Certain people shouldn't be allowed to reproduce

[starcock]

If a person already has a lot of mental issues; most likely both partners, even if they are extremely over weight(freakishly over weight), taking all kinds of drugs, life is a failure and is doing the lowest, possible, activities considered by humans. Others include beings abnormal, *********** and certain diseases, that are fatal. Should these people be more responsible and take into consideration, that they will make the children suffer a great deal in the future? Not just socially but they won't be able to do anything they really want because of genetic limitations. Maybe most of them don't have the ability to think about these issues for the child by themselves because this. What can be done? Should there be programs, teaching them to be more considerate? Should abortion be talked about when these cases rise?

If they allow these people to reproduce, they do not only bring down society with burdens, but they suffer themselves to the point of suicide, become a danger to others by being hostile or can't cognitively decide, the difference between right and wrong. I am not saying they should go to jail, if they reproduce but just other methods, to make them aware of the situation. They could have massive sex, just with the protection of a condom or so on, they could even adopt a healthy child. What do you guys think? Is this making their children suffer, if they are allowed to live? being born with one arm and no legs, having a abnormal head? extra limbs? can't move without the aid of a machine? It is cruel to me, is it to you?

 

[Teebs]

It would be cruel, and I agree that they shouldn't be allowed to reproduce, the only problem with this is that it is their own decision, and if they feel like they want to degrade their own family, then there is nothing we can do to stop them. If they knew it would happen, then they should make the decision not to do it, but maybe they just won't care how fun their child gets made fun of. Maybe since that is how it has been their whole lives, then that is how it will continue with their children. It's one of those, "If it happens to me, then it should happen to them" scenarios. I would go on the side of adoption however.

 

[Crimson King]

Uh, no. There is no reason why anyone should say if someone can or can't reproduce. It's instinctive to reproduce and to hinder that is barbaric and just plain stupid.

By placing restrictions on what you determine as undesirables you open a myriad of other areas for debate. What about old people? Their children are more likely to develop down-syndrome. While on that topic, the number of people I have seen with a mental illness in areas of Louisiana is exceedingly high, should their parents be studied and that archtype be banned from reproduction.

While you are at it, Black people have a high percent chance of Sickle Cell anenmia, which is a death sentence. Would you like to tell all black people they can't reproduce if that have those genes?

What you are arguing is selective reproduction, which is extremely Orwellian. You want the better genes to only be passed, which creates a super race of genetically flawless individuals. You are treading in very dangerous waters with the likes of Hitler.

 

[starcock]

Uh, no. There is no reason why anyone should say if someone can or can't reproduce. It's instinctive to reproduce and to hinder that is barbaric and just plain stupid.

By placing restrictions on what you determine as undesirables you open a myriad of other areas for debate. What about old people? Their children are more likely to develop down-syndrome. While on that topic, the number of people I have seen with a mental illness in areas of Louisiana is exceedingly high, should their parents be studied and that archtype be banned from reproduction.

While you are at it, Black people have a high percent chance of Sickle Cell anenmia, which is a death sentence. Would you like to tell all black people they can't reproduce if that have those genes?

What you are arguing is selective reproduction, which is extremely Orwellian. You want the better genes to only be passed, which creates a super race of genetically flawless individuals. You are treading in very dangerous waters with the likes of Hitler.

The instinctive part of reproducing is comming from the sex aspect which they can still have. If you enjoy the free, then there wouldn't be laws and limitations to people killing or stealing to survive. If you allow all these diseased people, they suffer themselves, if you look at the suicide rates or how often the children themselves actually suffer, it is a horrible to see them suffer. So we let these people make others suffer or danger to themselves and others just because of free will.

Let me clarify the diseases, I was talking about the ones that causes abnormalness to the extreme like half the head is overlapping their jaw or something with birth defects that the child needs support from all kind of machines and needs to probably visit the doctor once a month, making it very cruel. Sickle cell is easily avoided by medication and is very minor in the case of being fataal.

No one said to make everyone perfect, I am talking about the extreme cases and not the simple ones that you can live with or have a simple alternitive to keep it under check without having to suffer social issues and everyday physical suffering.

 

[snex]

By placing restrictions on what you determine as undesirables you open a myriad of other areas for debate.

but the law already does this, and the slope hasnt been slippery. it is illegal in most US states for you to marry a sibling. it is also not possible under the law for people with certain mental diseases to consent at all, making any sex with them legally ****.

 

[Crimson King]

The instinctive part of reproducing is comming from the sex aspect which they can still have.

No, animals, such as humans, have a desire to procreate. This is why fertility drugs are in such abundance and so desired by people. People usually have an instinctive urge to have children.

If you enjoy the free, then there wouldn't be laws and limitations to people killing or stealing to survive.

Wrong. There are several natural laws that exist. You have the right to life. You have the right to happiness. You have the right to protect yourself. Murder when it's not in self-defense, infringes on the first right. Theft infringes on the second.

If you allow all these diseased people, they suffer themselves, if you look at the suicide rates or how often the children themselves actually suffer, it is a horrible to see them suffer. So we let these people make others suffer or danger to themselves and others just because of free will.

So, now their offspring is automatically diseased? Most of the time when two mentally ******** people have a child, the child is healthy and normal. Suicide rates are sky high in ALL teenagers. Also, where do you draw the line. You seem to ignore my two examples because you don't have an answer to them, but what about other hereditary diseases. Diabetes causes a life-time of suffering. Alzheimer's is possibly the worse disease for someone late in life. The chances of getting cancer is hereditary. I have hereditary insomnia, which leaves me heavily depleted and if I was depressed, probably suicidal. Depression is also a hereditary disorder, as is alcoholism. All of these have the POTENTIAL to create a child with a doomed life/existence, so, by your logic, anyone with those traits should be weeded out? This is called selective breeding. Hitler tried to do the same thing during the Holocaust.

Let me clarify the diseases, I was talking about the ones that causes abnormalness to the extreme like half the head is overlapping their jaw or something with birth defects that the child needs support from all kind of machines and needs to probably visit the doctor once a month, making it very cruel. Sickle cell is easily avoided by medication and is very minor in the case of being fataal.

It's called a slippery slope. You start with diseases that you feel should be removed, then you add on and add on. Plenty people annually die of sickle cell anemia, and it does still exist in the blood.

No one said to make everyone perfect, I am talking about the extreme cases and not the simple ones that you can live with or have a simple alternitive to keep it under check without having to suffer social issues and everyday physical suffering.

No, your conditions are atrocious. There is absolutely no reason someone should be denied a child because you see fit. What about homosexuals? More and more research is uncovering that homosexuality is a genetic trait. Since gay children have an even higher chance of killing themselves and if that gay couple finds a woman who will give them a child using her uterus, then their offspring will have a higher chance at being gay and living a "troubled life" as you talked about. Have fun explaining to people why they can't have kids too and see how far their life deteriorates.

 

[starcock]

No, animals, such as humans, have a desire to procreate. This is why fertility drugs are in such abundance and so desired by people. People usually have an instinctive urge to have children.

Humans also have a desire for alot of things, such as violence, power and so on, doesn't mean they can use it in a irresponsible way. What about other laws? aren't alot of them putting limitations on our desires to make it more responsible? Say in America, each person having 15 children by choice is not responsible at all.

Wrong. There are several natural laws that exist. You have the right to life. You have the right to happiness. You have the right to protect yourself. Murder when it's not in self-defense, infringes on the first right. Theft infringes on the second.

The right to happiness? Isn't that what Hitler was trying to do? The point is being responsible with the natural laws we are given, we can easily nuke our enemies in self defense since they want us destroyed, we do not do it though because it isn't responsible and is not thinking on how it would affect others.

So, now their offspring is automatically diseased? Most of the time when two mentally ******** people have a child, the child is healthy and normal. Suicide rates are sky high in ALL teenagers. Also, where do you draw the line. You seem to ignore my two examples because you don't have an answer to them, but what about other hereditary diseases. Diabetes causes a life-time of suffering. Alzheimer's is possibly the worse disease for someone late in life. The chances of getting cancer is hereditary. I have hereditary insomnia, which leaves me heavily depleted and if I was depressed, probably suicidal. Depression is also a hereditary disorder, as is alcoholism. All of these have the POTENTIAL to create a child with a doomed life/existence, so, by your logic, anyone with those traits should be weeded out? This is called selective breeding. Hitler tried to do the same thing during the Holocaust.

Again, the diseases you mention isn't as threatining as I explained earlier about it having to be serious. If to people with all kinds of problem go to the doctor and the doctor states that it is a high chance your child will be born with arms and legs but can live on life support. It is responsible for the adults not to have that child because of the suffering it will cause. Most serious defects and *********** cases have shorten the life spans of these individuals, they have been dieing as early as their teens because of this. So basiacally, they suffer until they die. Now you tell me, should they be allowed to spit out off spring because of desires?

It's called a slippery slope. You start with diseases that you feel should be removed, then you add on and add on. Plenty people annually die of sickle cell anemia, and it does still exist in the blood.

No you are grouping diseases together with different rates of death. I can easily group aids and sickle cell together as well, are they the same? they both kill right? no, one has no cure, one is sure of death with a 100% rate while the other is cureable, not as much serious stress, and the rate isn't that high with propper care.

No, your conditions are atrocious. There is absolutely no reason someone should be denied a child because you see fit. What about homosexuals? More and more research is uncovering that homosexuality is a genetic trait. Since gay children have an even higher chance of killing themselves and if that gay couple finds a woman who will give them a child using her uterus, then their offspring will have a higher chance at being gay and living a "troubled life" as you talked about. Have fun explaining to people why they can't have kids too and see how far their life deteriorates.

Gay people having a higher chance of killing themselves is a mental state and is 50 50. Also, it still isn't proven that it is gentics that cause this, it is still being debated. This vs a person that is born without limbs and has brain damage because of teh parents history and choices, this child will die early anyway, why make him/her suffer until an earlt death? just because it is the parents desire.

 

[Crimson King]

Humans also have a desire for alot of things, such as violence, power and so on, doesn't mean they can use it in a irresponsible way. What about other laws? aren't alot of them putting limitations on our desires to make it more responsible? Say in America, each person having 15 children by choice is not responsible at all.

Responsible? No, but they have the right to it. Desires do not equate natural right.

The right to happiness? Isn't that what Hitler was trying to do? The point is being responsible with the natural laws we are given, we can easily nuke our enemies in self defense since they want us destroyed, we do not do it though because it isn't responsible and is not thinking on how it would affect others.

No, it would be the founders of the United States who said everyone has a RIGHT to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That is not self-defense unless they attack you first. That infringes on the first right.

Again, the diseases you mention isn't as threatining as I explained earlier about it having to be serious. If to people with all kinds of problem go to the doctor and the doctor states that it is a high chance your child will be born with arms and legs but can live on life support. It is responsible for the adults not to have that child because of the suffering it will cause. Most serious defects and *********** cases have shorten the life spans of these individuals, they have been dieing as early as their teens because of this. So basiacally, they suffer until they die. Now you tell me, should they be allowed to spit out off spring because of desires?

Diabetes is a disease you suffer with your whole life. Many people in my family have it, and in later stages of life, live in AWFUL situations. Mental retardations are mutations on any strand. Two perfectly healthy people can produce a child with mental disabilities and vice versa. You can't weed it out.

Gay people having a higher chance of killing themselves is a mental state and is 50 50. Also, it still isn't proven that it is gentics that cause this, it is still being debated. This vs a person that is born without limbs and has brain damage because of teh parents history and choices, this child will die early anyway, why make him/her suffer until an earlt death? just because it is the parents desire.

Parental history will not show if a child will be born with any defects until it happens, as I said, mental retardations can occur anytime.

 

[starcock]

Responsible? No, but they have the right to it. Desires do not equate natural right.



No, it would be the founders of the United States who said everyone has a RIGHT to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That is not self-defense unless they attack you first. That infringes on the first right.



Diabetes is a disease you suffer with your whole life. Many people in my family have it, and in later stages of life, live in AWFUL situations. Mental retardations are mutations on any strand. Two perfectly healthy people can produce a child with mental disabilities and vice versa. You can't weed it out.




Parental history will not show if a child will be born with any defects until it happens, as I said, mental retardations can occur anytime.

I undertsand the direction you are heading towards but before I agree with anything, just to clear up some matters. You do agree, that the situations, in most parts are irresponsible right? but disagree that any rights should be deducted from an individual because of it?

 

[Crimson King]

Of course. I completely believe that the individual has the right to do whatever they want as long as it does not directly affect another person. Their children, though individuals, are subject to the parent's whim until they are 18 years old.

 

[starcock]

Ok, in that case, I could consent to the majority of your arguement. As for the ones I disagree with, I would have to return on a later date, after researching new information and statistics.

 

[AltF4]

I've been saying for a while that the main thing that is wrong with the world is that all the wrong people are having children.

That said, I still wouldn't seriously support such a law.

 

[Archaic]

I've been saying for a while that the main thing that is wrong with the world is that all the wrong people are having children.

That said, I still wouldn't seriously support such a law.

Agreed on both points. I'll have to remember that quote.

Anyway I dont really think this topic has a point of being debated as interesting as your argument is with Crimson King, Starcock. It's like the abortion debates and stem-cell research debates, that just cant be concluded because they are moral issues. Sure, it'd be fine if all mentally ******** and disabled people wholeheartedly agreed to not have children and stop the future generations from suffering, but that would never happen. It's their right as human beings if they want to have children. Until we get as populated as China or live in George Orwell's world of 1984 no one can tell them to stop.

 

[solesoul]

I'm going to play the devil's advocate for a second:

Does the want to stop mentaly ******** people and disabled people from repoducing signify a certain attitude towards those people? Because, as previously stated, the drive for procreation is present not only in humans, but in all animal species. So by stopping these people from reproducing, aren't you, in a way, implying that not only are they sub-human, but sub-animal?

 

[Crimson King]

I like that argument, and in essence, yes, it does. During the Holocaust, Jews were experimented on by Nazis without the aid of anesthesia and often did awful things such as, but not limited to sewing limbs on, sterilization using various means, open heart surgery, and lobotomies. All of these ended in the death of the individual.

You realize, for your proposed plan, you'd have to sterilize all people who you deem unworthy to bear children correct? When abortions were illegal, people would have no problem (and still don't) having a coat hanger abortion, which was considerably more painful to the woman and usually resulted in her death. This was for girls who were ***** and felt massive shame, but couldn't tell anyone. All this will do is create a scenario where sex is forbidden fruit and people will be doing it in mass, which also raises the level of STIs exponentially. Always remember, the more you outlaw, the more you make outlaws.

 

[starcock]

Maybe I wasn't clear but I was more on the side of eduacating these people, taking precautions by being with a doctor and the doctor informs these people about the risks involved and see if they are even equiped mentally to even raise the kids without causing serious harms to them. It is like how schools have a sex ed class and says how to use a condom and how it is better. it isn't forcing them into using it and not suggesting if they don't use it, they shall be hanged by the state, no that is taking it to extreme levels and is not what I meant. No one has to use condoms, it is their right not to use it but when everyone doesn't use it because of not being responsible or being eduacating on the risks involved, then that is where you get the irresponsible people and will cause problems for everyone in the long run and in some cases short term.

Now, like I suggested, if they are eduacated, tested and show the risks on what might be a end result, then they can make a decision themselves, of course if the parents are to messed up to even cognitively understand this, you run into the problem of the child growing up to be a mess, and the state moving in to seperate the parents from the child anyway.

 

[Batchfile]

Correct me if I'm wrong. But wouldn't they lose the right to own the child? And if it's cause they're ugly, that's being selfish to consider taking such a necessity away. From the fear of an ugly kid. And if it might come to an outcome of an unhealthy child they should still have a right. Health problems usually only occur if the mother isn't taking proper care of herself.

And sex being a barbaric need for humans really isn't true. Maybe for a technical ultimate goal.. But humans are so greedy, they prefer the pleasure over passing on genes.

 

[starcock]

We have the right to bare arms, but if we go around shooting people and say oh, I thought it was a deer, then it is being used carelessly. Also, if you don't read the manual and inform yourself of the dangers of anything really, then the consequences will be great.

No, if the kid is butt ugly, that isn't a poblem, you just ugly. This example is over exgerating but it gets the point accoss I believe, such as if the doctor tells the couple that they have serious issues nd the kid has a 80% chance of being born as a cyclops, with horse legs, brain damage and most likely will die as a teenager. If that is the case, then they shouldn't have the child and just adopt, using the info responsibly to make a decision. Just like how they made it condom ads all over and required to teach people so they are aware of it.

 

[solesoul]

Example of why you're argument is flawed: me.
In my family's medical history, there is Alzheimer's disease, ADD, OCD, diabetes, strokes, depression, dyslexia, heart failure, cataracts, and gout. And I'm not pulling out random examples from distant relatives here, the only family members I'm including in this are grandparents and parents, nobody else. Given that genetic history, I'm bound to have several of these diseases and disorders. So by you logic, my parents should have had no children, and if they did, the children should have been taken away.

 

[starcock]

Example of why you're argument is flawed: me.
In my family's medical history, there is Alzheimer's disease, ADD, OCD, diabetes, strokes, depression, dyslexia, heart failure, cataracts, and gout. And I'm not pulling out random examples from distant relatives here, the only family members I'm including in this are grandparents and parents, nobody else. Given that genetic history, I'm bound to have several of these diseases and disorders. So by you logic, my parents should have had no children, and if they did, the children should have been taken away.

Exactly and look how you made the world horrible. no, seriously, you took it to the high levels and diseases that are not the same. You can't compare a paper cut and a bullet to the brain. I will look up the SERIOUS ones that people seem to only think these are the on;ly problems, when I have time, I will give you a list of them and show you how serious the outcome is when certain people have these mutant babies after being warned. Mutant as is the actual meaning so don't bother qoute me and say, because I have a birth mark I am a mutant child and should be killed.



Also anyway, Crimson King already broke down every aspect and conclusion, responsibility. i am not going to say the samething over and over after it has been disscussed on page one.

 

[Crimson King]

But you are shirking your point when faced with someone who opposes your mentality. I don't think you realize how seriously awful Alzheimer's is. It cripples families and makes you suffer. But, I think you are saying you want to eliminate mutations by birth defects? Birth defects are no always known prior to birth is the problem. There are plenty times when healthy adults produce a child with "mutations" as you say. But, these parents love that child very much and give him a good home for his life, even if it is short. What about that disorder that makes you age faster. The oldest child was 18 years old and that IS a genetic disease.

You never seem to answer what is the limit on what should and shouldn't be the criteria for whether someone is allowed to have a child. If you are going by what a woman does while pregnant, this argument is over. You will never control whether a woman drinks, smokes, or does drugs while pregnant if she wants to. Those three activities are the LEADING cause of birth defects. As for if two parents are just plain stupid, that will not necessarily pass over to the children until well after birth. So, make a stand. Explain, in bulleted form, what is your criteria.

 

[starcock]

But you are shirking your point when faced with someone who opposes your mentality. I don't think you realize how seriously awful Alzheimer's is. It cripples families and makes you suffer. But, I think you are saying you want to eliminate mutations by birth defects? Birth defects are no always known prior to birth is the problem. There are plenty times when healthy adults produce a child with "mutations" as you say. But, these parents love that child very much and give him a good home for his life, even if it is short. What about that disorder that makes you age faster. The oldest child was 18 years old and that IS a genetic disease.

You never seem to answer what is the limit on what should and shouldn't be the criteria for whether someone is allowed to have a child. If you are going by what a woman does while pregnant, this argument is over. You will never control whether a woman drinks, smokes, or does drugs while pregnant if she wants to. Those three activities are the LEADING cause of birth defects. As for if two parents are just plain stupid, that will not necessarily pass over to the children until well after birth. So, make a stand. Explain, in bulleted form, what is your criteria.

I have to alternate my points because prevously you made good points that I took in to consideration. I am not going to be close minded and not give credits when it is due. Not about controling but making better efforts to inform.

Already mostly agreed with you, just countering other people that think I meant something else after going over it with you on page 1. Just repeating again, agreed. Pretty much end of topic.

 

[adumbrodeus]

A foolishly idiotic plan...

The problem is, humans do not nessisarily know what to select for, certainly we can pick some good possibilities, but we won't be able to take into account counter-balancing genetic factors.

Ultimately we are not selecting them for the ultimate survival of the human race based on this criteria, we are selecting them based on survival in this current system if we apply independant criteria for deciding who reproduces.

The problem with this is, what happens when an outside crisis emerges, everyone was selected based on these chosen attributes decreasing genetic diversity, which signifigantly decreases the human race's chances of survival.

We are not qualified to decide who is genetically advantaged because we don't know what the future holds. The best chance for our survival is having as much genetic diversity as possible, eliminating people from breeding, no matter how much we think they have genetic advantages, is counter productive.





Oh, and Crimson King, guilt by assosiation fallacy, just because Hitler did it doesn't make it wrong.