectively control and steer the population, you've got to go biological, so breeding doesn't occur. Forced sterilization or forced abortions, I think. I don't see either of those going anywhere.
No one is going to be completely free of genetic markers showing that they will get a disease. However, with DNA mapping, we have found certain genes that increase yours and your childrens chances of getting things like heart disease.
As for enforcement, I have no idea. Fines perhaps, thats a good question.
Again, I just threw this out there to debate.
This is where I'd file genetic mapping under "sometimes there is such a thing as TOO much information." Since the dawn of time, many humans cannot stand not to know why something is, and stop at nothing to find the answer. That can be a bad thing sometimes IMHO.
Enforcement can and should be impossible IMO. Also IMHO, in this society, there are too many narrow-minded, judgmental people who would be all too willing to be the first in line to decide who could and could not procreate.
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.
