Procreation of the hereditarily disabled (1 Viewer)

[katie tully]

*Diseases which are fatal and reduce one's life expectancy drastically (e.g. Cystic Fibrosis, Huntington's etc.) are the ones I'm most against, imagine your child knowing the age that they would die- around their thirties too-it would be fucking heartbreaking

Cystic fibrosis requires both parents to be carriers of the gene and current research is looking at ways to replace/repair the gene. Before we become Hitler and decide who can breed, let's look at the future of gene therapy for these diseases. Huntington's is something I have no problem with. If I was told I had until my 50s to live, I'd do my best to make the most of my life. 50=/= 12, which would be far more cruel to a person. I could get hit by a bus tomorrow, I'm not going to crawl into my mothers womb and request a retrospective abortion because I don't get to live until the average of 77.

*Diseases which disable significantly (I can't really judge what's significant or not, but serious cases of Marfan Syndrome and Spinal Muscular Dystrophy are some examples) disallowing one from having the choice to live a healthy, average life. they don't have to be fatal but they might as well be

AFAIK, some forms of spinal muscular atrophy don't manifest until after birth and are caused by faulty genes that aren't easily tested for before birth. AFAIK, most types are autosomal recessive and require each parent to have one faulty gene which they may be unaware of. So unless you guys are proposing every person go out and get full genetic maps or whatever, idk.

who becomes responsible for the pain they've suffered? surely it's their parents? I see no one else that could be at fault

Stop speaking on behalf of these people. You don't know their pain, if any, and what do you care if the parents are responsible for the childs welfare. We can't dictate who can and can't have babies just because we think their lives aren't worth shit.

 

[^CoSMic DoRiS^^]

Stop speaking on behalf of these people. You don't know their pain, if any, and what do you care if the parents are responsible for the childs welfare. We can't dictate who can and can't have babies just because we think their lives aren't worth shit.

Yeah I would agree with this.

The more information parents can easily get access to about their genes and the risk of passing on something serious, the better, though. Just so that they can make a decision whether or not to risk kids I guess. It's nobody's choice but theirs and they should be properly informed if possible.

There's nothing we can do about unplanned pregnancies but maybe there should be something, some free service or whatever, idk, for people planning kids to get screened. I would hate to get pregnant and find out later that my kid was more than likely gonna have [insert debilitating disease], if the information would have made a difference to my decision to reproduce, which it probably would.

Can't speak for anyone else about that, but the more info we can give people the better off everyone is imo.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

Hereditarily disabled people are crippling our economy!

 

[littlebigpsycho]

Those with hereditary diseases should not be allowed to procreate period.
Personal opinion, for the sake of the child. A parent should not be selfish enough to want a child more then to risk it having a hereditary disease.

Darwinism; not by definition but as an easy explanation.

THIS IS SPARTAAAA !!!!!

 

[SnowFox]

Those with hereditary diseases should not be allowed to procreate period.
Personal opinion, for the sake of the child. A parent should not be selfish enough to want a child more then to risk it having a hereditary disease.

Darwinism; not by definition but as an easy explanation.

THIS IS SPARTAAAA !!!!!

Darwinism is a term used for various different movements or concepts related to a greater or lesser extent to Charles Darwin's work on evolution. The meaning of Darwinism has changed over time, and depends on who is using the term.

Which one.

The problem i see is genes can be both dominant and reccessive. The news had a couple on who suffered a "heriditary" disease which crippled both of them to the extent they have limted speech and use a motorized wheel chair to get around majoirty of the time. This couple had 2 children and both are fine. They might carry the gene, but unlikely its going to pop up again.

 

[moll.]

Darwinism is a term used for various different movements or concepts related to a greater or lesser extent to Charles Darwin's work on evolution. The meaning of Darwinism has changed over time, and depends on who is using the term.

Which one.

The problem i see is genes can be both dominant and reccessive. The news had a couple on who suffered a "heriditary" disease which crippled both of them to the extent they have limted speech and use a motorized wheel chair to get around majoirty of the time. This couple had 2 children and both are fine. They might carry the gene, but unlikely its going to pop up again.

His use of Darwinism in any normal form is wrong. He's actually talking about eugenics. There are two different threads on that particular topic in NCAP somewhere though, so I would advise he take his argument there.
God, those kids were fucking lucky. There's a one-in-four chance that either one of them didn't turn out fucked up, and a one-in-sixteen chance that both of them together are fine.

As for the thread question, I would suggest an expansion of pre-natal testing for disease, and abortion (forced, coerced, encouraged or voluntary; take your pick) for those fetuses which turn up a negetive result.

 

[Kwayera]

As for the thread question, I would suggest an expansion of pre-natal testing for disease, and abortion (forced, coerced, encouraged or voluntary; take your pick) for those fetuses which turn up a negetive result.

This.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

Forced abortion. Now there's a morally sound position to take.

You really are a confused person mang.

EDIT: I now deem that you are unfit for giving birth to babies, Kwayera, because of a certain genetic sequence. When you wish to give birth to a baby, I deem it my moral authority to decide that you shall be deprived of liberty, and your baby shall be deprived of life.

 

[Kwayera]

I didn't actually specify which of the "and abortion (forced, coerced, encouraged or voluntary; take your pick)" I support. For the record, I don't believe in forced abortions.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

Oh ok.

Disregard then.

My mistake.

 

[Iron]

I didn't actually specify which of the "and abortion (forced, coerced, encouraged or voluntary; take your pick)" I support. For the record, I don't believe in forced abortions.

I agree with undefined and mysterious elements of this statement
These elements are known only to me and are subject to abandonment when i'm called out on them

 

[XPac2]

Everyone has the rite to procreate.

 

[UndeadSamurai01]

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.

You're missing the point - we're not 'killing' anything - the 'child' dosn't exist yet. If this is classified as killing then anyone who DOSN'T have sex with you right now is KILLING YOUR UNBORN CHILD and should be accused of murder.

 

[moll.]

Everyone has the rite to procreate.

No they don't. Procreation and the creation of new life is a responsibility, not an inalienable right.
There's no such thing as "human rights" anyway. Only a few basic nice things that we want to happen to us.

 

[SnowFox]

Everyone has the rite to procreate.

Its a priveledge. If they are capable of taking care of the child then let them. If they cant, then they should learn before they bang each other.

Most cases where the parents are the carier of the mutant gene and their child is a sufferer, theres a 50% chance he/she is infertile.

 

[SnowFox]

<citation needed>

Y linked disorders, sorry forgot about that. Its only a small portion of diseases and they have a large chance of becoming infertile.

An add on to the inheritance part:
If the disease is Dominant, theres a 50% chance the offsping will carry the disease. That 50% also have a ~% chance of developing the diesease. That % depends on the disease itself, for example Huntington disease has a 95% chance of being developed and a 5% chance of not developing and only being carried.
There are other disease where the % of developing is extremly low thought.

Recessive diseases need two parents to be carrying the disease for the child to remotely have a chance of developing it. Theres a 25% chance of it developing a child where the parents were carriers and not actually suffering from it. For example Cystic Fibrosis.

 

[moll.]

You still didn't give a citation, and you changed the topic. Fail post failed.

 

[forks]

i think i'll be content with just more education on the chances of a disease sprouting up and how it affects quality of life

theres not much more we can or should do after that

 

[SnowFox]

You still didn't give a citation, and you changed the topic. Fail post failed.

How do you add citation to your own knowledge, and its the same topic. Genes.

 

[Kwayera]

Actually, Snow Fox, it's in the rules of the NCAP forum that if you make a claim, you have to back it up. Cite your sources or retract the statement.