Should people with serious genetic defects be mandatorily sterilized?

[Kyorisu]

No.

/edit Goody "Hell no" is winning.

 

[Dalamari]

No, but if a way comes around to test for mental defects (like down syndrome, autism, any of that) in the womb. GET OUT THE TARGET BAG, A HANGER, AND THE SHOP VAC

 

[kirovman]

A strong no. That's eugenics.


Besides, everyone is a carrier of "a serious genetic defect" (whatever one of those is). If you get together with a matching carrier partner, you'll get a child with "serious genetic defects". Or are you going to screen couples to see if they have the matching genes which would potentially add up to a defect?

Also, something that is perceived as a defect could turn out to be a strength in another situation. For example, sickle-celled people can't get malaria. (The parasite is unable to infect the red blood cells). That's a kind of negative eugenics in itself.
If malaria struck worldwide, you'd be in the minority compared to them. Hopefully they'd have mercy on you.

I'm tired of the state trying to micromanage people's lives.

 

[Terminator]

Nature did a good job of 'sorting the wheat from the chaff' before we started care systems and the like, the effect is still there but in many different ways, it's cerainly not as powerful a force today.

You have to ask, who decides what should be 'allowed' to breed/live?
A lot of severe genetic defects actually make you sterile or at least very unattractive to the opposite sex and thus not likely to breed or hopefully make them take their own lives.

I don't honestly care what humans do to their gene pool as it's not going to affect me, i think for their own sake however they shouldn't have a disporportionate system of help for people who are quite frankly not much use to anyone, if they can care for themselves and children properly then i see no reason why they can't pass on their genetics.

If you let a child be born knowing it is going to have some sort of defect, especially if it is something that will make a child suffer it is selfish and very wrong of the parents, wether it is a human right or not.

 

[kirovman]

I do quite agree on your point of a disproportionate system, to some extent.

But when you say "selfish", is almost everything people do not selfish, ultimately to further themselves or their gene pool?

 

[-Psy-]

Very true what you said about parents being selfish.

 

[Terminator]

I do quite agree on your point of a disproportionate system, to some extent.

But when you say "selfish", is almost everything people do not selfish, ultimately to further themselves or their gene pool?

Like i said, if they can care for the child themselves, properly without it suffering they are not being selfish, as it is taking from their resources and the child will hopefully have a 'good life' and possibly serve humanity well.

If that child was concieved with the knowledge that it was going to need special care that the family could not provide and hospitol treatment would be required just for the sake of having a child then it is increadibly selfish.

This is of course based on soceity and the 'system' everyone is 100% selfish but they have 'give and take' morals to of course further themselves (if they took food without paying that they liked the look of and then raped a hot woman they liked, obviously they are not going to get on in soceity despite the short term gain)

 

[kirovman]

Well, I agree that it is wrong to have a child if you cannot take care of it. But that's not a judgement on the child, it's on the parents themselves. But I think that people with "genetic defects" think rationally, whether they can take care of a child or not, as well as the partners of those with genetic defects.

I think it's rare that you could have two people who are physically incapable of taking care of a child, who may or may not be disabled.

But, there's a lot of parents who have a perfectly healthy gene pool who do not take that responsibility.

I think parental responsibility is not largely dependent on genetics.

 

[PvtRyan]

I wouldn't describe it as "cleansing the gene pool", more like "preventing a kid from having a shitty life".

Although people may find that condescending, saying that certain disabled people can't have an enjoyable life. But if the condition was extremely painful or so debilitating the person would be unable to do anything, I'd say in theory it's probably best to ever prevent them from existing.

The problem is with putting it into practice however. Like kirov said, many diseases are recessive (in fact, all hereditary diseases that the parents themselves do not have) and require both parents to carry the gene. How do you wanna prevent procreation when the parents don't even know they're carriers?

But in a hypothetical situation, if there was 100% certainty beforehand that the child will be horribly crippled when given birth to, I'd say it's only ethical to not allow him to ever exist. For mental or learning disabilities I wouldn't do that though.

There's plenty of kids up for adoption so it's not like you're preventing them from being parents, you're only acting in best interest of the kid.

 

[DEATHMASTER]

kill kill kill

 

[BabyHeadCrab]

no, of course not. What the hell is wrong with you people. D:

This type of interference with people's lives never ends well.

The problem is with putting it into practice however. Like kirov said, many diseases are recessive (in fact, all hereditary diseases that the parents themselves do not have) and require both parents to carry the gene. How do you wanna prevent procreation when the parents don't even know they're carriers?

exactly.

 

[Dan]

People who advocate social darwinism have no ****ing clue how evolution works. You are basically Hitler without Germany backing you up.

 

[Marinmald]

People who advocate social darwinism have no ****ing clue how evolution works. You are basically Hitler without Germany backing you up.

I know perfectly well how it works, im just trying to prevent a mass die off because our gene pool is of poor quality.

 

[Beerdude26]

Downs isn't inherited.

Both actually, it can be inherited or the responsible healthy gene can also suddenly mutate into a sick gene, also making you a carrier.

 

[CptStern]

where's the "what are you ****ing stupid? **** no, that's idiotic" choice in the poll?

 

[Stigmata]

People who advocate social darwinism have no ****ing clue how evolution works. You are basically Hitler without Germany backing you up.

And maybe Hitler was on the right track a bit, aside from murdering Jews and the like. I, for one, would much rather see the adoption of a healthy child than the birth of one stricken with muscular dystrophy.

 

[sinkoman]

While I think in the technical sense it's a very good idea to do so, I think morally, considering how far humanity has come from the boonies, no, it shouldn't be done.

You also have to realize that it's usually perfectly normal people that create those with severe genetic defects.

To sterilize those capable of passing on a genetic defect would be sterilizing a LOT of perfectly fine people, who would NOT be happy about it.

What be allot more effective, imo, is just instating a mandatory genetics check of some sort, to alert the parents to what sort of genetic defects may and may not be present in their child. I'd say most people would either not have a child, or go to a sperm bank, if they knew that their current sperm-egg pairing would have a 100% chance of producing a child with genetic retardation of some sort.

 

[CptStern]

there are no means of testing serious genetic diseases that may not manifest themselves for years to come ..all we can go by is from what we gleam from ultra sound/blood/urine tests ..there is NO be all test for genetic diseases ..the fetus is far too much at risk ..a simple amniosentesis has a 1 in 200 chance of the baby miscarrying ...those are not good odds. So for all intents and purposes this debate is meaningless

 

[DEATH eVADER]

I reckon only Sex Offenders should be sterelized.

 

[sinkoman]

there are no means of testing serious genetic diseases that may not manifest themselves for years to come ..all we can go by is from what we gleam from ultra sound/blood/urine tests ..there is NO be all test for genetic diseases ..the fetus is far too much at risk ..a simple amniosentesis has a 1 in 200 chance of the baby miscarrying ...those are not good odds. So for all intents and purposes this debate is meaningless

Well, i'm assuming that this is a "what if" situation we're all debating on.

I reckon only Sex Offenders should be sterelized.

That'll just encourage them to have more forceful sex.

"Holy ****, NO SPERM! AHAHAHAHAHA, I GET TO **** WHOEVER I WANT, WHENEVER I WANT!"

Inject pure estrogen into them. That'll work worlds better.

 

[CptStern]

ya but I'm saying it would never get to that point ..genetic screening is already in use ..but that only proves whether the parents are likely carriers ..and even then it's voluntary and usually wont come up unless there's serious problems


I dont think anyone has a right to judge whether the someone has a right over their own body ..it's none of our business ..that said, it doesnt mean that there's not a whole wack of people who I would want sterlized ..but then again it's just as effective (more so - no expensive testing) to shoot them on sight

 

[kirovman]

Hahahah Stern, I like your attitude!

*kirovman grabs shotgun and motorcycle with sidecar.

 

[99.vikram]

It's hard to believe there's so many people in favour of this. No one should be able to take away the birthright to reproduce. Whether the offsprings deserve to live or die is for natural selection to decide. And let me remind you that there's many achievements that have squat to do with IQ. Does any sportsman need an above average IQ? Hell no. It's about guts, skill and experience, things that many in the high IQ group lack. There are so many jobs that require little to no intelligence, but are still tough.

The fact is, IQ or disabilities are not by any means an indicator of your worth as a human being. Many of the social contributors I see around here are the ones who were non-achievers academically, or those who have faced discrimination because they know how best to tackle real issues. If we take the "Majority knows best" approach, it would mean the end of human progress.

The fact is, no matter how psychotic or disabled a person is, he still has a chance of being a credit to our race. I personally feel that such people have a better chance of being visionaries than the rest of us, who are content to be cogs in the existing social architecture.

Amongst every 1000 Jews Hitler killed, there was probably one Einstein or Mandela. We should remember that..

 

[CptStern]

Hahahah Stern, I like your attitude!

*kirovman grabs shotgun and motorcycle with sidecar.

/me jumps into sidecar, lights molotov cocktail, laughs maniacally and hums the Ride of the Valkyries by Wagner

"I love the smell of burning stupid people in the morning, it smells like ....victory!"

 

[Steven]

I have a mild form of autism and my life's awesome, I have lots of friends, we do stupid shit together etc, maybe I can't understand people's subtle unconsciously noticeable body language crap, but it doesn't seem to make much of a diffrence really. People who think my whole life would be ****ed because of this are weak minded. A lot of great inventor's were autistic, just as a lot of great artists were insane. I'd like to see where modern society would be if there were never any autistic people.

 

[Nemesis6]

What you forget is that two people with Autism often have nothing in common; their symptoms vary. So what might be best for one person will not be the best for another one, unlike ADD for example, which is pretty much uniform in symptoms from person to person.

But having Autism, you will pass it on to your child if you get one, and it won't necessarily be as manageable as yours has been. The inherent uncertainty of Autism should make anyone think A LOT about having children and what it can and probably will do for the child.

 

[CptStern]

But having Autism, you will pass it on to your child if you get one, and it won't necessarily be as manageable as yours has been.

hogwash, utter nonsense ..if that were true how do perfectly normal parents produce autistic children? ..look there is NO known reason for autism ..the medical community is completely divided on whether it's genetic or enviromental ..if it is genetic than the chances of passing it to your kids is certainly more than those without it but it is not a certainty ..in fact many of my autistic students (back when I taught at a school for mentalluy handicapped) had siblings that were "normal"

The inherent uncertainty of Autism should make anyone think A LOT about having children and what it can and probably will do for the child.

far far far greater chance of having downs syndrome ..autism is actually pretty rare ..oh and autism isnt really a disease ..it's more like a collection of symptoms that people either fall under or they dont

 

[Ennui]

Nemesis, I imagine what theSteven is talking about is Asperger's or something similar, which is very high-functioning autism and really more of a mild/moderate social handicap than any sort of retardation, and you're obviously completely wrong in your little assertion about it being passed on to children. 1 in every 150 children in America has some form of autism; if you were correct than I imagine we'd all have it by now. I'd listen to Stern on this one, since he's actually qualified to talk about it, not to mention he tends to base his opinions and statements on fact rather than... whatever you do.

As for the thread's topic itself, I say only this: fuck eugenics.