Shall we limit who can procreate?

[ronthepon]

I suggest poison gas.

[Vagabond -SC2-]

Boerseun, That is what can happen once you start down a road (society and the gov) take it to more extremes and soon you will most likely have people picking and choosing the genetic make (the traits they believe are the best) up of their kids... This tread reminds me of that movie GATACA. For those who have not seen it: a society make up and based on the perfect genetic sequences. The main character was conceived and born in natural ways (non selected or manipulated ~inferior). but goes on to do amazing things...

[C1ay]

If we can identify the gene causing Downs, and we can remove it, then everybody's happy, no?

Sure. In the mean time those with Down's should be free to make their own choice on procreation. Their own defects should not cost them the same liberty that I enjoy.

[ronthepon]

I have posted this earlier in this thread, and would like to make it a bit more out in the open.

 

Do we want the (1A)good of mankind or do we want (1B)the good of men?

 

Do we want (2A)the society to progress or do we want (2B)the people to be happy?

 

Do we want to (3A)murder morality or do we want to (3B)destroy our future?

Can anybody out there post an answer to all the three questions in one post and come out smelling spring fresh?

 

Remember: If you have selected a 'A' along with a 'B' anywhere, you are contradicting yourself.

 

So I guess gene therapy, as unthinkable it may sound to some is the best option.

[ronthepon]

But then... down's syndrome is not always due to inheritance... (Only in rare cases called familial down's syndrome)

 

So let's use some other gene disease... say Colour blindness.

[niviene]

B - great thread (and let me take a brief moment to say I enjoy your changing Avatars ;) ) - this is something I think about often. Mostly when I am faced with someone who is a lifer and who then says he has the right to procreate because it says "go forth and multiply" in the bible, and that I am violating his religious freedom by arresting him for the 37th time. Do I think that man has the right to procreate? No... at least, not at that moment - but then, as I am driving and cut off by some idiot who is on a cell phone, or whenever any other person does something completely moronic that could potentially have done a lot of damage to myself or others, I often wonder why we don't have an IQ test to stop idiots from procreation. However, this is not the topic, just my frustration. :P

 

There are certain things that I do feel should be limited. In my experience, we can never simply draw a black and white line and say yes or no absolutely without observing things on a case-by-case basis. WHen people argue with me about the new smoking ban laws here, and my response is the prescribed,

"it is for the health of those who do not want to inhale second hand smoke," I then wonder about things such as obesity. Obesity doesn't exactly jump off someone and onto the person standing nearby. But the person who remains obese her entire life usually ends up as a burden of society, and we all know about the amazing rate of increase in our health care costs - mostly due to obesity and the problems stemming from it. This is something that is done by choice. In almost every circumstance, the person could have chosen to eat and live healthier, saving the rest of us from this financial slavery. I know this isn't the subject of this thread, but it is relevant in the issue which matters to me - the voluntary vs involuntary problems.

 

The subject above is something that really makes me angry, and I feel like this might be one of the biggest downfalls to come in our future (in the US, at least). These voluntary choices will crush our healthcare system.

 

THe involuntary choices, such as being born with trisomy 21 (down's syndrome) would be easier to take care of with funds we would have available to us if we didn't have the other things to pay for. On the one hand, I feel that nature has a way of saying that if your genes are not naturally viable for life, we should not step in and interfere, because this alters the natural gene pool. Would someone with Down's syndrome naturally be able to reproduce? Yes. There is a chance the offspring won't have the genetic fault. In our country which boasts endlessly of freedoms which become farther and farther removed from us, I don't feel that we could take away someone's right to procreate based on something that truly is involuntary. I agree with Buffy, though, that it should be discouraged - especially if the parents are unable to successfully care for children on their own. Again - this is from no fault of their own, a genetic disorder that they could not control - and is not the same as perhaps a crack ho on welfare that can't successfully control or care for children she pops out (and to that person I would say to remove her ability for procreation at least until she can care for what she creates...). I don't see how we could stand behind the Bill of Rights and then limit anyone's ability to procreate, however. It's a shame that people can't do their own part to carry their own weight when they can, so that we could simply step in to give aid where truly necessary - and that is something I would not be frustrated or angry to give my tax dollars for.

 

I wonder where personal responsibility went - did it ever exist, or was it an illusion within my mind? Seems like people used to have more of it. Perhaps I have stepped into a new thread, however. Great topic, B.

[Panjandrum]

To punish someone for something they did not do voluntarily is an indefencible position. It reminds me of God / Allah, who makes humans predestined for hell. Tis not possible to hold a position like Boersums without also postulating a new relationship between people and society. As Ronthepon said, you must choose between individual happiness and societal progression.

 

I disagree that morality is painted in shades of grey. For it to have any meaning, it must be absolute. To say otherwise is to fall into the error of moral relativism.

[CraigD]

how do you rationalize this discussion with actually killing thousands of babies a year by aborting them? why would it bother you to abort Downs babies, or other genetically imperfect fetuses when thousands of perfectly healthy babies are killed every year?

Preventing reproduction doesn’t require abortion. It can also be accomplished through sexual abstinence, contraception, or surgical sterilization.

 

Despite some less-than-credible studies to the contrary, it doesn’t appear that the promotion of sexual abstinence has a significant effect on human reproduction. Therefore, the problem of limiting reproduction becomes one of providing effective contraception. It’s not a new problem, nor one without considerable success in societies where small family size confers tangible advantages to the individual, family, or society.

 

Boerseun appears to have focused this thread specifically on the problem of controlling reproduction among people who may lack the ability to use widely available contraceptive medicines and devices, a problem compounded by the increased vulnerability of mentally retarded women to rape. Resarch for effective contraceptives for this and other populations for whom more convention contraceptives are of reduced effectiveness has focused mostly on long-acting chemical contraception for women.

 

During the 1990s, Norplant was a popular implanted chemical contraceptive. Unfortunately, its manufacturer (Wyeth) removed it from the world market in 2002, and a similar product, Jadelle, although approved by the USFDA in 1996, is not available in the US, apparently because its manufacturer (again, Wyeth) considers the risk of large lawsuits against them in the US to be too great. An injectable long-acting contraceptive, Depo Provera, remains available, but is less long-acting (3 months vs. 5 years), and has a higher incidence of unpleasant and health-threatening side effects.

 

Surgical sterilization – vasectomy for men, tubal ligation for women – has a well established record of safety and efficacy, but should be considered irreversible, making it an emotionally distasteful option even for people who intend to never have children.

[TheBigDog]

I have posted this earlier in this thread, and would like to make it a bit more out in the open.

 

Do we want the (1A)good of mankind or do we want (1B)the good of men?

 

Do we want (2A)the society to progress or do we want (2B)the people to be happy?

 

Do we want to (3A)murder morality or do we want to (3B)destroy our future?

Can anybody out there post an answer to all the three questions in one post and come out smelling spring fresh?

 

Remember: If you have selected a 'A' along with a 'B' anywhere, you are contradicting yourself.

 

So I guess gene therapy, as unthinkable it may sound to some is the best option.

Why do you propose that the A and B choices are mutually exclusive of each other?

 

Bill

[Freddy]

I do not know if it could be enforced, but I believe people should need a license to procreate. We need a license to hunt, fish, drive, teach, nurse, doctor, marry, psychoanalyze, and fly a plane. But to make a baby any couple with working sexual parts can procreate. Why? How many parents out there are a burden to society? Many have more children than they can afford. Many have poor parenting skills and raise problem children. Why are there not mandatory parenting classes in high school to teach people to be better parents? Society will always have problems, but we can improve it. We have to study and take tests for many of the things we need a license for. Why not a license for procreation and childrearing?

[ronthepon]

Why do you propose that the A and B choices are mutually exclusive of each other?

I say so because all three questions are built on different implications and so are different forms of the same question.

 

Shall we (A)limit who can procreate or (:doh: shall we not.

 

Do we want the (1A)good of mankind or do we want (1B)the good of men?

 

Do we want (2A)the society to progress or do we want (2B)the people to be happy?

 

Do we want to (3A)murder morality or do we want to (3B)destroy our future?

[Boerseun]

Hey, Niv! Haven't seen you around for awhile! How's life? :D

 

Coming back to the thread, I think I'll have to repeat myself yet again, however. I've said that I'm

against procreation by people suffering from a known genetic defect, without proper and efficient gene therapy.

Citing constitutional freedoms as the reason why whe shouldn't interfere with people suffering from mental retardation from procreating, aren't we just making

ourselves feel better about ourselves being so benevolent?

...in which case, where's the morality?

 

I believe that in the matter of Downs Syndrome sufferers procreating or not, the issue lies further that us, and what we want, and them and what they want. There are kids involved as well. Are you doing them a favour? Not legally speaking - to them as individuals. Are you doing them any kind of favour at all? Sure - constitutionally, you can't limit it. But in the perfect world I would love to live in, I would seriously like to see it prevented unless sufficient genetic therapy is provided.

 

Am I a dreamer? Or a Nazi?

[Panjandrum]

Am I a dreamer? Or a Nazi?

 

The two are not mutually exclusive.

[CraigD]

… I've said that I'm

against procreation by people suffering from a known genetic defect, without proper and efficient gene therapy.

Citing constitutional freedoms as the reason why whe shouldn't interfere with people suffering from mental retardation from procreating, aren't we just making

ourselves feel better about ourselves being so benevolent?

Am I a dreamer? Or a Nazi?

I’m confident you’re not a Nazi, Boerseun, but I think you’re terribly wrong to promote the transfer power over procreation from the people to the state, and are failing to consider the judicial history behind the abhorrence of this idea, particularly in the US. I’ll attempt to summarize this history.

 

Although the idea of inheritance and “good” or “bad blood” is very old, possibly prehistoric, modern ideas concerning “eugenics”, and that the state has an interest in promoting such policies, emerged in the late 19th century, and is related to the popular acceptance of Darwin’s theory of evolution. Policies of eugenics were common in the colonies of European countries. In the US, which had only recently outlawed slavery, such policies typically took the form of laws prohibiting marriage between whites and blacks, or policies that simply strove to reduce the reproductive rate of black Americans, as well as Native Americans.

 

Up to the 1930s, such policies were strongly affirmed in judicial review by US courts on many levels. In particular, then US Supreme Court associate justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote in support of state programs, with words that would seem chilling when echoed 20 years later in Nazi Germany:

It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind.

Although little spoken of in popular histories, the anti-Jew and other racial and ethnic group programs in pre and early WWII Germany enjoyed considerable support among intellectual and common American society. By the 1930s, 30 of 50 US states had laws requiring sterilization of many classifications of US citizens, including the mentally retarded, epileptics, schizophrenics, convicted criminals, drug addicts, syphilics, or, in 3 states, simply “moral degenerates”.

 

During and after WWII, with awareness of the Holocaust widespread, these laws, which were very similar to those of Nazi Germany, were widely scrutinized, and in large part, challenged and repealed, although the process was slow and complicated by changes transforming compulsory sterilization laws into voluntary programs with judicial and economic incentives.

 

So, in 1927’s Buck v. Bell, the SCOTUS held that a law permitting sterilization of inmates of state mental institutions was constitutional. In 1942’s Skinner v. Oklahoma, the SCOTUS held that a law permitting the sterilization of habitual criminals was unconstitutional.

 

This shift in public policy and law reflects, I believe, not so much a rejection of the idea that people with heritable disorders should not reproduce, but a rejection of the idea that government can be trusted to have the power to compel any people not to reproduce for any reason. History has made it clear that the potential for abuse of this power is too great, outweighing any benefit gained from it. Instead, we now favor programs of education and counseling to help people make responsible reproductive decisions, accepting that some people will not. It is better that society bear the burden of inherited disease and disorders, than risk the intrusion of government on such decisions.

[IDMclean]

Wow. What is really being discussed here is genocide...

 

Genocide is defined by the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG) Article 2 as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such: Killing members of the group; Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; and forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

 

Wikipedia has allot to say on the matter of Down's Syndrome.

 

The incidence of Down syndrome is estimated at 1 per 800 births[1] (about 95% of which are trisomy 21, making it the most common human aneuploidy). Maternal age influences the chance of conceiving a baby with the syndrome. At age 20 to 24, the chance is 1/1490, while at age 40 the chance is 1/106, and at age 49 the chance is 1/11.[2] Although the chance increases with maternal age, most children with Down syndrome (80%) are born to women under the age of 35.[3] This reflects the overall fertility of that age group. Many standard screens of pregnancies indicate Down syndrome, although they are not very accurate. Genetic counseling along with genetic testing, such as amniocentesis or chorionic villus sampling, are usually offered to families who may have an increased chance of having a child with Down syndrome.

 

While most children with Down syndrome have a lower than average cognitive function, some have earned college degrees with accommodations, and nearly all will learn to read, write and do simple mathematics. The common clinical features of Down syndrome include any of a number of features that also appear in people with a standard set of chromosomes. They include a simian crease (a single crease across one or both palms), almond shaped eyes, shorter limbs, heart and/or gastroesophageal defects, speech impairment, and perhaps a higher than average risk of incidence of Hirschsprung's disease. Young children with Down syndrome are also more prone to recurrent ear infections and obstructive sleep apnea.

 

Early Childhood Intervention, screening for common problems, such as thyroid functioning, medical treatment where indicated, a conducive family environment, vocational training, etc., can improve the overall development of children with Down syndrome. On the one hand, Down syndrome shows that some genetic limitations cannot be overcome; on the other, it shows that education can produce excellent progress whatever the starting point. The commitment of parents, teachers, and therapists to individual children has produced previously unexpected positive results.

 

 

Who would be next, I mean after the Down's Syndrome people? How about the Personality Disorders? Schizophrenia has been shown to have a link to genetic heritage.

 

How about what would become so called "illegal" children? Would we use Euthanasia? I hear that Holland uses Euthanasia.

 

I don't know maybe just maybe I could go with the whole Eugenics thing. *sarcasm alert*

 

... I don't know, I can do math pretty well... I would have to say that if it's a matter of Security veruses Freedom? I pick Freedom. I would have been killed ten times over if I had existed but only a century ago.

 

Every person has their place within this universe, and it is always the choice of the parent to have a child, I support abortion and even to some degree Euthanasia, however beyond a certain scoop it starts to look increasingly dirty and infringing on one's freedom to live.

 

Once a person has breathed and seen with their own eyes the world around them, once they have begun asperations and are shaped i say that they are free, as long as they rely upon their mother's metabolism they are bound and not yet seperate entities from their mother and therefore are not subject to freedom. The mother may at this time decide to cancel the birth and abort.

 

This is cold and heartless, I know but there have to be limits, for light to exist there must be darkness.

[Queso]

Yeah seriously.

 

We need to stop having kids.

 

I'm NEVER having children,

Life is too ****ing menacing for me, anyway,

I'd never want to put another person through this.

 

That, right there

is natures way of saying

hush-

[IDMclean]

What is not understood is:

Sub-replacement rates

 

In industrial countries the replacement rates become atrocious, if the world were to Industriallize the world wide replacement rates would become such that population would go into a decline.

 

I have no fear of population crisis. The pressure of population will eventually drive us to exactly where we need to be, Space.

 

So many people go into panic, when deep down they know that tomarrow, they will wake up and they will continue to breath and it will all be alright.

 

It really doesn't matter, in the end it will all balance out. If we create sub-classes of people or perpetuate sub-classes (IE Children) then we will begin the down hill slide to making more and more and we will face old problems, we will regress, and that is not good, or at least in the short time, if we regress then we will one day progress again and perhaps this time with that failure under our belt we will better manage and progress even further.

 

So like I said, don't sweat it. the world is a great place and in the end it will all turn out alright. Nature always finds a way. Those of you who do mathematics and talk evolution, what happens when an organism is maladaptive?

 

This is really a panic conversation of Short Term versuses Long Term. I say sit it out and let for the long term to take it's course. Guide and assist but heavy handed measures will only upset the balance and lead to short term pains and losses, with only short term gains. The stable system is the one that is closest to balance.