Procreation of the hereditarily disabled (3 Viewers)
- Thread starter rant
- Start date
Sure but if 90 % of them are getting killed in the womb then having the 10 % that are carried to term is less of a burden on the public purse. You've got to think like Dr Mengele.
UndeadSamurai01
Member
No - unless there is genetic screening so that the child will be healthy. I think genetic screening should be mandatory for everyone, not just people who have genetic diseases, because some people may be carrying defective genes without them becoming apparent in the present generation.
^CoSMic DoRiS^^
makes the woosh noises
Agreed.
I would support the idea of some kind of mandatory screening test for parents in this situation to determine the actual risk involved, though, if only to give said parents the most information possible to allow them to go ahead with their decision (not to say 'well you have x amount of risk, hand over your reproductive organs and gtfo')
I personally would probably not have kids if I knew I had a major hereditary disease, but I don't think we should deny such people the choice.
A question though: let's say that there was a 100% chance that a child would be born with whatever condition. Say, Tay-Sachs or something similarly unpleasant, whatever. What then? I don't know where I stand on it in that case, tbh. I don't even know if it's possible for there to be a complete certainty that a kid will develop such-and-such. But say it was possible....?
Kwayera
Passive-aggressive Mod
Allowing a kid to be born with such a disease is nothing short of cruelty, in my books.
^CoSMic DoRiS^^
makes the woosh noises
See that's what I thought initially.
If it's completely certain that the child is going to have something awful, then yes that's terribly cruel to go ahead with. Should there actually be a ban on parents in that circumstance reproducing or not, though?
But if there's a decent chance the child might also be born completely OK...I can't support any sort of ban or regulation on whether the parents reproduce or not. Not any sort of regulation that I can think of right now, anyway.
Nebuchanezzar
Banned
Yes, but you are an imbecile who thinks that mercy killing should be the solution for everything.Kwayera said:
I can't afford a baby - KILL IT
I was raped and fell pregnant - KILL IT
I'm only 9 years old - KILL IT
My baby will have a faulty heart - KILL IT
My baby will have Down syndrome - KILL IT
My baby will have slightly crooked teeth - KILL IT
I can't fit a baby through my tiny vagina - KILL IT
I have a sore toe - KILL IT
EDIT: And you know what would be more cruel than letting a disabled person live? Killing it.
If there's a mental problem they can't comprehend what's happening anyways.
Nebuchanezzar
Banned
Personally I don't think it should be the choice of the parent whether they mercy kill another humans - "theirs" or not
^CoSMic DoRiS^^
makes the woosh noises
OK but let's say you and your wife/gf/sex slave are thinking of having kids and you find out you've both got this gene for some terrible disorder and Neb. Jr is definitely going to have said disease when he's born.
Do you go ahead and have a kid or not?
I just want to know what people would do if it was certain their kids were going to be deformed. Personally I would abstain from having kids of my own. Adoption ftw, in that case.
It doesnt matter if if the chance is 100% or 1%, youre still a selfish piece of shit for taking the risk.
^CoSMic DoRiS^^
makes the woosh noises
I daresay for the majority of diseases that would come under the heading being discussed a cure will not likely be found in the child's lifetime.
Feel free to prove me wrong though, I don't know an awful lot about this stuff.
^CoSMic DoRiS^^
makes the woosh noises
I don't deny that it's probably a selfish course of action to actively try to concieve when you know you have a risk of producing a child with a serious disorder.
However what I'm asking is whether parents carrying such a risk ought to be outright banned from reproducing, or whether other measures such as encouraging adoption would be a better option.
Nebuchanezzar
Banned
If there was anything approaching certainty then I would not be aiming for a kid.
I must have misunderstood your question if this is what it meant
apologies are in order.
take it away, iron
incentivation
Hmmmmm....
There are a lot of 'normal' people that we should prevent from breeding... just take a trip to Bankstown or Mt Druitt.
However, I think we venture into the territory of the complete totalitarian state if we take this approach. I usually despise it when government's talk of education as a necessity or solution to a situation.
In this instance though, it would be pertinent to ensure the sufferers of these diseases are made fully aware of the potential consequences of having a child, and the impact it will have upon their family.
However, I think we venture into the territory of the complete totalitarian state if we take this approach. I usually despise it when government's talk of education as a necessity or solution to a situation.
In this instance though, it would be pertinent to ensure the sufferers of these diseases are made fully aware of the potential consequences of having a child, and the impact it will have upon their family.
Kwayera
Passive-aggressive Mod
Law of the jungle. *shrug* I think it's horribly inhumane and irresponsible to both further the progression of genetic diseases through society, as well as forcing a child to be born with such diseases. You can attack my character all you wish, but you can't argue that it isn't inhumane.