Shall we limit who can procreate?

Boerseun · May 19, 2006

As a thought coming from the 'Quirky Science Facts' thread, it was mentioned that maybe it's a good idea to prevent people suffering from Downs Syndrome from procreation. Now here's the thing:

You can't blame Downs sufferers from wanting to procreate. It's a natural instinct. But should we? If Downs is caused by a faulty gene (I don't know anything at all about the causes of Downs), chances are the kids might be normal or Downs sufferers themselves. Now - if they are normal, will the grow up normally? Will they bring their friends home to come play? They will be ragged and mocked by kids their own age till they leave home. Then, when they enter the world as normal adults, would they want to procreate, knowing that they are carriers of this faulty gene, and their own kids would have a far greater than normal chance of having Downs themselves?

In allowing Downs sufferers the right to procreate, are we doing it for them, or to make ourselves feel better about ourselves being so benevolent? Have we thought about what we're doing to their offspring? Are we doing them any favours? And if we're doing it for the latter, where's the morality in that?

Even applying gene therapy to remove the faulty gene from the offspring, they will still grow up in an abnormal home. They will have mental issues for the rest of their lives about their peer group continuously ragging them. I think self-confidence will be a big issue.

Myself, I'm against letting anybody with any kind of verifiable genetic malfunction procreate without proper genetic therapy - as long as the said genetic malfunction isn't impeding on brain activities that might have a negative influence on raising a kid - such as Downs syndrome. But applying this in practice will be intruding in so many basic human rights that it's not realistic.

I know - this opens up all kinds of doors for Nazi-like behaviour and the 'government deciding who can have kids and who can't', but still, I think there might be something here...

Thoughts?

Buffy · May 19, 2006

Oooh, slippery slope rears its ugly head (I *like* mixed metaphors. So sue me!)...

There is a *big* difference of course between "officially discourage" and "legally proscribe". Freedom can be defined as "being able to do whatever you want to do as long as it doesn't hurt someone else." As many of you know, I'm fond of Melville who likes to point out that many moral absolutes can only be painted in shades of gray. Good luck with splitting that baby Solomon.

Many people go ahead and do stupid things, and then expect society to get them out of it. I'm not sure that's good, but there are multiple victims. I like having people who do stupid things have to pay for the consequences, and in this case, I'd say it works pretty good: Having a kid has its risks. You can follow the obstetrician's guidelines exactly and still end up with a kid with birth defects or is developmentally disabled. Society says you end up paying a good share of the burden, but we also agree that since you can't predict it, you should be protected somewhat at least by insurance.

One of the principles of insurance is that people who pose a greater risk should pay more in premiums. I personally believe that if that "greater risk" is something that you can do nothing about (any genetic disorder that affects you directly will do: Parkinsons, Alzheimers etc, which is simpler since it does not necessarily involve procreation), should *not* subject you to higher premiums because this is discrimination against a class of people, not a controllable behavior. This would lead to a conclusion that yes, they should be allowed to procreate, and that yes, society provide at least some of the potential burden that is ultimately not borne by the parent.

Should it be discouraged? Probably. Will people listen? Not bloody likely, especially if they're being lectured to. Will they bear a burden if they make the wrong choice? Yes, even if society picks up a big chunk of the financial tab. Should we try to discourage them anyway? Yep.

Should there be a *law* against it? I have a real problem with this, but its likely to happen (and of course has, in places like Nazi Germany) in the right circumstances. I will just argue against it.

Liberty is not cheap, but its worth every penny,

Buffy

someguy · May 19, 2006

I say no unless I get to pick who we don't allow. Actually that's probably everybody's take. I don't think you can pick and choose who can or can't make a baby regardless of the situation. How many highly competent people with Downs are going to get to together to make a baby anyway?

But if you are say talking about overpopulation. Limit how much you can procreate. I think I may be for that.