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.
I think this whole topic suggests that it might be better if a blind person was never born. I suggest that you ask a blind person if they would prefer to never have been born. Being blind isn't the worst thing that can happen to a person, by far.
That's what it comes down to. Are we going to gatekeep and cherry-pick who should be born now based on how we perceived their quality of life? By that logic, all minorities should stop having kids. Only rich, white, successful, fit, smart, and attractive people would be allowed to procreate.
We never would've had Ray Charles or Stevie Wonder if some you had your way.
I think it is morally questionable. My wife and I have been friends with two couples, each of whom had one who, when they had their children, had metastatic cancer that ultimately killed them. I find their decision-making questionable.
"metastatic cancer" refers to any kind of cancer that has spread. It isn't passed on genetically, although the original cancer might be.
Location: Huntersville/Charlotte, NC and Washington, DC
26,700 posts, read 41,723,992 times
Reputation: 41376
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rocko20
Morality is subjective.
People have no problem passing on obesity to their kids, male pattern baldness, being short, lactose intolerance, high blood pressure, sickle cell, diabetes, heart disease or any other genetic predisposition to disease/illness or unattractive trait. No one has any right to cherry-pick who can or can't procreate. That's called eugenics.
I'm black, statistically we are genetically predisposed to many disease. Should black people not procreate anymore?
Breaking news, most people are NOT going to win the genetic lottery, and no one has any right to dictate who can or can't procreate.
There is a mile of difference between the conditions you listed and things like muscular dystrophy. The former can be treated for the most part and won’t completely stop someone from living a independent life in and of themselves. The latter would pretty much doom the parents to a life of intensive caretaking and a burden on society after the parents pass on.
People have no problem passing on obesity to their kids, male pattern baldness, being short, lactose intolerance, high blood pressure, sickle cell, diabetes, heart disease or any other genetic predisposition to disease/illness or unattractive trait. No one has any right to cherry-pick who can or can't procreate. That's called eugenics.
I'm black, statistically we are genetically predisposed to many disease. Should black people not procreate anymore?
Breaking news, most people are NOT going to win the genetic lottery, and no one has any right to dictate who can or can't procreate.
Let's break down your list a bit, alright?
obesity - Obesity isn't passed down to children. Poor eating habits are. Teach your kids to eat properly and exercise and they won't be obese.
male pattern baldness - A bald man can still live a pretty good life.
being short - Sure, if you're a man, your chances of meeting a women are reduced, but one can still have a long, healthy life.
lactose intolerance - don't drink milk. Problem solved.
high blood pressure - Depends. Once again, high blood pressure often relates to your lifestyle. Eat healthily and exercise and you'll probably be fine.
sickle cell - This is a bit more serious, but it's also quite rare. It can also be managed.
diabetes - depends on which type of diabetes. Type 1 sucks, but it can be dealt with. Type 2, once again, goes back to your lifestyle.
heart disease - Sure, heart conditions can be genetic, and if both parent have genetic heart conditions, it might be a good idea not to have children. Other types of heart disease are based on lifestyle
I'm black, statistically we are genetically predisposed to many disease. Should black people not procreate anymore? - People of all backgrounds should reproduce, but if you find that you are predisposed to certain harmful genetic traits, it might be a good idea to discuss those issues with your doctor.
Nobody asks to be born and to force someone to live a life where they're already behind the 8 ball so to speak, is not something I would do.
I used to think more this way. Like I thought it wasn't the best idea for little people to have little people kids, because their life would be hard. I've since totally changed my mind.
"metastatic cancer" refers to any kind of cancer that has spread. It isn't passed on genetically, although the original cancer might be.
He's referring to having kids when it's very likely that as parent you will die of cancer in the next 1-2 years and leave your child with one parent. Or at least ... I hope so.
My friend's husband is blind and he has a daughter from a previous marriage to a woman who is partially blind. They apparently have conditions (I'm not sure what the condition is) that cause them to be blind, but it can also be passed down to their children.
Well, their 21 year old daughter is now starting to go blind.
Was it morally wrong for them to have had children knowing that their condition could be passed down to their child?
Little people have the right to have families so why not other afflicted people?
You are spiraling down the path of Eugenics. IIRC, it was the state of Delaware where in the past, all mentally incompetent that were institutionalized were sterilized. I won't even start on the "Master Race" bullcrap.
On the surface, Eugenics is an idea based in kindness. People who would have a difficult time in life or who would be a burden to society are simply not born. In reality, those with power decide who is "valuable" and who is not. People with power have an unusually large percentage of sociopaths and other "defectives" in their group. In a true "scientific" implementation of the theory, many of the famous leaders would be forced to be sterilized.
There was a Talmudic debate once where it was determined that the creation of humans itself was an unkind act, due in part from the huge amounts of senseless suffering that it created.
The OP question is not a general moral question, but in a free society one of personal ethics. The Shakers had one all-encompassing answer, other religions have had the exact opposite response. In coming years, I suspect becoming blind may only be a minor problem compared to others that people will face.
This post deserved 10 reps, especially the bolded, and it applies to a lot of other things than just eugenics.
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.
