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.
Everyone has genetic defects that can be passed on down to children.
Let me guess: everyone who says 'Yes!' really means only others, not them. Other people with 'more severe' genetic issues. And what's the definition of 'more severe'? I'm sure the answer is something along the lines of "More severe than mine, 'cause I only wanna stop others from having kids, not me!".
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?
We look at those people with disdain but say nothing. They probably don't care anyway.
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?
I was a carrier of a horrific genetic-based disease (Duchenne muscular dystrophy), I chose not to procreate, and I do not regret it. In my opinion, people who have a high probability of passing on a painful and terminal disease to their children and who choose to risk giving birth to a child who would have a high probability that s/he would have such an affliction, anyway, are selfish.
However, that being said, I would not like to see any kind of Big Brother overseeing when it comes to deciding who can have children and who can't -- the main reason being, where would the line be drawn. Who or What would decide what would be an "acceptable" or "inacceptable" disease or disability?
No. Why? Because we always forget that evolution is an incomplete story to us. We think we know everything.
Did you know that we have viruses embedded in our DNA, very similar to exogenous viruses (like HIV), that have both good and bad effects? Look into Barbara McClintock's work on maize viruses and "jumping genes" if you can handle the heavy science.
Did you know that sickle cell disease confers resistance to malaria? Or that cystic fibrosis confers resistance to cholera?
Did you know that our mitochondria are actually their own separate organism (photosynthetic bacteria) that we "stole" a LONG time ago? Now we have over 1000 mitochondria per liver cell, for absolutely vital functions.
We're not done evolving. Who knows what ridiculous game-changer is next? To use the example of Huntington's, nobody knows that we won't acquire a set of genes or whatever to turn the protein Huntingtin into an advantage in a certain environment/context.
Iceland tests fetuses for genetic abnormalities. It has a very low rate of Downs syndrome births as a result. It appears the would-be parents elect to abort the babies.
This is the kind of thing that could happen if testing for genetic disorders is allowed or becomes common. I'll leave it to others to decide if this is good or bad.
To use the example of Huntington's, nobody knows that we won't acquire a set of genes or whatever to turn the protein Huntingtin into an advantage in a certain environment/context.
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.
Iceland tests fetuses for genetic abnormalities. It has a very low rate of Downs syndrome births as a result. It appears the would-be parents elect to abort the babies.
This is the kind of thing that could happen if testing for genetic disorders is allowed or becomes common. I'll leave it to others to decide if this is good or bad.
America tests fetuses as well, but it is up to the parents (as it is in Iceland) whether to terminate or not. A large majority of Icelandic (and other European) parents choose to terminate (over 90%), a much smaller majority of American (55%) parents choose to terminate. But what about the conditions for which there remains no test? And what about the fact that in America at least, the cost of such testing is on the parents (or the individual)? Did ANY of the pro arguers in this thread themselves undergo any testing for possible congenital abnormalities beyond the low hanging fruit of Down's Syndrome??? I doubt it. I don't see the benefit of these kinds of theoretical arguments when our knowledge of genetics is so rudimentary and our medical infrastructure isn't up to actually carrying out the proposed changes in society
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.
