ZeusTKP

Should couples with recessive genes for genetic disorders be allowed to have children?

Loren Pechtel

It depends on how bad the defect is and whether it can be dodged by abortion.

To knowingly risk Tay-Sachs is to me the equivalent of sticking a bullet in a 4-cylinder revolver, spinning it, pointing it at a child and pulling the trigger.

If that was the only way a couple could conceive would we allow them to do it? No way.

Christina Mirabilis

I have what is likely a genetic disorder, and I wouldn't take a chance on passing it on to a child.

What does 'allow' mean to you? Forced sterilization? Mandatory abortions? Who gets to decide what 'flawed' means? If they proved that stupidity was an inherited trait, should all folks with IQs below a certain point be added to the list? (And no mods, I'm not calling him stupid.)

OripahsTrebor

Yes, see this thread:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=206504

Christina Mirabilis

I saw it. I don't have a comment that wouldn't get moderated other than hopefully if you had your way we would all get to vote on the (lack of) character traits that need to be bred out of the species.

OripahsTrebor

I vote low intelligence, variation in intelligence makes class structures possible, thus eliminating variation by making everyone smart would yield an egalitarian society.

Equality!!!

Nialler

If such rules were in place, there would be far less posters here.

The thread title is a ridiculously stupid question without a definition of "flawed".

It takes no account of th egenetic diversity which has allowed us to exist. Once we eliminate or restrict such diversity we open ourselves to the risk as a species of annihalation by a single cause.

JamesBannon

Oh brother!:banghead:

Loren Pechtel

Yeah, drawing the line as to what is tolerable or not is hard. I have no problem with the existence of such a line, though--I see no moral difference between child abuse inflicted after birth and causing the same level of harm via genetics.

I also have genetic issues that I consider to completely preclude reproduction--it's just as well I have no interest in it anyway.

OripahsTrebor

Wait, I mean to say no to this question!


I only support embryo selection or genetic engineering to increase intelligence. But, let's not discuss a technology that is AT LEAST three decades away. Eugenics is a question for the distant future.

No, there is no need for forced abortions or sterilizations yet. I fail to see what significant eugenic benefit such policies can yield.