Procreation of the hereditarily disabled (1 Viewer)

[rant]

^

 

[banco55]

yes, we know this is possible. the issue, though, is whether people who know that they will birth affected babies should be encouraged to go through with it anyway.

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]

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^^]

We've no right to tell anyone that they can't reproduce by their own choice, let alone tell someone they cannot do it because of certain gene features.

Where's this going to stop? One day we're preventing Huntington's disease, the next minute we're preventing batshit insane right wingers from reproducing.

owait..//.

EDIT: But no seriously, what a ludicrous idea.

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]

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....?

Allowing a kid to be born with such a disease is nothing short of cruelty, in my books.

 

[Iron]

youve got 2b crool 2b kind

 

[^CoSMic DoRiS^^]

Allowing a kid to be born with such a disease is nothing short of cruelty, in my books.

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]

Allowing a kid to be born with such a disease is nothing short of cruelty, in my books.

Yes, but you are an imbecile who thinks that mercy killing should be the solution for everything.

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]

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....?

Personally I don't think it should be the choice of the parent whether they mercy kill another humans - "theirs" or not

 

[Iron]

I agree with Nebz and respond to his post with wild nodding laughter

some day we'll look back on this.
friends
laughing
enjoying eachother's company

 

[^CoSMic DoRiS^^]

Personally I don't think it should be the choice of the parent whether they mercy kill another humans - "theirs" or not

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.

 

[Iron]

How do you know that there will never be a cure?
What if the child is already conceived?

Give reign to the fruits of your love, mine veggies! (if you want, but keep a lid on it maybe guys)

 

[Grissom]

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.

It doesnt matter if if the chance is 100% or 1%, youre still a selfish piece of shit for taking the risk.

 

[^CoSMic DoRiS^^]

How do you know that there will never be a cure?
What if the child is already conceived?

Give reign to the fruits of your love, mine veggies! (if you want, but keep a lid on it maybe guys)

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.

 

[Iron]

Well youre taking a similar chance that there will be no cure, as you are that there will be a disease

cancelled OUT
science

BREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEED

 

[^CoSMic DoRiS^^]

It doesnt matter if if the chance is 100% or 1%, youre still a selfish piece of shit for taking the risk.

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]

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.

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

 

[Iron]

iron appears, well oiled, juggling flaming knives while singing God Save the Queen, in nothing but a scanty loin cloth

the crowd go: "nuts"
iron adjusts costume

 

[incentivation]

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.

 

[Kwayera]

Yes, but you are an imbecile who thinks that mercy killing should be the solution for everything.

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.

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.