Shall we limit who can procreate?

[CraigD]

… I'm NEVER having children …

A very responsible sentiment.

 

However, unless you are never going to have heterosexual sex, have heterosex only with infertile partners, or adhere absolutely to an error-proof, multi-layered strategy of birth control (which requires that you be able to guarantee that both you and you partner will neither change your mind about adhering to such a strategy), you can’t credibly make this claim.

 

I’ve known many people who expressed the intention to have no children, only to change their minds when faced with a contraception failure and accidental pregnancy. I’m one of them. Such situations are difficult, made moreso by strong instinctual emotions.

[Wondering]

 

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.

 

Ronthepon and others have said that limiting who can procreate would be a progression of society. Maybe from their standpoints. But when looking at other factors such as law, and human rights, inforcing sterilization would actually be taking a huge step backwards. It seems like some people just want to be the mad scientists here, what about other parts of life? Just because you CAN do something that COULD have some positive effects, doesn't mean you should. This can be learned in history class.:embarass:

 

edit: and from CraigD^^^ :)

[Boerseun]

Thanks for the replies, guys - but I think you might be dragging it slightly out of context here.

 

What I'm pondering is that if the parent is a carrier of a known genetic defect - and I'm using Downs as a handy example, although I've said in a previous post that I've very little knowledge about the causes of Downs - would it be a good idea to allow procreation as long as the parent underwent sufficient gene therapy?

 

Freedom is one thing, but there is simply no way you can tell me it's better to allow someone to have a disabled kid, than to have a healthy one? Who's benefitting from the freedom here? The parent exercising his/her constitutional rights, or the poor kid who has to live with the consequences for the rest of his life? I have never said we should prevent them from having kids. If we know for a fact that gene X causes Y, and Y kinda sucks, and it is within our power to remove gene X, won't this just be a more subtle form of inoculation?

 

Theoretically, it should be possible to genetically make people immune to malaria. This would be morally acceptable, and making it law to force the population to submit to gene therapy to achieve this will raise very few eyebrows. What exactly would be the moral difference in such a case, as opposed to use the same technique to remove known malfunctions, like Downs, for instance? Where do we draw the line between good Public Health policy, and playing God? Would it be wrong? And why?

[IDMclean]

I cite another freedom that I hold as acceptable, the freedom to die. On has the right to live and with it has the right to die, By their choice.

 

If it's merely a question of "Should we force treatment of genetic disorders?" rather than "Should we limit who can procreate?", then I suppose that it maybe acceptable to make it policy and to encourage it.

 

However to make anything Law and to Completely Force it, with no say in the matter, is to ask for trouble and revolt. I know that if some one tells me that I "Have" to do something then my knee jerk is to tell them where they can shove it. My dad told me once that I "have" to eat. That was a hard week, I got rather hungery.

 

If the mother of a Genetically disordered child decides to bring the child to term, and the child is born with sufficent capability so as to exist independantly of extreame mechanical assistance. (IE not brain dead or otherwise completely disabled and unable to exert free will).

 

Then it becomes the perogative of the Child to decide their future, if they are to have one at all. It is in the interest of the Parents at this point also, to aid in the descissions of the child, in so far as they are not unnessarily Destructive to themselves or others. If the child suffers, Emotionally, physically, Mentally, or otherwise, and the only solution is non-existance then that is the choice of the Child(Free Soul).

[C1ay]

What I'm pondering is that if the parent is a carrier of a known genetic defect.....

 

I have no objections to genetic research or practice to better our future children....

[jkellmd]

As long as we are, for the sake of argument, disallowing those with genetic defects to procreate, why don't we stop helping people with infertility problems? If their genes are too weak to allow for "natural" conception, pregnancy and birth, are we serving humanity by helping them pass their genes on?

Which does more damage to the gene pool:

 

A. The offspring of tens of thousands of successful artificial insemination procedures.

 

B. The rare (even newsworthy) case of mentally handicapped individuals having children that manage to survive into the child bearing years, and then procreate themselves.

 

Again, the rights of the individual versus the interests of the collective. Sticky little buggers, those "reproductive rights." Do we even have a right to reproduce?

[TheBigDog]

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

Lets try and follow that thought....

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

We already limit methods of procreation. Procreation through incest is illegal - so you can't have kids with immidiate family. Cloning humans is illegal - so you cannot do it alone or unpaired. Procreation through rape is illegal - must be concentual procreation. And age of concent come into play for legal procreation - kids cannot procreate.

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?

Laws in a democratic society are the concensus of the people aimed at resolving these contradictions. In all cases solutions will be found that will vary in popularity and effectivness. That is the way the "societal organism" evolves. We are not faced with the black and white decisions of one or the other. We swing between the extremes in search of that which best serves both masters. But in the end, it is the individual choice that is most important. Our individual happyness is most important to each of us. And our personal value system is how we weigh the consequences of our actions. There are certain values that will help a person thrive as a member of a free society - like respect for rule of law and personal accoutability. And there are others that help individuals strengthen society - like altruism and charity. In a successful society individuals find the value in these things and find the balance between self and society from within themselves. Others are either selfish in that they don't want to contribute, or in that they wnat only to receive. For those people at the ends of the spectrum we create incentives to help them live as the rest of society, but we cannot foresake the rights of individuals for the sake of society. All societies that follow that path are doomed as they are denying the core needs of the individual and are not really free societies at all.

 

You seem to be suggesting that there is no harmony or balance to be found, and that a successfull society must deny personal freedoms. I submit that this is simply not the case. That the only way to have a strong society is to first recognize the rights of the individuals, and let the strength of those individuals be the strength of the society. Counter-intuitive, but factual. Freedom is the lifeblood of our future success as a species, society and as individuals.

 

Bill

[ronthepon]

Now that is exactly my point. We can not have the same everywhere.

 

However, what you called a 'strong' society, was called a facist government by the Italians once upon a time.

[Racoon]

Heres a question..

 

And this has been a great thread by the by..:)

 

Should we eliminate natural species, such as Tigers, Rhinos, Polar Bears, Gazelle, Elephants...

To make room for more and more Humans, who are decidedly un- endangered??

 

If I had the choice, between a rare Tiger cub living, or a Down's syndrome baby??

Tiger.. Its a numbers game

Humans have 6 + billion. quit F*ing crying...

 

Tigers or Bears will be more missed than genetically deficient children.

And thats what we are eliminating to make room for.

:evil:

Priorities!

[IDMclean]

You include yourself racoon, man. You are by this thread's definition a genetic deficient. Schizophernia is a serious problem that could have wide spread consiquences.

 

I'm not advocating the destruction of the Biosphere, we live in tandem with it. We can not exist without all the life around us. However the answer does not lie in the ceasation of life. All life is precious and all life is free. I advocate animal right to live as much as I advocate human right to live. Me and tigers get along real good, I don't bother them and they don't bother me.

 

However rather than spending huge ammounts to prevent special cases from breeding I would rather that money and the money currently going into a large excessive police state, and the money going into a large excessive, morally questionable army go into Social, Stellar, and Industrial development. F*ck messing up the planet and edging out the other life forms, and screw worring about small fry stuff like what 1% of the population should we f*ck over today.

 

We have numbers, we have material needs, we have food and medicines, and more than anything we need more space. Well how big is that universe I keep hearing about? sounds to me like we have a whole nother planet, without native flora and fauna that could hold us over for a while.

 

 

I'm looking for change, but I know it isn't here on Earth.

[ronthepon]

Priorities!

Now that is how a scientist or an animal rights activist would answer.

 

But human rights commision?

 

That's the problem with our society. They just don't think in another manner.

[TheBigDog]

Now that is exactly my point. We can not have the same everywhere.

 

However, what you called a 'strong' society, was called a facist government by the Italians once upon a time.

I made not even a hint of facism in my description. I am pointing at the fact that when individuals are given freedom they will tend to use it for good. And that individual altruism and charity are core elements that grow strong in free society and give strength to that society. That is not fascism.

 

Bill

[Cedars]

I can see where someone would wonder if society should step in on these genetic conditions. I myself would not want to live a Downs syndrome life, no matter how much relief society can provide. There are multiple physical conditions that I would consider life not worth it, where quality is a deciding factor for me over quanity.

 

Knowing a few parents who have Downs syndrome children, I have to look at whether or not the children are being provided for in an acceptable method. Are they loved by their parents? Yes they are. Are the parents providing a safe/good/positive environment for these children? Yes they are. Do the children themselves feel loved, cared for, and enjoy their lives? Yes.

 

The monetary costs to society is a non-issue in this arguement in my opinon. If one factors 'cost' in, then it must be applied equally to all genetic health conditions.

 

After thinking about this topic for awhile I would have to say No. Society should not regulate who has kids and who does not until the individual shows a compelling reason for society to step in and say enough. A compelling reason is the refusal to provide basics regarding the care of a child. Abuse, neglect, parental criminal behaviors that result in additional suffering of the child. And as has been pointed out by several others in this thread, society does not always make the correct choice in these matters, when given the power to do so.

[CraigD]

If I had the choice, between a rare Tiger cub living, or a Down's syndrome baby?? …

This question is an example of a false dicotomy logical fallacy. Barring a bizarre situation (eg: you’re the only person present to give critical first aid in an accident involving a tiger cub and a Down’s baby) , any person presented with choice of preserving or ending the life of a rare tiger cub of a Down’s syndrome baby will also have the choice of preserving or ending the life of both.

 

This fallacy applies not only to a contrived scenario like the above, but to genuine habitat preservation policy. The encroachment of human habitation on rare species habitats, and poaching, are not the result of a “kill or be killed” dilemma, but of political, economic, and legal factors. Given the present climate, population, and other natural factors, there is no situation where a policy maker must decide between protecting a threatened species, or preventing the birth of or euthanizing a human being of any kind.

[ronthepon]

Hm. Perhaps I did point in the wrong direction when I pointed at you, TheBigDog.

 

I meant to point at the fundementals of the whole methodology of facism and it's inspiration.

It believes (rightfully to some extent) that not all individuals know for sure exactly what's good for them.

So, the government decides that it alone knows what is good for the public.

 

Ofcourse this is not a very easy to support philosophy. Sometimes, the people just need to be on the top, thinking for themselves.

 

However, if facism or dictatorship ruled the earth, the human race would be forcefully 'cleaned'.

 

The worst part is:

And maybe the ones living in 3006 would thank these steps.

[TheBigDog]

The worst part is:

And maybe the ones living in 3006 would thank these steps.

Don't underestimate mankinds ability to solve problems that seem insurmountable to us today.

 

Bill

[ronthepon]

Don't underestimate mankinds ability to solve problems that seem insurmountable to us today.

 

Bill

This is very true. We have indeed gotten through unimaginably bad situations in the past.

 

It's just a matter of how this situation will be tackled. I certainly hope for the best.