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

[Rokazulu]

Just now, zurew said:

I see, so there is no line.

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

A disease that causes all those things? Or should we just add that onto the hypothetical?

[zurew]

4 minutes ago, Rokazulu said:

A disease that causes all those things? Or should we just add that onto the hypothetical?

We were talking about a moral system, you gave your justification. Using that justification to justify your moral system comes with consequences that you should be able to defend.

Edited May 20, 2022 by zurew

[zurew]

Basically the consequence of your moral system is that people can give birth to children who they know beforehand 100% they will have deadly diseases and they will suffer those consequences and will die young.

That is okay in your moral world. If your are totally okay with that , thats fine.

[Reciprocality]

It is a good thing that there are disabled, they are instrumental to a deeper capacity for non-disabled to nurture.

 

As it is good that there are maniacs, fat people, stupid people, slutty people, dishonest people, accidents, Kardashians and hurricanes, we feed off of them, we live in the best of all possible worlds, do we not?

Happiness is made for the average Joe, the average Joe were the teleological cause for us all to become, for something rather than nothing.

 

Let us do like god, let the downs syndrome's live, or put in the blank.

Edited May 20, 2022 by Reciprocality

[Yarco]

Ethically, I would hope that people with debilitating diseases or mental illnesses wouldn't be so selfish that they'd risk passing it on to their kids just to have children. If they really want kids, then I think they should adopt instead. Lots of healthy kids out there who already need homes.

There are mental disabilities that are severe enough that I think it should preclude people from having kids. Many people with Down Syndrome for example are infertile, but a minority are able to reproduce. So it's a risk.  I don't think they have the mental requirements to practice safe sex, let alone safely raise a child. I also consider them so mentally handicapped that they're incapable of consenting. But even if a down syndrome person is dating another down syndrome person, nature is likely to take over and they'll do sexual stuff together at some point. So I don't think they should be allowed to reproduce. Do we sterilize them though, or parents just make sure their disabled kids aren't doing it? Or just wait for the rare cases it does happen and then use abortion?

Personally I'd go a lot further than that though. My eyesight is bad enough that I wouldn't hold it against someone if they thought I shouldn't be able to reproduce. Without glasses, I don't think I'd be able to hunt and survive in a primitive tribe or alone in the wild. I think we should move back more toward a model where only people that could survive in primitive conditions should be allowed to reproduce. Because the opposite of a eugenic society is a dysgenic one where everyone just keeps getting more sick and genetically weaker over time. 

It's a "needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" situation for me. I want the best quality of life for the most people possible on a long-term scale. Like 5,000, 10,000 years from now. That might mean some cruel decisions for the current or next generation to prevent many more miserable lives in their descendants down the line. People who were never born never get a chance to mourn what they missed.

Edited May 20, 2022 by Yarco

[Rokazulu]

21 minutes ago, zurew said:

Basically the consequence of your moral system is that people can give birth to children who they know beforehand 100% they will have deadly diseases and they will suffer those consequences and will die young.

That is okay in your moral world. If your are totally okay with that , thats fine.

Why not consider the consequences of limiting the free will of an individual into the moral equation?


 

[zurew]

14 minutes ago, Rokazulu said:

Why not consider the consequences of limiting the free will of an individual into the moral equation?

Now we are talking, and yes you are totally right. If you want to use that to justify your position thats fine. But i am not convinced yet about your position.

Right now our 'debate' is about this. You prefer individual freedom over another potential kids life , who will be miserable and will die young (who will have an incurable disease, and will live with it in his/her entire [short] life). ---> that is a position that you are fighting for right now.

 

I gave a silly hypothetical to see if you draw your line somewhere, not necessarily to trap you. I know this is not necessarily going to happen in real life (however we can't know, but it is sure an unlikely example). The reason for the hypothetical to test your moral system in practice, and for me to see what your position is. If you would have asked me my own hypothetical my answer would have been ,that i would only regulate other people life in this instance, if i would knew 100% beforehand that their child will inherit a deadly disease that i know beforehand is incurable. 

In other cases i would not regulate anything about it.

Edited May 20, 2022 by zurew

[Carl-Richard]

@Yarco

The functionality of people with Down's syndrome is more variable than you would like to think.

What about my father with (I almost wrote Down's syndrome ) Bipolar disorder type 1? For me, the odds are 15-30%, but I'm a bit past the age where it usually occurs. I think if there ever was a ripe time for me to develop it, it was from 18-19. However, I'm a bit worried about my little brother who recently had a panic attack.

[Leo Gura]

It's such a tiny issue it isn't worth regulating or worrying about.

If you're going to go down that road you should start by not letting assholes reproduce