People with serious inheritable disabilities should not be allowed to reproduce.

[TheWatcher]

People with serious inheritable disabilities should not be allowed to reproduce.

agree or disagree? and why?

interested in hearing what you guys think...

[Preety_India]

Depends on context.

My father had a serious inheritable illness that can kill. I did not inherit it and I'm fine. 

 

[Rokazulu]

You are speaking about eugenics. Nothing said could justify this.

Any perceived benevolence, is misplaced.

[Sempiternity]

It's called ' Eugenics" and was a big part of the Nazi party. And if I were you I would take a serious look at myself if I favored controlling and limiting the lives of disabled people, saying who can live or not, and basically favoring barbaric methods favored by Nazi. 

[zurew]

1 minute ago, Rokazulu said:

Nothing said could justify this.

Lets test this. 

If we could say that your children will inherit cancer 100% and we don't have any cure for cancer. Would you still say that that particular person can have his/her own children?

[zurew]

@TheWatcher It would depend on the context, but in the vast majority of the cases i would say that they should be allowed to reproduce, especially as we get more and more advanced medically.

There would be a few exceptions, but they can't be justified because we don't have the ability to determine the % of the chances. For instance if we would be able to determine that your children will inherit a deadly disase (that we can't cure) from you with above 90% chance, then i would say you shouldn't have children.

[TheWatcher]

@Sempiternity relax i got the question while taking a poll on https://www.politicalcompass.org. i personally disagree with the take, simply wanted to know what people on this forum would go for. I see any life regardless of the pain as a step forward for God, the more experience the better. 

[Rokazulu]

9 minutes ago, zurew said:

Lets test this. 

If we could say that your children will inherit cancer 100% and we don't have any cure for cancer. Would you still say that that particular person can have his/her own children?

Who am I to say they cannot?
Who am I to say that there is no cure?

[zurew]

3 minutes ago, Rokazulu said:

Who am I to say they cannot?

Its a moral question, would you be okay with a society where it is allowed for people to have children even though you and they know from the get go that that children will suffer and die from the disease

4 minutes ago, Rokazulu said:

Who am I to say that there is no cure?

This was a hypothetical and in this case there was no cure, to test your morality.

[TheWatcher]

3 minutes ago, Rokazulu said:

Who am I to say they cannot?
Who am I to say that there is no cure?

I'm not necessarily for it but Surew raise a good point, why bring a baby into the world when it will most likely suffer and die before they reach the age of 13. your questions say nothing, obviously there's a choice but its a matter of subjective morality "do you want your child to suffer their whole life and die early? not only would this take from your own life but how would anyone benefit from such a situation? 

[PedroCedro]

@TheWatcher You need a bigger prespective, then you don't need to answer the question anymore

 

[Carl-Richard]

Do you extend this to psychiatric conditions like Bipolar type 1? Then I wouldn't have been born. In fact, I doubt I would've had much of a family at all on my father's side ?

[Rokazulu]

Will they spend their whole life without purpose, just because they have a disability that causes them to suffer?
For me, I know nothing is fixed. Anything can be changed in reality.

If I desired kids, I would have them. If this is about other people having kids, I would not restrict them.


 

[zurew]

3 minutes ago, Rokazulu said:

Will they spend their whole life without purpose, just because they have a disability that causes them to suffer?

Not just that, but lets say you know 100% that they will die and suffer  because of that inherited disease.

Even in that case would you still say, that according to your morality that particular person should be allowed to have his/her own children? (testing where your line is, because you said, that there is no circumstance that could justify Eugenics.)

[Carl-Richard]

Not having a close family can be considered a disease in itself considering its overall impact on health. Some people only have their kids. Now imagine adding coercion on top of that.

[zurew]

4 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Not having a close family can be considered a disease in itself considering its overall impact on health. Some people only have their kids. Now imagine adding coercion on top of that.

Do you hold the same position as Rokazulu, or you can imagine a circumstance where you would say that it could be justified?

[Carl-Richard]

1 minute ago, zurew said:

Do you hold the same position as Rokazulu, or you can imagine a circumstance where you would say that it could be justified?

There are probably some likely contenders, like Huntingson disease, but I don't know.

[Reciprocality]

Then we would be the last generation, so yes.

[Rokazulu]

2 hours ago, zurew said:

Not just that, but lets say you know 100% that they will die and suffer  because of that inherited disease.

Even in that case would you still say, that according to your morality that particular person should be allowed to have his/her own children? (testing where your line is, because you said, that there is no circumstance that could justify Eugenics.)

If you are born as a human, you have a 100% chance of dying and suffering.


 

[zurew]

4 minutes ago, Rokazulu said:

If you are born as a human, you have a 100% chance of dying and suffering.

I see, so there is no line.

So killing rapeing robbing torturing is allowed in your system, because everyone will die and suffer anyway.