Should People With Hereditary Illnesses Be Allowed To Reproduce?

[Phoenix718]

This is my first forum post, so I hope this is appropriate on this site.

Is it right that people with inheritable illnesses can reproduce?

By this I mean people who have serious illnesses that they are very likely to pass on to their children. Illnesses which are likely to affect their lives in a dramatic way (not being able to work, go to school, or do basic household work).

I know this is a very sensitive topic and I hope nobody takes direct offence. I have a family member with Huntington's disease who has a daughter who may inherit the disease.

[Desuetude]

That's a good topic, I've never really thought about it before. I suppose it's taking away someone's free will which speaks for itself, but if its going to prevent a child being born with a serious illness then the parents should at least think hard about having a kid. Preventing people from reproducing is really difficult though. I mean, can you? You could put punishments (e.g. fines etc.) into place if they did end up having a kid but it seems like a lot to keep track of. How would we measure what counts as 'serious enough' to force these people not to reproduce?

Some people know that their child will have a serious disability when they have ultrasounds and they still decide not to abort and I know we're not having the 'pro-choice, pro-life' discussion here but the topics link somewhat. I think that parents should be extremely knowledgeable and have some counselling (for lack of a better word) for what they'll be dealing with if their child does inherit the disease. Being extremely knowledgeable will hopefully guide them to make the best decision for them. There are so many aspects of this topic that'd be flawed if rules were put into place to stop people having kids. I know they've done it in China previously with the one child policy but that was the whole population. Singling out a specific group would just cause tension and backlash.

[StoppingTom]

It's up to the parents to realize they are going to be putting a child's life in danger because they simply want a child, which is pretty selfish to me. Of course I feel bad saying they shouldn't be allowed to, but adoption exists if you really want a kid, and you're kind of setting yourself up for heartbreak if you have a kid you know will be sick.

[Phoenix718]

That's a good topic, I've never really thought about it before. I suppose it's taking away someone's free will which speaks for itself, but if its going to prevent a child being born with a serious illness then the parents should at least think hard about having a kid. Preventing people from reproducing is really difficult though. I mean, can you? You could put punishments (e.g. fines etc.) into place if they did end up having a kid but it seems like a lot to keep track of. How would we measure what counts as 'serious enough' to force these people not to reproduce?

Some people know that their child will have a serious disability when they have ultrasounds and they still decide not to abort and I know we're not having the 'pro-choice, pro-life' discussion here but the topics link somewhat. I think that parents should be extremely knowledgeable and have some counselling (for lack of a better word) for what they'll be dealing with if their child does inherit the disease. Being extremely knowledgeable will hopefully guide them to make the best decision for them. There are so many aspects of this topic that'd be flawed if rules were put into place to stop people having kids. I know they've done it in China previously with the one child policy but that was the whole population. Singling out a specific group would just cause tension and backlash.

Also, if people with these illnesses are allowed to reproduce, their children will likely have children, and so on. So, by the end of it all you will have multiple people living with the disease just because one person wanted to have kids.

This wouldn't have happened thousands of years ago as it would be survival of the fittest. But know we tend for our sick, which is the moral thing to do, but yet it also increases the number of disabled people in society.

At the end it comes down to what is morally right and what is best for the species as a whole.

[dxcxdzv]

Seems like we 'got a little Hitler here.

Godwin's satisfied, we can continue this topic safely now.

Conscious artificial selection. That's rude. And totally immoral.

[Phoenix718]

Seems like we 'got a little Hitler here.

Godwin's satisfied, we can continue this topic safely now.

Conscious artificial selection. That's rude. And totally immoral.

I am Hitler for asking what people think about a topic? I never said I was in support of either point of view.

[Uniquemind]

That's a good topic, I've never really thought about it before. I suppose it's taking away someone's free will which speaks for itself, but if its going to prevent a child being born with a serious illness then the parents should at least think hard about having a kid. Preventing people from reproducing is really difficult though. I mean, can you? You could put punishments (e.g. fines etc.) into place if they did end up having a kid but it seems like a lot to keep track of. How would we measure what counts as 'serious enough' to force these people not to reproduce?

Some people know that their child will have a serious disability when they have ultrasounds and they still decide not to abort and I know we're not having the 'pro-choice, pro-life' discussion here but the topics link somewhat. I think that parents should be extremely knowledgeable and have some counselling (for lack of a better word) for what they'll be dealing with if their child does inherit the disease. Being extremely knowledgeable will hopefully guide them to make the best decision for them. There are so many aspects of this topic that'd be flawed if rules were put into place to stop people having kids. I know they've done it in China previously with the one child policy but that was the whole population. Singling out a specific group would just cause tension and backlash.

The reality is that stupid and or ignorant parents exist because intelligence isn't a prerequisite for reproduction, nor is wealth, or even being 18.

Only having hit puberty and having a sperm and egg combine is all that's required...even consent isn't required unfortunately...nature sucks sometimes.

And YES to answer the OP; partly because we don't have the scientific tools to predict for sure if person A will yield a child with ___.

Genetics is complicated, how the law is written is too simple or too bureaucratic.

Do we start making other criteria for legally forcing abortions in a particular country if say human population rises too fast beyond a country's ability to produce food and shelter or adequate economy?


China has done this for those reasons, and forced sterilization of the mentally I'll have happened in USA history...I believe it was called the Eugenics...it's philosophy is partly what inspired Hitler.



Also, if people with these illnesses are allowed to reproduce, their children will likely have children, and so on. So, by the end of it all you will have multiple people living with the disease just because one person wanted to have kids.

This wouldn't have happened thousands of years ago as it would be survival of the fittest. But know we tend for our sick, which is the moral thing to do, but yet it also increases the number of disabled people in society.

At the end it comes down to what is morally right and what is best for the species as a whole.

The flaw in that way and thinking is that you cannot predict what is best for the species you never know what the future will bring.

There are some bad diseases that actually serve a very good purpose of natural selection and survival of the fittest, and it's these flaws that you find other strengths and other environmental context where they would be more likely to survive.


Take herpes virus for example....most people think it sucks, but without it, lots of medical research and medical treatments wouldn't exist without it's existence.

The virus itself has been useful insomuch as how it edits DNA.

[dxcxdzv]

I am Hitler for asking what people think about a topic? I never said I was in support of either point of view.
Thaaaaaaaat's the first step.

I recommend you to read the second line of my first post and perhaps the third one as well.

[Tesserax]

Seems like we 'got a little Hitler here.

Godwin's satisfied, we can continue this topic safely now.

Conscious artificial selection. That's rude. And totally immoral.

Do you like food? Meat perhaps? Lots of meat that we have now is from artificial selection, such as Chickens, who are many times larger than what they were before we farmed them. Over that, there are many animals that are artificially selected, such as some dogs, for either their usefulness or their look (to appease customers who love "cute" dogs). Maybe you like carrots right? No, probably not. Real carrots are purple; orange carrots are genetically modified to be orange. Perhaps you think natural selection is a good thing, and we should uphold it and keep all of its values right? Isn't that the best way to go? Well, with all our modern medicine and technology, we have bypassed natural selection, allowing unintelligent people and people who would otherwise die in the real world to live. Charities give money to the homeless and poor, helping people that can't help themselves to live a better life, but wait, you probably think that's wrong. That's artificial selection; we're choosing who we want to live, which for the case of charities and other things, everybody. But that is indeed artificial selection, it is simply selecting everything to be viable to survive.

However, if you are truly to stick to your word and call this guy Hitler, and then say that artificial selection is immoral and should not happen, you probably do feel this way about all of the above. If you do, then good job, but if you don't, you need to rethink your "values", because they are probably incredibly flawed.

Also, how is it immoral? Is preventing a baby who may never lead any life at all from being born so terrible? Isn't it worse to live a meaningless existence than to simply not exist at all? There's a reason that couples who both have down syndrome (and yes, there are couples that get married and receive aid from people and stuff) are not allowed to reproduce; their child will most likely have down syndrome as well. What could be worse than being restricted, imprisoned in your body, simply because of the conditions of your existence?

In conclusion, if you wish to call artificial selection immoral, then do so by all means. Just make sure you truly stick to your words; hate charity for the poor and weak, hate medicine and technology that cure people of disease and illness, scorn the modern day and all its interference with nature. Otherwise, you should rethink your values, and realize that artificial selection is a viable solution to a problem like this, and has been applied to many things for many years. I approve of disallowing people with hereditary illnesses to reproduce, as it will ultimately contribute to both progress of the human race as a species, as well as spare the families much pain and suffering, only to reap a withered crop.

Note: This opinion applies only to severe hereditary illnesses that can prevent somebody from things such as; normal brain function, normal brain development, the proper development of body parts and organs such as lungs or limbs. Normal is defined as all parts forming, growing, and functioning properly. For example, dwarfism is an example of improper body development, but normally functioning body parts. A condition in which three legs are developed, or one arm is grown withered and practically dying where the other is fully functional, are examples of development that is not normal. In addition, the opinion only applies to extreme cases, where one is unable to move or function as a proper human being, or the baby may die after childbirth due to a hereditary condition. Message me if you wish to speak further, or ask for any more details, there are parts that I cannot be bothered to explain that I may or may not consider as "normal development", or development that severely hinders proper function.

[dxcxdzv]

Ok I see that a lot of people here are stupid enough to think I was speaking seriously about Hitler sooooo :
Yan Hearn :
Hey buddy! Buddy who thinks is gonna teach me carrots and life.

First I strongly recommend you to make a difference between Mankind and other animals.
First because as a specie we are naturally more kind towards humans than towards chickens. And second, you have to make a difference with human feelings and other animals. You may think that animals too can have developed feelings, which is true, but they are way different of the human intellect.

Ok so now we are ready!
The artificial selection implies the human action. So is what Human do with nature immoral? Do Humans have the right to """"modify"""" Nature? Well it manages with the whole idea of Humans, our intellect, and our right to live.
The right to live is inalienable? So Humans have the right to live?
But as we own a highly developed mind we are conscious of our acts and so can be taken responsible of them.
So, if our acts are right or wrong. That's the question.

All that shit just for saying that Mankind value depends of if our acts are right or wrong? Hell yeah!

And so is artificial selection right or wrong? In the absolute it is immoral, from a strictly natural point. But, by taking Human intellect in consideration?
Well, as you said artificial selection might be great. But as the thread is about : we are talking here about banning reproduction for certain people. Is it immoral? Hell yeah!
As aEON said, it's the parents responsibility to think about it, and if they want a child there is other ways to have one.

In conclusion, thaaaaaat's a pretty long and fucked up topic.

PS : Do you know who is Godwin? Because I begin to think that some people here don't. Which is weird for a forum.

[phuckphace]

no.

I'm in favor of tests and abortions for genetic disorders like Down syndrome, autism, fragile X, Marfan, etc. there are some things worse than death, one of those things being a shitty drag of a life shackled by a severe disorder for which there will never be a cure.

I guess that makes me as close to Hitler as one can get, but y'all know I wouldn't have it any other way :D

[Tesserax]

Ok I see that a lot of people here are stupid enough to think I was speaking seriously about Hitler sooooo :
Yan Hearn :
Hey buddy! Buddy who thinks is gonna teach me carrots and life.

First I strongly recommend you to make a difference between Mankind and other animals.
First because as a specie we are naturally more kind towards humans than towards chickens. And second, you have to make a difference with human feelings and other animals. You may think that animals too can have developed feelings, which is true, but they are way different of the human intellect.

Ok so now we are ready!
The artificial selection implies the human action. So is what Human do with nature immoral? Do Humans have the right to """"modify"""" Nature? Well it manages with the whole idea of Humans, our intellect, and our right to live.
The right to live is inalienable? So Humans have the right to live?
But as we own a highly developed mind we are conscious of our acts and so can be taken responsible of them.
So, if our acts are right or wrong. That's the question.

All that shit just for saying that Mankind value depends of if our acts are right or wrong? Hell yeah!

And so is artificial selection right or wrong? In the absolute it is immoral, from a strictly natural point. But, by taking Human intellect in consideration?
Well, as you said artificial selection might be great. But as the thread is about : we are talking here about banning reproduction for certain people. Is it immoral? Hell yeah!
As aEON said, it's the parents responsibility to think about it, and if they want a child there is other ways to have one.

In conclusion, thaaaaaat's a pretty long and fucked up topic.

PS : Do you know who is Godwin? Because I begin to think that some people here don't. Which is weird for a forum.

To begin with, yes I know who Godwin is. Also, I do agree with Aeon that it is the parent's responsibility to think about it. But the way I see it, it's no different from giving the parent the right to choose between having a regular baby or beating it when it is young until it is crippled. Ultimately, the parents have no right to bring a tortured soul into the world, it would be the same, if not worse, as somebody taking a life. I'm sure you wouldn't have a child if you knew that it would be born with no arms and legs, a weak heart and brain damage. But there are some people who, despite knowing that they would pass on a curse to their child, would do it anyway. But I wasn't the one that brought up artificial selection, that was you.

On top of this, you seem to be insinuating that because we have a greater intellect than animals, we are better, and deserve more rights. Does that mean that a man with an IQ of 190 deserves more than a man with an IQ of 70? Perhaps. But that's against your own logic, your own belief isn't it? By the looks of it, your argument/belief is incredibly prejudiced, with very certain exceptions because you want it that way. You have not presented to me a logical argument yet, and you have not even addressed the fact that it is absolutely within good moral bounds to spare a being of a life of prolonged suffering, with no escape or cure. Are you ignoring that simply because you know I am right, or do you ignore it because it brings up a contradiction in your own words. And the right to live? The right to live is absolutely fine, but the thing is, the... subject in question has not yet been born; what right do we have to bring something into the world to suffer?

Furthermore, by bringing up the "right to live", you have yourself brought up another incredibly huge topic: What rights do we truly have as humans?

Well I can tell you this. Life is not a right. Nor is an education. Nor is success, money, or anything else that is good. Death is a right. You have the right to die. But life, education, success, love; all these things are simply privileges. While it is true that is completely fine to have a baby, to rob a child of an education, success, love, of a normal/proper life, is to me the worst thing you could do. If somebody carries the risk of Spinal Muscular Atrophy, for example, what right do they have of bringing a child into the world, only to die minutes after it is born? What right do they have to essentially kill an infant? The answer is simple: They have no right.

If you're going to argue "Oh but life is a right, and so is an education" and other things like that, let me just ask you; why do people constantly tell you to learn to appreciate what you have? If it's a right, then there I have all the reason in the world to take it for granted, after all, it's my right and will be mine forever right? Yeah no. It is obvious that it is not a right, with people around the world despite having the "human right" of having an education, that do not have an education. It is a privilege for the lucky, such as myself and most likely you, and that is why we cannot take it for granted. So is life. Many people have died for no reason, and we always mourn the loss of it. But why? Why is life celebrated and death mourned when they are both rights? Well, the answer is simply because the life is not a right. It is a privilege, a gift, something special that we should cherish. We do not have the right to modify nature, but we have the privilege of having become intelligent enough to do so, and to do so to the benefit of our own race. And yet it also benefits those unfit for survival, and that is yet another reason why I believe they should not be allowed to reproduce; those unfit for survival without the modern day advantages of technology or otherwise do should not have these privileges. And when I say those unfit for survival, I do not mean by experience or nature, I simply mean by both physical and intellectual capability. A man with an IQ of 130 that goes to the Gym every day is an example of somebody fit to survive in harsh conditions; he would have the intelligence to figure out how to survive, and the physical ability to make it happen.

[dxcxdzv]

Yan Hearn :
I don't see why you are talking about IQ, I'm talking about a difference between species. And not differences in a single specie. By intellect I'm talking about feelings. Too bad, try again.

I also don't see why you are talking about contradiction or whatever I am omitting.
You are taking too seriously what I'm saying and not seriously enough what I am meaning.

As I was meaning, it's the parents responsibility by their human right to reproduce. They owe to keep in mind all the aspects of the thing. But do humans have the right to interdict reproduction to some other humans due to hereditary illness? As it enters in conflict with the natural right to reproduce, no. Doing a such thing is, according to the Human responsibility of modify Nature, wrong.
But hey, there's the (future) child too! So, do you have the right (morally I mean, not legally) to give birth to a baby knowing that his life would be a living hell? I guess no. Can you make this be interdicted? Nope.

For the rest of your argumentation, please, don't make any speculation about what I may (personally) think or believe in.

[Porpoise101]

no.

I'm in favor of tests and abortions for genetic disorders like Down syndrome, autism, fragile X, Marfan, etc. there are some things worse than death, one of those things being a shitty drag of a life shackled by a severe disorder for which there will never be a cure.

I guess that makes me as close to Hitler as one can get, but y'all know I wouldn't have it any other way :D
Have your ever seen someone with cri-du-chat it's really terrifying what has happened to these people. Hopefully people can adopt if they have diseases.

[Sailor Mars]

Basically........

No

Like others have said, it would be selfish to put the child at a severe disadvantage and through pain just because they want one. Adoption is always an option after all.

[phuckphace]

Have your ever seen someone with cri-du-chat it's really terrifying what has happened to these people. Hopefully people can adopt if they have diseases.

there's another especially gruesome disorder, not sure what the name of it is but afflicted individuals look a lot like Squidward and cognitive capacity is nil. seen a couple cases of it irl and the parents were obviously basking in/cashing in on the attention they get from having a drooling space alien for a kid. absolutely disgusting.

[Tesserax]

Yan Hearn :
I don't see why you are talking about IQ, I'm talking about a difference between species. And not differences in a single specie. By intellect I'm talking about feelings. Too bad, try again.

I also don't see why you are talking about contradiction or whatever I am omitting.
You are taking too seriously what I'm saying and not seriously enough what I am meaning.

As I was meaning, it's the parents responsibility by their human right to reproduce. They owe to keep in mind all the aspects of the thing. But do humans have the right to interdict reproduction to some other humans due to hereditary illness? As it enters in conflict with the natural right to reproduce, no. Doing a such thing is, according to the Human responsibility of modify Nature, wrong.
But hey, there's the (future) child too! So, do you have the right (morally I mean, not legally) to give birth to a baby knowing that his life would be a living hell? I guess no. Can you make this be interdicted? Nope.

For the rest of your argumentation, please, don't make any speculation about what I may (personally) think or believe in.

Firstly, why not? This is an argument between two people about what they believe, nothing more. Why am I not allowed to attempt to piece together whatever shred of an argument you think you have in order to understand what you are thinking, and to then construct my argument through that?

Secondly, I don't get your problem with artificial selection. And in fact, in this case it is doing the exact same thing as natural selection should do; remove the undesirable genes from the pool.

The artificial selection way: The child with the disease is not born, due to the horrible life he/she would lead, thus the gene does not remain in the pool and the pool is made stronger/healthier

The natural selection way: The child with the disease is born, and due to the horrible life/conditions of his/her life, he/she has a hard time surviving, likely does not find a partner in life, feels that his/her existence is meaningless (if he/she even thinks about it), or possibly even dies before he/she can do anything or reproduce due to this disease, thus removing the gene from the pool and making the pool stronger/healthier.

If you want to talk about moral grounds, then your way is the most immoral, selfish thing I can think of. The result is the same; the gene is removed from the pool. The method is different; in artificial selection, you prevent the gene from reproducing. The natural selection way, you let the gene reproduce, and all carriers of the gene suffer until eventually, somewhere along the line, the gene results in the death of its carrier, eventually ending the existence of the gene. See the difference? It's a case of prevention vs trial, but we already know logically what's going to happen, so why not just prevent it? The only reason why you'd trial something like this in the first place is to figure out if the gene is indeed passed down onto future generations, but we clearly know that these things are hereditary already, so why make anybody the subject of a life of pain?

On top of this, what makes you think that human interference with nature is so wrong? Do you not like the home you live in? The food you eat? The clothes you wear? Wood gathered by the mass deforestation of areas such as the Amazon is a severe interference with the natural system, affecting the climate more than our actual output of carbon, and yet we use it to make comfortable homes and furniture for us. Food and clothes? Why most of that comes from farms; vegetables, meat, cotton, all things farmed and used for these. But farming is natural isn't it? Well if you think that you may as well call humans God; farming is taking a species and abusing its reproductive nature to benefit your own.

But you're going to say "Oh but because we're humans, plant and animals and stuff don't matter as much", which is true. But there is one fatal flaw in your argument. You seem to be firmly against artificial selection, but only for humans, which tells me that you're incredibly biased for some unfathomable reason. You can't see that both logically and morally, it is better to prevent people with extreme hereditary illnesses from reproducing. You might say it's a right for these people to reproduce, but similarly, in some islamic states, men are legally allowed to rape women if they are found outside alone without a man. Rights are things made up by human beings to give themselves reason to do thing that are not necessarily right. Some things I can agree with, but there are some things that should never be rights, and some things that should be, and ultimately this is something that should not be a right.

Also, to your argument saying that we do not have the right to stop this just because somebody has a hereditary illness, it's like saying we should not prevent pedophiles from teaching at kindergartens and junior schools. Are you out of your fucking mind? It's even more reason to prevent it. They don't let couples with down syndrome reproduce, so I don't see why they don't do the same with other hereditary illnesses. It's more unfair on the baby than it ever will be with the parents. I don't want to see a couple give a baby a terrible disease, only for the baby to be born in critical condition, and live his/her entire life in a wheelchair, drooling and licking windows, if it even survives in the first place. Ultimately, it is unjust to think that any sort of incapability should not be a good reason to stop somebody from doing something, and in this case, the incapability is to produce offspring that will live a healthy, normal life, and the act is to produce the offspring, that will not live a healthy, normal life. Life isn't fair, you don't get something for nothing, if you have a problem you have to learn to live with it, deal with it. There are plenty of orphaned children, or children that have come from abusive families. If a couple with a hereditary disease needs a child, they can have a child that needs a family. It's better for everybody this way; there is no suffering child born that will never be normal, and a child who was once alone now has a loving family to take care of him.

Finally, I am not simply taking what you are saying, I know what you mean, and what you mean is incredibly biased, looking at it from only the point of view of the parents. Yes, if I had a bad hereditary disease, I would want a child anyway, and I might try to take the risk despite everything, but does that mean that it is right? Is me passing on a high risk of death in childbirth or infancy to a baby right? If I want to rape somebody and I do, is that right? I wanted to do it, and it's my body so I can do what I want with my dick right? Is me killing somebody a good thing? Like, maybe he was an asshole as a child and a bully, and he's a better person now but he made me feel shit when I was young so I'm going to kill him. Good right? Maybe I should get aids, and then have sex with as many people as I can, so that they all die soon too. But that's fine because I wanted to right? Maybe I could have a hereditary disease that comes with a 99% death rate, and in the case of survival, a 99% case of brain damage, but I should still have a baby right? Because well, I want to have a baby, so it's my every right to risk having another soul tormented his whole life for my own sake, for my own selfish reasons, right? Yeah fuck off, the answer's no.

[dxcxdzv]

Yan Hearn :

Jeez you are writing so much for nothing. You are not even able to understand what I am meaning. I never said that actions of Mankind on Nature are wrong.

And yes, I don't allow you to make any speculation about my opinion, if it's the way you want to understand it. I'm not going to gainsay you in that way haha.
I'm not going to say anything neither, look you are making yourself all the debate.

You clearly not seem to understand what is not good in interdict people to reproduce and the drifts that it can occur. I'm wondering if you read my last post or just quoted it.

So I let you my previous post and let you (really) read it this time.

As I was meaning, it's the parents responsibility by their human right to reproduce. They owe to keep in mind all the aspects of the thing. But do humans have the right to interdict reproduction to some other humans due to hereditary illness? As it enters in conflict with the natural right to reproduce, no. Doing a such thing is, according to the Human responsibility of modify Nature, wrong.
But hey, there's the (future) child too! So, do you have the right (morally I mean, not legally) to give birth to a baby knowing that his life would be a living hell? I guess no. Can you make this be interdicted? Nope.

Human responsibility of (or in, whatever) modifying Nature : The artificial selection implies the human action. So is what Human do with nature immoral? Do Humans have the right to """"modify"""" Nature? Well it manages with the whole idea of Humans, our intellect, and our right to live.
The right to live is inalienable? So Humans have the right to live? (I'm not talking about people with illnesses or any bullshit but about the whole Mankind)
But as we own a highly developed mind we are conscious of our acts and so can be taken responsible of them.
So, if our acts are right or wrong. That's the question.

I'm starting from the idea that a human is not stupid enough for make a decision that is not right. How do you call that? Freedom? Ha. First time I hear that word.

[Vlerchan]

I'm leaving a number of points out that are less fun to deal with.

Well, with all our modern medicine and technology, we have bypassed natural selection, allowing unintelligent people and people who would otherwise die in the real world to live. Charities give money to the homeless and poor, helping people that can't help themselves to live a better life, but wait, you probably think that's wrong. That's artificial selection; we're choosing who we want to live, which for the case of charities and other things, everybody. But that is indeed artificial selection, it is simply selecting everything to be viable to survive.
No, artificial selection refers to selective breeding of animals or plants.

In choosing to give someone food you're not participating in selective breeding of animals or plants.

Is preventing a baby who may never lead any life at all from being born so terrible?
The harm in how liberals are going to see it is in restricting someone the right to breed. Which is complicated in itself. In terms of the plants or animals we breed the market determines the traits we do or don't want. It's all based on individuals volunteering to engage in a certain behaviour.

In considering eugenics the same mechanism doesn't exist. Esp. when we get to the grittiness of it. Like what conditions should be bad - what probabilities should be considered - and so on: the latter is also something that has no analogous consideration in the breeding of lifestock or vegetables.

Isn't it worse to live a meaningless existence than to simply not exist at all?
This is something indeterminable.

If we also want to be logical - you seem to want to be - all existence of meaningless.

But the way I see it, it's no different from giving the parent the right to choose between having a regular baby or beating it when it is young until it is crippled.
Intent.
Probability.
The non-conception of pre-natal rights.
Etc.

And when I say those unfit for survival, I do not mean by experience or nature, I simply mean by both physical and intellectual capability.
The problem, as implied, is in determining this.

[Uniquemind]

Do you like food? Meat perhaps? Lots of meat that we have now is from artificial selection, such as Chickens, who are many times larger than what they were before we farmed them. Over that, there are many animals that are artificially selected, such as some dogs, for either their usefulness or their look (to appease customers who love "cute" dogs). Maybe you like carrots right? No, probably not. Real carrots are purple; orange carrots are genetically modified to be orange. Perhaps you think natural selection is a good thing, and we should uphold it and keep all of its values right? Isn't that the best way to go? Well, with all our modern medicine and technology, we have bypassed natural selection, allowing unintelligent people and people who would otherwise die in the real world to live. Charities give money to the homeless and poor, helping people that can't help themselves to live a better life, but wait, you probably think that's wrong. That's artificial selection; we're choosing who we want to live, which for the case of charities and other things, everybody. But that is indeed artificial selection, it is simply selecting everything to be viable to survive.

However, if you are truly to stick to your word and call this guy Hitler, and then say that artificial selection is immoral and should not happen, you probably do feel this way about all of the above. If you do, then good job, but if you don't, you need to rethink your "values", because they are probably incredibly flawed.

Also, how is it immoral? Is preventing a baby who may never lead any life at all from being born so terrible? Isn't it worse to live a meaningless existence than to simply not exist at all? There's a reason that couples who both have down syndrome (and yes, there are couples that get married and receive aid from people and stuff) are not allowed to reproduce; their child will most likely have down syndrome as well. What could be worse than being restricted, imprisoned in your body, simply because of the conditions of your existence?

In conclusion, if you wish to call artificial selection immoral, then do so by all means. Just make sure you truly stick to your words; hate charity for the poor and weak, hate medicine and technology that cure people of disease and illness, scorn the modern day and all its interference with nature. Otherwise, you should rethink your values, and realize that artificial selection is a viable solution to a problem like this, and has been applied to many things for many years. I approve of disallowing people with hereditary illnesses to reproduce, as it will ultimately contribute to both progress of the human race as a species, as well as spare the families much pain and suffering, only to reap a withered crop.

Note: This opinion applies only to severe hereditary illnesses that can prevent somebody from things such as; normal brain function, normal brain development, the proper development of body parts and organs such as lungs or limbs. Normal is defined as all parts forming, growing, and functioning properly. For example, dwarfism is an example of improper body development, but normally functioning body parts. A condition in which three legs are developed, or one arm is grown withered and practically dying where the other is fully functional, are examples of development that is not normal. In addition, the opinion only applies to extreme cases, where one is unable to move or function as a proper human being, or the baby may die after childbirth due to a hereditary condition. Message me if you wish to speak further, or ask for any more details, there are parts that I cannot be bothered to explain that I may or may not consider as "normal development", or development that severely hinders proper function.

I get your point and partly agree with your logic but you've mixed up criteria from "social Darwinism" in the judgement criteria for what would be "natural selection".


Specifically regarding to charity in a monetary donation sense, partly because money is a social construct.


vlerchan did a better job of rebutting the same issues than I did.


This post can be ignored.

[Plane And Simple]

First and only call to keep it ON TOPIC and RESPECTFUL.

[Porpoise101]

I'm leaving a number of points out that are less fun to deal with.


No, artificial selection refers to selective breeding of animals or plants.

In choosing to give someone food you're not participating in selective breeding of animals or plants.


The harm in how liberals are going to see it is in restricting someone the right to breed. Which is complicated in itself. In terms of the plants or animals we breed the market determines the traits we do or don't want. It's all based on individuals volunteering to engage in a certain behaviour.

In considering eugenics the same mechanism doesn't exist. Esp. when we get to the grittiness of it. Like what conditions should be bad - what probabilities should be considered - and so on: the latter is also something that has no analogous consideration in the breeding of lifestock or vegetables.


This is something indeterminable.

If we also want to be logical - you seem to want to be - all existence of meaningless.


Intent.
Probability.
The non-conception of pre-natal rights.
Etc.


The problem, as implied, is in determining this.
You've made an enlightening point about how this could lead to eugenics. But people should at least have the option to abort diseased children if they want to.

[Tesserax]

I'm leaving a number of points out that are less fun to deal with.


No, artificial selection refers to selective breeding of animals or plants.

In choosing to give someone food you're not participating in selective breeding of animals or plants.


The harm in how liberals are going to see it is in restricting someone the right to breed. Which is complicated in itself. In terms of the plants or animals we breed the market determines the traits we do or don't want. It's all based on individuals volunteering to engage in a certain behaviour.

In considering eugenics the same mechanism doesn't exist. Esp. when we get to the grittiness of it. Like what conditions should be bad - what probabilities should be considered - and so on: the latter is also something that has no analogous consideration in the breeding of lifestock or vegetables.


This is something indeterminable.

If we also want to be logical - you seem to want to be - all existence of meaningless.


Intent.
Probability.
The non-conception of pre-natal rights.
Etc.


The problem, as implied, is in determining this.

Simply using the term Artificial Selection because the other guy did.

I understand that humans have every right to breed, and that's okay. But my problem with this is that it is inflicting harm upon another human being, which is illegal, and yet this is allowed. There are children that are born and die shortly after birth. Isn't it better to prevent this? Like really, do liberals want to see the graves of a thousand dead babies? Will that satisfy their cruel needs?

Perhaps I used the wrong term, meaningless. I meant a fruitless, as in the child is not able to ever do anything with his or her life due to genetic restrictions. Thus the child lives a life that is not a life, and essentially suffers without being able to do anything about it; have a job, education, a family of their own. This is not a life, this is torture, this is hell.

If the probability of the genetic disorder passing down is almost 100%, then the probability of it not passing is, obviously, almost 0%. If there's a button that says "You have a 1% chance of getting $100,000, but a 99% chance of having all of your family die if you press this button", would you press it? I wouldn't. This is similar, the reward being a healthy baby, but with an incredibly low chance/probability, and the most likely case being that the child will be demented. If something has a 99% chance of happening, by trying it anyway you're basically saying "I accept that my desired outcome has essentially no chance of happening". If you wish to talk about probability, let's take the binomial distribution of this. Let's say you have 100,000 cases of this, and you have a probability of 0.01 for a child to be born normally, and if not it will die or suffer its entire life. E(X)=np= 100,000*0.01=1000. Do you know what this means? If something like this is allowed, out of 100,000 babies, 1000 will live normally and 99,000 will die at childbirth or live life drooling in a wheelchair. Great fantasy isn't it? Let this happen as much as possible, let people suffer, the world will definitely be better this way right?

Yes, I understand there is a problem in determining this. However, it is true to say that if you were born with no arms or legs, and no intellectual capability, you would probably die without somebody to carry you and feed you and do everything for you, like they would in the modern day. Ultimately, we are affecting natural selection by choosing to save people, and keep them alive, but honestly it's more torture to keep somebody alive in pain than it is to just let them never exist in the first place

[Tesserax]

Yan Hearn :

Jeez you are writing so much for nothing. You are not even able to understand what I am meaning. I never said that actions of Mankind on Nature are wrong.

And yes, I don't allow you to make any speculation about my opinion, if it's the way you want to understand it. I'm not going to gainsay you in that way haha.
I'm not going to say anything neither, look you are making yourself all the debate.

You clearly not seem to understand what is not good in interdict people to reproduce and the drifts that it can occur. I'm wondering if you read my last post or just quoted it.

So I let you my previous post and let you (really) read it this time.

As I was meaning, it's the parents responsibility by their human right to reproduce. They owe to keep in mind all the aspects of the thing. But do humans have the right to interdict reproduction to some other humans due to hereditary illness? As it enters in conflict with the natural right to reproduce, no. Doing a such thing is, according to the Human responsibility of modify Nature, wrong.
But hey, there's the (future) child too! So, do you have the right (morally I mean, not legally) to give birth to a baby knowing that his life would be a living hell? I guess no. Can you make this be interdicted? Nope.

Human responsibility of (or in, whatever) modifying Nature : The artificial selection implies the human action. So is what Human do with nature immoral? Do Humans have the right to """"modify"""" Nature? Well it manages with the whole idea of Humans, our intellect, and our right to live.
The right to live is inalienable? So Humans have the right to live? (I'm not talking about people with illnesses or any bullshit but about the whole Mankind)
But as we own a highly developed mind we are conscious of our acts and so can be taken responsible of them.
So, if our acts are right or wrong. That's the question.

I'm starting from the idea that a human is not stupid enough for make a decision that is not right. How do you call that? Freedom? Ha. First time I hear that word.

I just realized that you're from France, which is probably why I don't understand your English 100%. But freedom? You want to talk about freedom? Should rapists have freedom? Should murderers have freedom? You think everybody deserves freedom? Well then I should have the freedom to rape whoever I want, to murder whoever I want, to steal from whoever I want, correct? Freedom is a dangerous thing, a good thing, but dangerous. It is a double-edged sword; good in some cases, terrible in others. This is one of those cases. I just did a very basic probability calculation and told it to another guy. Let's say there's a 99% chance of somebody getting a disease when they're born, dying either within the first few days of their birth or living a life confined to a wheelchair, drooling every time they attempt to eat a meal and being unable to help themselves take a piss, or even know how. Let's say you have 100,000 cases of this, and you have a probability of 0.01 for a child to be born normally (as there is a 99% chance of getting the disease, or 0.99), and if not it will die or suffer its entire life. E(X)=np= 100,000*0.01=1000. Do you know what this means? If something like this is allowed, out of 100,000 babies, 1000 will live normally and 99,000 will end up like how I explained above. This is obviously an extreme case, but I'm sure that you'd love to see all those dead babies just for those 1000 families, because after all, the pain of loss of 99,000 is no matter correct? Only the good side matter, only what you can hope for matters, because there is no consequence ever. I'm sure that your evil, cruel and twisted fantasies will be fulfilled once those 1000 families were given joy at the expense of another 99,000 heartbroken families.

You're a great person, I know. But your problem is that you cannot see the consequences. You are far too optimistic, to the point where you are blind to the consequences. Some people call this being a psychopath; where one is unable to feel emotion or has no sense of consequences for actions. Are you really just going to ignore this? If there is a "cure" for cancer, and it works in 100 cases out of 1 billion, and the rest end up accelerating the growth of the cancer, I have this feeling you'd be the one to promote that and say yet, it is a cure and everybody should try it. It's the same thing as above, incredible odds against people, and the certain outcome of simply more suffering.

[Vlerchan]

You've made an enlightening point about how this could lead to eugenics. But people should at least have the option to abort diseased children if they want to.
Sure. I've been consistently in favour of woman accessing abortion for whatever reason.

I should add that I have nothing in particular against eugenics. I just haven't come across what I would imagine to be a reasonable method of shaping the programme.

Simply using the term Artificial Selection because the other guy did.
Reise's use of the term was correct. It involves we use a broad approach but it aligns with the general practice of artificial selection. What you said was completely off-point.

But whatever I guess. This semantic quibble isn't too relevant.

I understand that humans have every right to breed, and that's okay.
Except it's according to your argument.

But my problem with this is that it is inflicting harm upon another human being, which is illegal, and yet this is allowed.
Except it's not. Unless we decide to see the human being as preceding her genetics - and I'm not prepared to do this unless I see some strong argumentation - then it makes no sense to claim that we are inflicting harm on another human being.

In order for someone to commit a criminal offence there needs to be both action [actus resu] - which isn't certain - and intent [mens rea] and there is no reason to believe that when a couple have a child that dies soon after birth that this is intended.

There are children that are born and die shortly after birth. Isn't it better to prevent this?
I don't see the difference it would make. You're the one making the argument though.

You tell me.

Perhaps I used the wrong term, meaningless. I meant a fruitless, as in the child is not able to ever do anything with his or her life due to genetic restrictions.
Except it's parent with the same genetic restrictions have managed to fashion themselves a relationships that produced a child.

Of course let's presume that the parent was someone that the genetic disadvantage skipped - and there parent the same and so on. Let us - in fact - pretend that for some strange reason the statistical likelihood hasn't come to pass until that current generation. In such a case I see little ground for you to claim that person's life is meaningless or fruitless. I think that should be up to them

In that case it might be best to legalise euthanasia and let these pointless lives make the decision.

If the probability of the genetic disorder passing down is almost 100%, then the probability of it not passing is, obviously, almost 0%.
We're getting to the crux of the point now.

If we're talking a case of probabilities then at what stage does it become significant? It's entirely possible to construct these arguments around the 1% range - the extremes - but when we get down to the grittiness of the issue where are you prepared to take a stand? That's the crux of the issue for me.

Of course there's the other point of what good genes are. The problem seems to be that we don't see the parent as passing onto the child a good life. But what's a good life. In - what it seems like - another bout of complete arbitrariness you seemed to have defined it as 'not in a wheelchair drooling' but there's a number of other - albeit less severe - disorders that can be passed on through genes. What about the children [?!] in those cases?

Ultimately, we are affecting natural selection by choosing to save people, and keep them alive, but honestly it's more torture to keep somebody alive in pain than it is to just let them never exist in the first place.
You seem to think I care about the natural order of things. I don't.

[SethfromMI]

Seems like we 'got a little Hitler here.

Godwin's satisfied, we can continue this topic safely now.

Conscious artificial selection. That's rude. And totally immoral.

you said it before I could. it is not just a little Hitler with this topic. this concept is very Hitler. it can quickly go down a very dangerous road

[Vlerchan]

Thomas Clement "Tommy" Douglas, PC CC SOM (20 October 1904 – 24 February 1986) was a Canadian social democratic politician and Baptist minister. He was elected to the Canadian House of Commons in 1935 as a member of the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (CCF). He left federal politics to become the Saskatchewan CCF's leader and then the seventh Premier of Saskatchewan from 1944 to 1961. His government was the first democratic socialist government in North America, and it introduced the continent's first single-payer, universal health care program [...]

[...] Douglas graduated from Brandon College in 1930, and completed his master's degree (M.A.) in Sociology from McMaster University in 1933. His thesis, entitled The Problems of the Subnormal Family, endorsed eugenics. The thesis proposed a system that would have required couples seeking to marry to be certified as mentally and morally fit. Those deemed to be "subnormal," because of low intelligence, moral laxity, or venereal disease would be sent to state farms or camps; while those judged to be mentally defective or incurably diseased would be sterilized.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommy_Douglas

Hitler was a socialist too!

[Stronk Serb]

No. If the parents are capable of taking good care of a child, they can dopt one instead of risking a new life which is ruined at the start.

[phuckphace]

you said it before I could. it is not just a little Hitler with this topic. this concept is very Hitler. it can quickly go down a very dangerous road

more like the Autobahn of Awesome

[SethfromMI]

more like the Autobahn of Awesome

I am disliking you more and more. a real, genuine dislike for you

[Porpoise101]

I am disliking you more and more. a real, genuine dislike for you
It's really hard to imagine that grinning profile pic raging. That mental image just made my day lol.

But do you not believe that disease should be minimized if possible? Maybe not by strict rules forbidding them to reproduce but maybe fines or even just offering genetic testing to couples who want children could help minimize human suffering. That's what I think.

[phuckphace]

#lifeisprecious crew out in force today

we're all created equal, every human being is a potential doctor or scientist, and genetics are only consequential to the extent that we declare them to be. by the way the Earth is 6,000 years old. -Dr. Ben "dinosaurs are an atheist conspiracy" Carson

I thank Darwin erryday that I wasn't born with cri-du-chat or some other debilitating disorder because chances are high my family would be keeping me around as a drooling sympathy pet instead of yanking the plug. you know, LIFE, maaaaaan, LIFE

[Uniquemind]

It's really hard to imagine that grinning profile pic raging. That mental image just made my day lol.

But do you not believe that disease should be minimized if possible? Maybe not by strict rules forbidding them to reproduce but maybe fines or even just offering genetic testing to couples who want children could help minimize human suffering. That's what I think.


This thread has such rich avenues of branched discussion.

I have mixed feelings on a lot of this but Vlerchan, seems to be the most accurate at describing what my views on this subject are as well.


We don't have the measuring tools, and filters around to implement such a program.

There's thorny issues regarding the criteria hypothetically used to judge what is worthy and what isn't, and history so far has shown fringe ideologies tend to run the playbook of programs like eugenics, on emotional populism in a political sense.

Such philosophies are dangerous, and for this reason I think most of developed civilized society shuns the idea.

---

Also this is a bit of a fringe response to a sub-topic brought up, but let's not forget that the disabled, meek, mentally ill, and other individuals we think of as "non-contributors/burdens" to society do lay down a foundation of demand for which many jobs are based.

1. Hospital or in-home one-on-one care work.

2. Engineers for medical equipment and robotics and prosthetic arms and legs, to provide independence.


You magically erase from existence the people that need these services, you also take away the reason for those jobs existing, causing a shift in able-bodied people to other jobs in other sectors of an economy....


There's a lot of ripple effects to think about.

---

In addition I also want to add that socially when it comes to allocating blame, if misfortune falls upon someone due to chance or what we call Fate, we tend to separate ourselves from the blame, whereas if an individual is a direct cause of misfortune upon someone else, we attribute blame easier to that person. There's a degree of separation there that makes all the difference, reproduction > genetics > statistics > creates that sense of "it's fate's fault" excuse.



It seems to me the science of genetically modifying humans, and the technology-legality behind that (google designer babies) is where this debate/discussion will be supplemented, possibly in another thread.

[dxcxdzv]

I just realized that you're from France, which is probably why I don't understand your English 100%. But freedom? You want to talk about freedom? Should rapists have freedom? Should murderers have freedom? You think everybody deserves freedom? Well then I should have the freedom to rape whoever I want, to murder whoever I want, to steal from whoever I want, correct? Freedom is a dangerous thing, a good thing, but dangerous. It is a double-edged sword; good in some cases, terrible in others. This is one of those cases. I just did a very basic probability calculation and told it to another guy. Let's say there's a 99% chance of somebody getting a disease when they're born, dying either within the first few days of their birth or living a life confined to a wheelchair, drooling every time they attempt to eat a meal and being unable to help themselves take a piss, or even know how. Let's say you have 100,000 cases of this, and you have a probability of 0.01 for a child to be born normally (as there is a 99% chance of getting the disease, or 0.99), and if not it will die or suffer its entire life. E(X)=np= 100,000*0.01=1000. Do you know what this means? If something like this is allowed, out of 100,000 babies, 1000 will live normally and 99,000 will end up like how I explained above. This is obviously an extreme case, but I'm sure that you'd love to see all those dead babies just for those 1000 families, because after all, the pain of loss of 99,000 is no matter correct? Only the good side matter, only what you can hope for matters, because there is no consequence ever. I'm sure that your evil, cruel and twisted fantasies will be fulfilled once those 1000 families were given joy at the expense of another 99,000 heartbroken families.

You're a great person, I know. But your problem is that you cannot see the consequences. You are far too optimistic, to the point where you are blind to the consequences. Some people call this being a psychopath; where one is unable to feel emotion or has no sense of consequences for actions. Are you really just going to ignore this? If there is a "cure" for cancer, and it works in 100 cases out of 1 billion, and the rest end up accelerating the growth of the cancer, I have this feeling you'd be the one to promote that and say yet, it is a cure and everybody should try it. It's the same thing as above, incredible odds against people, and the certain outcome of simply more suffering.

So much sophism haha. I just have to say the word "freedom" and boom. Dozens of lines about rapists and criminals.
Ok so freedom is dangerous, for who? The parents? You are putting everyone in the same shit buddy.
I don't even know how you can't see what's disturbing in interdicting people to have children.

Needless to say that the illnesses you are talking about in your magical calculation are for most of the cases inopportunes, and that's another story.

Concerning your example of cancer cure... Stop speculation. A such cure will not even be available on the market or in the hospitals. There is a certain rate to respect.

Yes my english is not perfect, not yet.

[Tesserax]

So much sophism haha. I just have to say the word "freedom" and boom. Dozens of lines about rapists and criminals.
Ok so freedom is dangerous, for who? The parents? You are putting everyone in the same shit buddy.
I don't even know how you can't see what's disturbing in interdicting people to have children.

Needless to say that the illnesses you are talking about in your magical calculation are for most of the cases inopportunes, and that's another story.

Concerning your example of cancer cure... Stop speculation. A such cure will not even be available on the market or in the hospitals. There is a certain rate to respect.

Yes my english is not perfect, not yet.

Ok fine, you win. All hail the glorious leader Satan, please take the sacrifices of a thousand dead and dying babies, grant us this Freedom you so promise. Hail lord Satan, for he shall guide us to Freedom with the power of the pain and suffering he takes from all these poor children. Hail Satan and never any other, for all our Earthly sacrifices are worth his godlike power.

[dxcxdzv]

Yan Hearn : You seriously think because something is allowed everybody will do it?

As I said, abortion is another story.

[SethfromMI]

It's really hard to imagine that grinning profile pic raging. That mental image just made my day lol.

But do you not believe that disease should be minimized if possible? Maybe not by strict rules forbidding them to reproduce but maybe fines or even just offering genetic testing to couples who want children could help minimize human suffering. That's what I think.

I see the point your trying to make, I do, but when you get down that road it gets very dangerous. should people with lower IQ's be prevented from having sex so there are children who are smarter? It just goes down a slippery slope so quickly. plus, a lot of this depends on how one values human life in general and if we are just merely creatures whose value does not have any real meaning in the grand scheme, or, if you believe in God, all humans have value, even those with those diseases your talking about, even if we do not always understand why those diseases exist.

again, I get what your saying, but if those who have to suffer from theses diseases, shouldn't they still have the right to have a child if they want one? I think yes

[StoppingTom]

I see the point your trying to make, I do, but when you get down that road it gets very dangerous. should people with lower IQ's be prevented from having sex so there are children who are smarter? It just goes down a slippery slope so quickly. plus, a lot of this depends on how one values human life in general and if we are just merely creatures whose value does not have any real meaning in the grand scheme, or, if you believe in God, all humans have value, even those with those diseases your talking about, even if we do not always understand why those diseases exist.

again, I get what your saying, but if those who have to suffer from theses diseases, shouldn't they still have the right to have a child if they want one? I think yes

IQ isn't an inheritable trait though, there are countless examples of people being born into average to low intelligence families and being geniuses, and not so smart people coming from above average intelligence families. I understand what you mean, but IQ is much more of a crapshoot than disease, and is it really fair for a child to live a short and painful life when there are other avenues of raising a child without putting their life at such a considerable risk (i.e adoption)?

[SethfromMI]

IQ isn't an inheritable trait though, there are countless examples of people being born into average to low intelligence families and being geniuses, and not so smart people coming from above average intelligence families. I understand what you mean, but IQ is much more of a crapshoot than disease, and is it really fair for a child to live a short and painful life when there are other avenues of raising a child without putting their life at such a considerable risk (i.e adoption)?

but is it right for you to play God and decide who has the right to live or not live in the first place?

[StoppingTom]

but is it right for you to play God and decide who has the right to live or not live in the first place?

Would it not be playing God to also develop the technology and knowledge of the human genome to alter and remove those disease causing genes as well? It's all a matter of perspective, if you think about it. In my perspective, the Hippocratic Oath forbids bringing intentional harm, and in my opinion, allowing a child to be born into this world, fully knowing it will suffer, is a violation of this oath.

[SethfromMI]

Would it not be playing God to also develop the technology and knowledge of the human genome to alter and remove those disease causing genes as well? It's all a matter of perspective, if you think about it. In my perspective, the Hippocratic Oath forbids bringing intentional harm, and in my opinion, allowing a child to be born into this world, fully knowing it will suffer, is a violation of this oath.

I get the argument you are trying to make, I do. I don't want to see a poor child have to suffer, but if we get to a point where we stop one group of people from having sex, I promise it will expand to more and more people society finds "undesirable". We can say no it won't, but that is how those types of things start

[StoppingTom]

I get the argument you are trying to make, I do. I don't want to see a poor child have to suffer, but if we get to a point where we stop one group of people from having sex, I promise it will expand to more and more people society finds "undesirable". We can say no it won't, but that is how those types of things start

Not having sex seems rather cruel and unusual, I figured in this scenario these people would simply be sterile, and (if they meet the requirements a parent should meet) be given priority placement if they want to adopt a child. As for the spreading towards "undesirables", I'm also assuming that this thread is referring to people who would have a child who would live in physical anguish or be unable to function/live their life to the fullest. A kid born parayzed below the waist, or with Down's Syndrome, etc, it certainly sucks, but they can still live a pretty normal and fulfilling life, unlike someone with, say, cri du chat.

[SethfromMI]

Not having sex seems rather cruel and unusual, I figured in this scenario these people would simply be sterile, and (if they meet the requirements a parent should meet) be given priority placement if they want to adopt a child. As for the spreading towards "undesirables", I'm also assuming that this thread is referring to people who would have a child who would live in physical anguish or be unable to function/live their life to the fullest. A kid born parayzed below the waist, or with Down's Syndrome, etc, it certainly sucks, but they can still live a pretty normal and fulfilling life, unlike someone with, say, cri du chat.

it could be that, but it could also spread to eliminating people who are not as smart, not in shape, poor, why should those kids be possibly subjected to a harsher society where they may have to struggle unduly as so many do? now I don't consider anyone undesirable but that is the slippery slope.

read books like Brave New World, it is a world where they basically try to create a race of higher, better humans and depending how undesirable you are, you can be simply discarded.

I am asking you to consider the possibility of where when we begin to decide who can have kids and who cant where it could lead to. it starts with a "good idea". then they have another "good idea" where it is determined it is better this group does not breed. then another. then another. then another. and so on

[Tesserax]

Yan Hearn : You seriously think because something is allowed everybody will do it?

As I said, abortion is another story.

Obviously not. But the fact of the matter is, it won't affect the people who won't do it, but it will prevent those who will from doing it. Ultimately, there is no consequence for this prevention; it spares them more suffering than they would have if they simply were not allowed to have children, or did not have children in the first place. There's no problem with them just adopting a child in need, if they are more willing to have a child who will suffer than take in an orphaned child, they are sick and do not deserve this precious freedom.

[dxcxdzv]

Yan Hearn :
You don't deserve a "precious freedom" because you are sick. And Satan it's me?
Hm anyway, I get what you mean. I'm not going to argue again because I don't want this to turn around, the fact is that it is totally disturbing, liberticide and the concept itself, in the absolute, is not good. But I already said that.

The only big difference between you and me is that you think it will be better to prevent from everyone a such situation as the birth of a "ill" individual. And me I think that it is better to let the consciousness of people do the right thing, because "selecting" humans is clearly not moral, the concept is "totally Hitler" as SethFromHi said.

I can't even imagine to suppress this kind of natural and individual rights.

And also interdict to some people to have children implies births and "reproduction" control. It reminds the story of the word "fuck". A world when you have to be controlled like that, is it really fair?
No control implies sterilization. Which is worst. This is why I said that we 'got a little Hitler here. I shouldn't come back on it but as the Godwin point has already been passed...

[phuckphace]

[...]or with Down's Syndrome, etc, it certainly sucks, but they can still live a pretty normal and fulfilling life, unlike someone with, say, cri du chat.

Downs is very debilitating and I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy, not even joking

I watched a video of some "special needs" teachers wrangling a kid with Downs - he gets pissed off, hurls a toy across the room with enough force to punch a hole in the wall before being restrained by three (3) adults. even the milder cases display erratic behavior and rage-fits over nothing, and then of course there's that hideous Downs-face.

sure, you can reasonably accommodate people with paralyzed limbs, or the deaf, etc. but trying to make something useful out of a perma-child with a room-temperature IQ is a lost cause.

[StoppingTom]

Downs is very debilitating and I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy, not even joking

I watched a video of some "special needs" teachers wrangling a kid with Downs - he gets pissed off, hurls a toy across the room with enough force to punch a hole in the wall before being restrained by three (3) adults. even the milder cases display erratic behavior and rage-fits over nothing, and then of course there's that hideous Downs-face.

sure, you can reasonably accommodate people with paralyzed limbs, or the deaf, etc. but trying to make something useful out of a perma-child with a room-temperature IQ is a lost cause.

I was more referring to the fact it doesn't cause pain for the victim, and they're able to be taught to behave, hold a job (menial as it might be) and have shelter. But yes, what you described is correct, but that isn't every Down's patient.

[SethfromMI]

I was more referring to the fact it doesn't cause pain for the victim, and they're able to be taught to behave, hold a job (menial as it might be) and have shelter. But yes, what you described is correct, but that isn't every Down's patient.

so as long as they can be taught to do work others don't want to do, you would keep them alive? now I am not actually accusing you of that, but read you wrote. your whole basis for not allowing these children to be reproduced is so they don't have to suffer in life or at least unduly suffer. they're life is still very difficult

at what point I guess or what are the qualifications you would have to stop people from having children?

[StoppingTom]

so as long as they can be taught to do work others don't want to do, you would keep them alive? now I am not actually accusing you of that, but read you wrote. your whole basis for not allowing these children to be reproduced is so they don't have to suffer in life or at least unduly suffer. they're life is still very difficult

at what point I guess or what are the qualifications you would have to stop people from having children?

My point being they aren't in pain, they have the potential to live relatively normal lives, and they can contribute to the world around them, so you can't say it's a waste to keep someone with Down's Syndrome alive, because I don't believe it is.

For qualifications, (though I feel like this could be a thread in it of itself) I feel like a family should be financially secure, have some kind of psychiatric evaluation, and (if you're not adopting, but making a child yourself) not pose a SIGNIFICANT risk of passing on debilitating, painful hereditary illnesses. I say significantly because I'm not sure it's feasible to completely eliminate those genes from the entire population, but some people are definitely more likely to pass it on.

[SethfromMI]

My point being they aren't in pain, they have the potential to live relatively normal lives, and they can contribute to the world around them, so you can't say it's a waste to keep someone with Down's Syndrome alive, because I don't believe it is.

For qualifications, (though I feel like this could be a thread in it of itself) I feel like a family should be financially secure, have some kind of psychiatric evaluation, and (if you're not adopting, but making a child yourself) not pose a SIGNIFICANT risk of passing on debilitating, painful hereditary illnesses. I say significantly because I'm not sure it's feasible to completely eliminate those genes from the entire population, but some people are definitely more likely to pass it on.

what's financially secure? you just ruled out over half of America from being able to have children. and you probably ruled out at least 60-75% of the world, if not more. people need to be evaluated before having children? what, if you got anger issues no children for you? or depression? someone with depression should not be able to have the possibility of children?

do you see how quickly this can turn when we begin deciding who should and should not be allowed to have children?

[phuckphace]

I'm going by the view that personhood is centered on the human mind. you can be deaf or blind or paralyzed below the waist or have dwarfism or whatever, and still function in a useful, normal human capacity with little to no assistance so long as your intellect is intact. humanity's defining trait is our intellect, thus without it, a human with a severe intellectual disability is just a grunting chimp without fur.

[Tesserax]

Yan Hearn :
You don't deserve a "precious freedom" because you are sick. And Satan it's me?
Hm anyway, I get what you mean. I'm not going to argue again because I don't want this to turn around, the fact is that it is totally disturbing, liberticide and the concept itself, in the absolute, is not good. But I already said that.

The only big difference between you and me is that you think it will be better to prevent from everyone a such situation as the birth of a "ill" individual. And me I think that it is better to let the consciousness of people do the right thing, because "selecting" humans is clearly not moral, the concept is "totally Hitler" as SethFromHi said.

I can't even imagine to suppress this kind of natural and individual rights.

And also interdict to some people to have children implies births and "reproduction" control. It reminds the story of the word "fuck". A world when you have to be controlled like that, is it really fair?
No control implies sterilization. Which is worst. This is why I said that we 'got a little Hitler here. I shouldn't come back on it but as the Godwin point has already been passed...

Ultimately I agree; it comes down to whether you think the rights of the parent are more important or need to prevent more suffering. Yes, it is a natural right, but technically nature doesn't agree with many laws and rights we have for ourselves today.

But yes, it is a matter of opinion and what you value more, and nothing more than that; I believe that the children should be spared of potential pain, and you believe that people deserve the right to choose to be either good people or terrible people, which I can now understand.

[StoppingTom]

what's financially secure? you just ruled out over half of America from being able to have children. and you probably ruled out at least 60-75% of the world, if not more. people need to be evaluated before having children? what, if you got anger issues no children for you? or depression? someone with depression should not be able to have the possibility of children?

do you see how quickly this can turn when we begin deciding who should and should not be allowed to have children?

Financially secure: Able to afford food,clothing, shelter, and education for a child. Having a kid is an18 year commitment and you shouldn't go into it being unable to provide for your kid.

Psych Evaluation: Don't be ridiculous, this is to see if a person is fit to raise a child in an environment where their mental illness does not create an abusive household.

[SethfromMI]

Financially secure: Able to afford food,clothing, shelter, and education for a child. Having a kid is an18 year commitment and you shouldn't go into it being unable to provide for your kid.

Psych Evaluation: Don't be ridiculous, this is to see if a person is fit to raise a child in an environment where their mental illness does not create an abusive household.

your being ridiculous. now you are bringing financial qualifications into the manner. you are disqualifying the majority of the world from being able to have children

[StoppingTom]

your being ridiculous. now you are bringing financial qualifications into the manner. you are disqualifying the majority of the world from being able to have children

I don't want to detract from the purpose of the thread, but:

1) Should people really be able to have a kid if they don't have the financial means to provide that kid with adequate food, clothing, shelter, health care, etc? No. It's not fair to the family, and it's not fair to the kid.

2) Given the population of the world and the amount of resources we have, I don't think the majority of the world not having kids is a bad thing.

[SethfromMI]

I don't want to detract from the purpose of the thread, but:

1) Should people really be able to have a kid if they don't have the financial means to provide that kid with adequate food, clothing, shelter, health care, etc? No. It's not fair to the family, and it's not fair to the kid.

2) Given the population of the world and the amount of resources we have, I don't think the majority of the world not having kids is a bad thing.

well you and Hitler would have gotten along great

[StoppingTom]

well you and Hitler would have gotten along great

Aaand Godwin comes full circle. Overpopulation is an issue, and there are too many homeless/starving/below the poverty line children who have no real shot because they were born into circumstances out of their control.

[SethfromMI]

Aaand Godwin comes full circle. Overpopulation is an issue, and there are too many homeless/starving/below the poverty line children who have no real shot because they were born into circumstances out of their control.

well maybe you should start advocating we get rid of all the undesirables just like Hitler did. I mean, if you are going to stop people form having kids, there is nothing stopping you from going to the next step and eliminating those you find undesirable in society

[StoppingTom]

well maybe you should start advocating we get rid of all the undesirables just like Hitler did. I mean, if you are going to stop people form having kids, there is nothing stopping you from going to the next step and eliminating those you find undesirable in society

I've never brought up exterminating anyone, nor anything about undesirables. You're basically saying "If you don't want kids to be born into poverty/abusive homes/etc. you might as well commit genocide while you're at it." which is a pretty huge step between the two. Overpopulation is a serious problem and mankind is going to eat away at the earth faster than it can recover. There are no lives lost if the lives never existed in the first place.

Now, this is a topic I really don't mind discussing, but it's not the point of the thread and I really don't want to derail it any further.

[SethfromMI]

I've never brought up exterminating anyone, nor anything about undesirables. You're basically saying "If you don't want kids to be born into poverty/abusive homes/etc. you might as well commit genocide while you're at it." which is a pretty huge step between the two. Overpopulation is a serious problem and mankind is going to eat away at the earth faster than it can recover. There are no lives lost if the lives never existed in the first place.

Now, this is a topic I really don't mind discussing, but it's not the point of the thread and I really don't want to derail it any further.

my whole point, which you never understood, if you begin to prevent parents from having children, where does it end? where does the line get drawn? my point is, if we move in that direction in society, it could move in a very ugly direction very fast. what started off just parents with certain diseases/risk of certain diseases can quickly spread to whatever society deems as "undesirable"

I get the point of this thread, I am trying to express what could happen if the ideas of this thread were carried out

[StoppingTom]

my whole point, which you never understood, if you begin to prevent parents from having children, where does it end? where does the line get drawn? my point is, if we move in that direction in society, it could move in a very ugly direction very fast. what started off just parents with certain diseases/risk of certain diseases can quickly spread to whatever society deems as "undesirable"

I get the point of this thread, I am trying to express what could happen if the ideas of this thread were carried out

In that case, the laws put forth would very clearly need to say that anyone can have a kid if they meet the requirements I posted before, and don't pose a significant risk of passing on a genetic illness that would cause the child to suffer, without leaving any wiggle room for people to interpret it as "kill babies/sterilize parents that have undesirable qualities".

[Uniquemind]

I don't know.

It seems to me the answer that's most realistic is for people to be strongly encouraged to do genetic testing BEFORE they start having sex with a chance of conception. (aka: bareback)

Then doctors can strongly advise whether it's a good idea to reproduce or not.


For those already here it's best to establish more funds to the mental health system, create healthcare jobs, to help take care of the disabled and mentally ill so they don't go wandering urban areas upsetting people.


As in regards to overpopulation issue, disease and antibiotic resistant bacteria and viruses, and human stupidity (dying from stupid things, we have the intellect to avoid in theory) should even itself out...starvation is also another one.

And in some countries physician assisted suicide is legal....I can't recommend that as that's tragic, but since this thread has gone this direction I do need to mention it's existence.


Overpopulation, is a human delay problem, where we've stretched the rubber band back so far, but when it snaps back to equalize the ratio of what the planet can support VS what is on it right now, it's gonna hurt, and it's gonna hurt bad.

Let's also not forget that Yellow Stone national park could also erupt, and then everyone dies like in that one movie....

There's no need for a legal system to purge people or prevent them from reproducing.

There's also the rate in which many able-bodied people CHOOSE not to mate and reproduce with those with deformities, certain behavior traits, and certain predispositions for diseases.

I mean you're supposed to ask those questions in serious relationships during the dating process right? In addition to emotional side of dating, there's the logical-pragmatic side too (i.e. similar interests, geographical location of where each of you are going in life to either school or work and social circles, and then the health part of what life together means VS separate and which is better for you).



In that case, the laws put forth would very clearly need to say that anyone can have a kid if they meet the requirements I posted before, and don't pose a significant risk of passing on a genetic illness that would cause the child to suffer, without leaving any wiggle room for people to interpret it as "kill babies/sterilize parents that have undesirable qualities".



Seth is worried about "the snowball effect/slippery-slope". He has right to be, but for sake of discussion we have to table the counter with slippery-slope as the negation of thread topic.


In that same vein though, you're requirements aren't specific enough legally. Phrases like "significant risk" and legal precedent issues with respect to the US Constitution and existing Civil Rights laws, will clash with the creation of any law on this topic. Any new law supporting such a topic will also be sadly warped from the specificity needed, by vary extreme political ideologues who probably do want to see segregation, extreme sexism, eugenics, and social oppression of what THEY subjectively view as weak or inferior.

We can only talk about this hypothetically, assuming we strike down a LOT of civil rights.

[SethfromMI]

In that case, the laws put forth would very clearly need to say that anyone can have a kid if they meet the requirements I posted before, and don't pose a significant risk of passing on a genetic illness that would cause the child to suffer, without leaving any wiggle room for people to interpret it as "kill babies/sterilize parents that have undesirable qualities".

I just don't possibly seeing a society that would endorse this simply stopping here. I'm sorry but I don't

[Porpoise101]

I would like to point out that there is a big difference between prohibiting something and discouraging something. If we set up programs where people can get genetic testing and find out if they carry a genetic disease, I think that the people's freedom of choice will be respected while also making people consider if they really want children. This solution I think I'd not extreme and is a good compromise.

[Miserabilia]

I would like to point out that there is a big difference between prohibiting something and discouraging something. If we set up programs where people can get genetic testing and find out if they carry a genetic disease, I think that the people's freedom of choice will be respected while also making people consider if they really want children. This solution I think I'd not extreme and is a good compromise.

so... what happens when they still do have children? Because this is usualy the case. Testing before pregnancy is deemed unnecacry difficult and expensive, so people usualy find out too late, and then they generaly refuse abortion.

[Karkat]

"Allowed" is kind of a funny word because it implies either forced celibacy, abortion, or hysterectomy/vasectomy- and there are so many reasons that is a bad idea

Even if it's just "is it ethical", you have to remember that babies happen when sex happens. Sex happens when you have a partner or spouse. Babies can happen even if you not want or think you will or can have a baby.

Babies are fucking trolls, man

But in all seriousness, babies happen.

So you'd be going way out into the theoretical world here.

Should you plan on having a baby even if they have a chance of having an illness that hinders them in some way?

Well, let's see:
-In the event of HIV/AIDS, I'd say it's definitely unfair. However, I'm willing to be open minded there.
-in the event of basically anything else, it really depends on
•If you're going to take care of them properly
•If you yourself would be willing to take care of them for the rest of their/your lives
•If you can afford it

I feel like whether it's ethical or not ethical is highly subjective because as someone who has physical and mental handicaps myself, I don't regret living.
Shit, my family has so much cancer in our line it's surprising any of us are even still here. I might even have cancer- I do have multiple growths.

I feel in the end it's the parents' decision to make, and aside from the doctors involved, it's not really anyone else's business.

Creating life isn't child abuse. If you're providing a loving home and your child can be happy even if they have bad days, well, that shouldn't be frowned upon afaic.

However, this doesn't just go for those with hereditary problems- this goes for anyone.

If you can't give your child the care they need, love them unconditionally, and be willing to take on whatever comes your way, don't be a parent anyways.

Edit: Also, I don't think some of you understand quite how babies work. Just saying. :/

[Miserabilia]

"Allowed" is kind of a funny word because it implies either forced celibacy, abortion, or hysterectomy/vasectomy- and there are so many reasons that is a bad idea

Even if it's just "is it ethical", you have to remember that babies happen when sex happens. Sex happens when you have a partner or spouse. Babies can happen even if you not want or think you will or can have a baby.

Babies are fucking trolls, man

But in all seriousness, babies happen.

So you'd be going way out into the theoretical world here.

Should you plan on having a baby even if they have a chance of having an illness that hinders them in some way?

Well, let's see:
-In the event of HIV/AIDS, I'd say it's definitely unfair. However, I'm willing to be open minded there.
-in the event of basically anything else, it really depends on
•If you're going to take care of them properly
•If you yourself would be willing to take care of them for the rest of their/your lives
•If you can afford it

I feel like whether it's ethical or not ethical is highly subjective because as someone who has physical and mental handicaps myself, I don't regret living.
Shit, my family has so much cancer in our line it's surprising any of us are even still here. I might even have cancer- I do have multiple growths.

I feel in the end it's the parents' decision to make, and aside from the doctors involved, it's not really anyone else's business.

Creating life isn't child abuse. If you're providing a loving home and your child can be happy even if they have bad days, well, that shouldn't be frowned upon afaic.

However, this doesn't just go for those with hereditary problems- this goes for anyone.

If you can't give your child the care they need, love them unconditionally, and be willing to take on whatever comes your way, don't be a parent anyways.

Edit: Also, I don't think some of you understand quite how babies work. Just saying. :/

What about people though, where their child is conscious but can't walk or play with other children, is in constant pain. Or has that condition where their skins lowly falls off.

Some handicapped children are literaly in pain every single day untill they die at age like 6.

I feel like the "my little angel!" scenario is a little too common in western countries, like celebrities that adopt little coloured kids. You know, almost like showing off what a good person you are.

Or like this; people with that syndrome where your eyes are almost out of your head and you get a deformed face. You know your kids are going to have it. Still they have three kids that will have to live through life deformed.

[SethfromMI]

I would like to point out that there is a big difference between prohibiting something and discouraging something. If we set up programs where people can get genetic testing and find out if they carry a genetic disease, I think that the people's freedom of choice will be respected while also making people consider if they really want children. This solution I think I'd not extreme and is a good compromise.

well that is a big difference. and that is completely different than whether or not we will allow certain people to have children or tell them they have no say in the matter . I agree with your idea

[Karkat]

What about people though, where their child is conscious but can't walk or play with other children, is in constant pain. Or has that condition where their skins lowly falls off.

Some handicapped children are literaly in pain every single day untill they die at age like 6.

I feel like the "my little angel!" scenario is a little too common in western countries, like celebrities that adopt little coloured kids. You know, almost like showing off what a good person you are.

Or like this; people with that syndrome where your eyes are almost out of your head and you get a deformed face. You know your kids are going to have it. Still they have three kids that will have to live through life deformed.

People typically don't know about things like that before they have kids. Some who have the money might test beforehand, but I guarantee you no one thinks of every single congenital defect known to man when having sex or planning to have a baby.

Honestly, it's live in fear that your children will be miserable, or vow to do whatever you can to love and take care of them, no matter the circumstances.

[StoppingTom]

Just looking back on what I've said, there's one thing I will concede: I've given my point of view from a completely subjective standpoint, but if something like this were to happen, I can't honestly say with certainty that my opinion would stay the same.

For example, I have an 11 year old cousin with a mess of inherited issues, like autism, schizophrenia, some kind of sensory disorder, and some kind of issue with his metabolism, where he is heavier than my father despite not even being in middle school yet. Despite all the stuff he goes through, I couldn't imagine if he were never alive or unable to have a family because of his issues, it would be so awful.

[Uniquemind]

Just looking back on what I've said, there's one thing I will concede: I've given my point of view from a completely subjective standpoint, but if something like this were to happen, I can't honestly say with certainty that my opinion would stay the same.

For example, I have an 11 year old cousin with a mess of inherited issues, like autism, schizophrenia, some kind of sensory disorder, and some kind of issue with his metabolism, where he is heavier than my father despite not even being in middle school yet. Despite all the stuff he goes through, I couldn't imagine if he were never alive or unable to have a family because of his issues, it would be so awful.

Having someone with issues like that relevant to our debate topic directly within your social sphere, really obstructs the ability to take an objective opinion.

Because sometimes the objective opinion is cruel. Albeit, cruel, doesn't necessarily mean accurate or true.


In this case I will go on to say "No" because genetics is a complex philosophical animal.


Just because your genes code for a higher probability that you could develop cancer or another condition like mental illnesses, does not necessarily set in stone that you will develop those conditions, environment plays a role as well.


For example the science of epigenetics is new and is forcing science to revisit Lemark's theory of evolution or at least some of his premises.

Genetics is complicated and it isn't necessarily binary, anybody who has taken biology in either Junior High, or High School, should remember the concept of Mendelian and Non-Mendelian genetic inheritance.

One example of what I'm trying to illustrate is this:

There exists some species of flower who contain the exact same Genotype, but the color of their flowers and the expression of their phenotype, depends on the pH of the soil they are planted in and sprout from.

So the outcomes of mental health disorders and other conditions, might not be due to genes at all, and arbitrary legal policies forbidding sexual activity or reproductive health decisions based on Genotype of a human, might be jumping to conclusions, and won't solve the problem of weeding out the epidemiology of that disorder/disease in the human species.

[Miserabilia]

People typically don't know about things like that before they have kids. Some who have the money might test beforehand, but I guarantee you no one thinks of every single congenital defect known to man when having sex or planning to have a baby.

Honestly, it's live in fear that your children will be miserable, or vow to do whatever you can to love and take care of them, no matter the circumstances.

Guess that makes sense, though I don't think it's 100% the way I would think I'd see it.

[kenoloor]

i don't know what i expected when i opened this thread, but this shit is raging with eugenicism, ableism, anti-semitism.

dictating (or attempting to do so) who "should be allowed to" reproduce is eugenics. full stop.

furthermore, positing that disabilities/disorders like autism, neurodivergence/mental illness, mobility disabilities, etc. detract from one's quality of life is disastrously ableist.

i'm of the mindset that probably nobody should be biologically reproducing for a long long time and that everyone who wants a kid should just adopt (bc there are a TON of orphaned kids and WAY too many people on this planet as it is), BUT i recognize that trying to put that into practice would wind up being horribly oppressive (think dystopian fiction novel) and that people should reproduce how- and whenever they choose to do so.

also, that fucker who positively self-identified as being "as close to hitler as one can get" needs to sit the fuck down because being proud of that fact is beyond asinine.

[Uniquemind]

i don't know what i expected when i opened this thread, but this shit is raging with eugenicism, ableism, anti-semitism.

dictating (or attempting to do so) who "should be allowed to" reproduce is eugenics. full stop.

furthermore, positing that disabilities/disorders like autism, neurodivergence/mental illness, mobility disabilities, etc. detract from one's quality of life is disastrously ableist.

i'm of the mindset that probably nobody should be biologically reproducing for a long long time and that everyone who wants a kid should just adopt (bc there are a TON of orphaned kids and WAY too many people on this planet as it is), BUT i recognize that trying to put that into practice would wind up being horribly oppressive (think dystopian fiction novel) and that people should reproduce how- and whenever they choose to do so.

also, that fucker who positively self-identified as being "as close to hitler as one can get" needs to sit the fuck down because being proud of that fact is beyond asinine.

Well this debate was kinda started on the same basis that you just described.

While I personally agree this thread unnerves me, like it seems to have done with you, the fact remains that the discussion had a honest and honorable intention, which was to reduce the prevalence of certain medical ailments within the human population, that we have the knowledge to prevent both economical and emotional hardship on society, and on the individual family.


On this issue in particular, hypothetically enacting Eugenics, or choosing not to do so, causes some form of suffering and oppression upon Humanity either way. The oppression, as you pointed out, either affects Orphans, or it oppresses the general public's reproductive rights.

So from a moral perspective in regards to being up this discussion, it's morally neutral.

[phuckphace]

also, that fucker who positively self-identified as being "as close to hitler as one can get" needs to sit the fuck down because being proud of that fact is beyond asinine.

hi, you must be new here.

[kenoloor]

hi, you must be new here.

not new at all, just haven't been around in a long while. thanks for unabashedly identifying yourself as the Token Neo-Nazi Scum of the current VT generation. there's always one (anyone remember Professional Russian? or that other Holocaust-denying piece of shit? VT 2010-2012, good times).

Well this debate was kinda started on the same basis that you just described.

While I personally agree this thread unnerves me, like it seems to have done with you, the fact remains that the discussion had a honest and honorable intention, which was to reduce the prevalence of certain medical ailments within the human population, that we have the knowledge to prevent both economical and emotional hardship on society, and on the individual family.


On this issue in particular, hypothetically enacting Eugenics, or choosing not to do so, causes some form of suffering and oppression upon Humanity either way. The oppression, as you pointed out, either affects Orphans, or it oppresses the general public's reproductive rights.

So from a moral perspective in regards to being up this discussion, it's morally neutral.

it's only morally neutral if you think that disabled people are objectively worth less, which is ableist. the disabilities themselves are not the cause of the "hardship" you're referring to; the overarching systems of oppression and ideals of "productivity" are the issues here.

[phuckphace]

not new at all, just haven't been around in a long while. thanks for unabashedly identifying yourself as the Token Neo-Nazi Scum of the current VT generation. there's always one (anyone remember Professional Russian? or that other Holocaust-denying piece of shit? VT 2010-2012, good times).

1933 - 1945 was even better

[Uniquemind]

not new at all, just haven't been around in a long while. thanks for unabashedly identifying yourself as the Token Neo-Nazi Scum of the current VT generation. there's always one (anyone remember Professional Russian? or that other Holocaust-denying piece of shit? VT 2010-2012, good times).



it's only morally neutral if you think that disabled people are objectively worth less, which is ableist. the disabilities themselves are not the cause of the "hardship" you're referring to; the overarching systems of oppression and ideals of "productivity" are the issues here.


True, but in earlier pages of the thread, posters (perhaps the OP can't remember), qualified this aspect of the issue.

The OP is obviously trying to more narrowly define, those who carry certain genes which produce people or situations which negatively impact society to a severe degree.

In the case of mental illness or disability, they're talking about people who have completely lost touch with reality and are dependent on others for basic living. In some cases, one could argue that their existence is miserable because their trapped in hallucinations, and are exhibiting outward behaviors of being upset.

The OP's topic sounds broad, but you can get the gist of who he/she is really trying to talk about, and it's become a debate of merit of if it's in society's best interest to reduce the existence of conception which result in those outcomes for people, their families, and society.

That's a valid question, but a touchy subject which is why it's in ROTW, because the topic potentially can get out of hand, but hopefully we don't resort to personal attacks here that would be a intellectual shame.

[kenoloor]

True, but in earlier pages of the thread, posters (perhaps the OP can't remember), qualified this aspect of the issue.

The OP is obviously trying to more narrowly define, those who carry certain genes which produce people or situations which negatively impact society to a severe degree.

In the case of mental illness or disability, they're talking about people who have completely lost touch with reality and are dependent on others for basic living. In some cases, one could argue that their existence is miserable because their trapped in hallucinations, and are exhibiting outward behaviors of being upset.

The OP's topic sounds broad, but you can get the gist of who he/she is really trying to talk about, and it's become a debate of merit of if it's in society's best interest to reduce the existence of conception which result in those outcomes for people, their families, and society.

my issue here is that disabled people are being objectified for the sake of discussion. disabled people do not exist for "intellectuals" to debate about. that's incredibly trivializing of the lived experiences of disabled people, not to mention infantilising.

hopefully we don't resort to personal attacks here that would be a intellectual shame.


um ok, this whole thread is a personal attack against disabled people. one can't just post on the internet saying, "wow, i sure wish there were fewer/zero disabled people!" without personally attacking disabled folx. that's a bullshit expectation. expecting to be able to function on this Higher Level of Intellectualism that's Above Everything Else is unrealistic (read: fucking absurd). these discussions/debates don't exist in a vacuum.

[Plane And Simple]

Please stay on topic or this will be locked. Also, bashing members is not tolerated.

[Past_Lives]

I knew a guy who had a hereditary disease that could possibly kill any kids he had and because of that he didn't want any kids (but his wife broke the condom or something). But I think that people who have diseases that could seriously impact the life of any possible children should consider adopting instead, but if they really want to risk the lives of their kids then go ahead.

[Uniquemind]

my issue here is that disabled people are being objectified for the sake of discussion. disabled people do not exist for "intellectuals" to debate about. that's incredibly trivializing of the lived experiences of disabled people, not to mention infantilising.




um ok, this whole thread is a personal attack against disabled people. one can't just post on the internet saying, "wow, i sure wish there were fewer/zero disabled people!" without personally attacking disabled folx. that's a bullshit expectation. expecting to be able to function on this Higher Level of Intellectualism that's Above Everything Else is unrealistic (read: fucking absurd). these discussions/debates don't exist in a vacuum.

Actually I disagree, that you can have that discussion without attacking someone, but both parties need to know how to dissociate personal feelings from subject matter.


It's in the same vein as all hot issue political topics, someone gets offended, or feels attacked because their view on objective subject matter overlaps with something very personal to them.


But as the moderator above has warned, we really shouldn't be bashing each other here, and for the record I don't feel bashed by anybody here.

I also want to send a PM to Plane and Simple, regarding where the respect line and by whom crossed it because I don't want to break the rules and lose this rich discussion platform.

[kenoloor]

Actually I disagree, that you can have that discussion without attacking someone, but both parties need to know how to dissociate personal feelings from subject matter.


It's in the same vein as all hot issue political topics, someone gets offended, or feels attacked because their view on objective subject matter overlaps with something very personal to them.


But as the moderator above has warned, we really shouldn't be bashing each other here, and for the record I don't feel bashed by anybody here.

I also want to send a PM to Plane and Simple, regarding where the respect line and by whom crossed it because I don't want to break the rules and lose this rich discussion platform.

discussing real-worl issues while trying to remove oneself from the real world is pointless/useless. if this discussion is entirely hypothetical and nobody would actually want to enact this sort of a draconian policy then what's the point?

there's literally no point in having a discussion while removing emotions (i.e: ethics) from the table. emotions play an instrumental role in how we perceive + interpret the world, and therefore should play a role in these sorts of discussions.

true objectivity is impossible and subjectivity is inevitable. so when i saw that this discussion is complete and utter bullshit, i mean that it's complete and utter bullshit for people to be wishing that disabled people were never born. disabled people are real, and acting like we're just these talking points flat-out sucks.

to further rub salt into the Intellectual Wound, people speculating about the experiences of disabled people is bullshit. nobody can truly speak to those experiences (like qualifying them as "good" or "bad," which is the basis of this fucked-up "debate") but the people who are living those experiences. this whole thread is just riddled with bad debating, really, not to mention the horrible premise.

[Uniquemind]

discussing real-worl issues while trying to remove oneself from the real world is pointless/useless. if this discussion is entirely hypothetical and nobody would actually want to enact this sort of a draconian policy then what's the point?

there's literally no point in having a discussion while removing emotions (i.e: ethics) from the table. emotions play an instrumental role in how we perceive + interpret the world, and therefore should play a role in these sorts of discussions.

true objectivity is impossible and subjectivity is inevitable. so when i saw that this discussion is complete and utter bullshit, i mean that it's complete and utter bullshit for people to be wishing that disabled people were never born. disabled people are real, and acting like we're just these talking points flat-out sucks.

to further rub salt into the Intellectual Wound, people speculating about the experiences of disabled people is bullshit. nobody can truly speak to those experiences (like qualifying them as "good" or "bad," which is the basis of this fucked-up "debate") but the people who are living those experiences. this whole thread is just riddled with bad debating, really, not to mention the horrible premise.

I will say this though. I believe this thread has lasted this long because solutions on how society deals with the existence of the mentally ill, and disabled has not been provided.

Many politicians have kicked the issue down the road, content for this group of people to wander the streets homeless, and this does contribute to real world issues. This is often related to money shortfalls, but really nobody has provided a solution to this issue so questions like the OP's get brought up.


1. Violent crimes committed by the mentally ill.

2. Abandoned individuals who need extra help in life, or assisted living support because families abandoned them or died themselves or don't know what to do with them.

3. The extra economic burden and emotional burden placed on siblings and parents. (The stress can cause a couple or familes to crumble).

So there's a valid question behind the ill-phrased thread topic, that merits discussion.

With that in mind why is it offensive to ask questions that carry the premise of two things:

1. Reduce the prevalence of those with the condition(s) in a preventative context, and therefore reduce the problem(s) presented to society?

2. Are there other ways to address the same issue the OP raised, but in a more constructive way? If so change the definition of the debate because of unfair grounds, and turn the discussion into a more positive one if you think it's getting negative with added realistic solutions. Until such realistic solution is provided, all discussion is differed to the land of hypothetical talk anyway. (Isn't that why this is called Ramblings of the Wise? We're playing ideas off each other for the sake of learning?)

[phuckphace]

I exist, where's my trophy?

[Karkat]

i don't know what i expected when i opened this thread, but this shit is raging with eugenicism, ableism, anti-semitism.

dictating (or attempting to do so) who "should be allowed to" reproduce is eugenics. full stop.

furthermore, positing that disabilities/disorders like autism, neurodivergence/mental illness, mobility disabilities, etc. detract from one's quality of life is disastrously ableist.

i'm of the mindset that probably nobody should be biologically reproducing for a long long time and that everyone who wants a kid should just adopt (bc there are a TON of orphaned kids and WAY too many people on this planet as it is), BUT i recognize that trying to put that into practice would wind up being horribly oppressive (think dystopian fiction novel) and that people should reproduce how- and whenever they choose to do so.

also, that fucker who positively self-identified as being "as close to hitler as one can get" needs to sit the fuck down because being proud of that fact is beyond asinine.

*BIGGEST fucking eyeroll*

Now listen here you pretentious little shit

I don't HAVE to "speculate" about how a disabled person lives.

I AM ONE.

Please take your "ableist" bullshit and crawl back under the rock you came from.

Illness does detract from quality of life. it doesn't mean the life of an ill person is worthless, but BEING SICK IS NOT A GOOD THING.

I'm assuming that you don't experience chronic illness because I don't understand how anyone in physical or mental aim could make such egregious claims.

So how about YOU stop speaking for the disabled, hm? Thanks.

[Judean Zealot]

kenoloor

Anti-Semitism?

[Porpoise101]

kenoloor

Anti-Semitism?
Maybe referring to Tony?

[Judean Zealot]

Maybe referring to Tony?

But he (surprisingly) didn't do any of that in this thread. Hmm.

[kenoloor]

*BIGGEST fucking eyeroll*

Now listen here you pretentious little shit

I don't HAVE to "speculate" about how a disabled person lives.

I AM ONE.

Please take your "ableist" bullshit and crawl back under the rock you came from.

Illness does detract from quality of life. it doesn't mean the life of an ill person is worthless, but BEING SICK IS NOT A GOOD THING.

I'm assuming that you don't experience chronic illness because I don't understand how anyone in physical or mental aim could make such egregious claims.

So how about YOU stop speaking for the disabled, hm? Thanks.

good job making (incorrect) assumptions about my life.

i would argue that illness isn't necessarily the factor here that's most at play, but social reactions to , oppressions of, and perceptions of illnesses that are more relevant in this context. but, considering that this thread has (against all odds) descended even further into the depths of absurdity (thanks to you), im going to take my exit. this shitshow of eugenics is worthless, these arguments are pointless, and the premise is bullshit.

feel free to keep assuming whatever you'd like about me though. :) have a good one

[Uniquemind]

I'm taking my exit of this thread too, due to the last few posts made.

There's merit continuing the discussion, but that's not the direction you all have chosen to take the discussion.