Poll: Genes and children Or why some should not have kids

[Tanakh]

It started me wondering can anyone think of a reason why people with bad gene should have children?

The forum ate the poll it seems.

I agree, on that note you should tell her not to breed, if she believes baldness and bad skin are the important stuff that gets transmitted through genes i am afraid she will taint the gene pool with astonishing amounts of stupidity.

Bout your question, because you want em? I mean, gosh, i will die childless, but if someone wants a kiddo, why not?
If they have genetic diseases, it would be nice to take medical opinions on how to reduce the chance, or adopt a kid. Baldness? Are you fucking kidding? I am 27 and with very low amount of hair, VERY, tried all the freaking options but surgery, and know what? That has made me man up, both being more confident and less normal

 

[Evil Top Hat]

I got into an interesting debate with a woman today over children. She believes that if you don?t have a good gene code Parsons, Baldness, Bad skin, Ect. You should not have children

So this person basically thinks that we should build a master race, where people that don't look "right" aren't allowed to exist? It's a problem enough in our society that people are pressured to be what society tells them is "right", and told that they need to be "beautiful", but this woman actually thinks that we shouldn't allow ugly people to breed?

What the fuck is "good" genetic make up anyway? How is one person "better" than another? Because they're prettier, or because they're naturally smarter? What a foul thing to say.

I generally have a lot of faith in my fellow humans, but this really diminished it. What a disgusting human being.

 

[Vault101]

You're forgetting a few things:

- Genes aren't just determined at conception, your body is able to dynamically switch genes on and off when certain conditions are met. Check up on epigenetics if you're interested.

- Everyone has some bad genes. With the amount of conditions you can have genetic predisposition to and that 95% of the world's population has some physical quality that isn't optimal and thus they could feel bad about it. You're basically wiping out humanity within a few generations.

- Most genes only give predispositions. They don't solely determine exactly how you'll look and feel 20 years down the line. There's many, many, many more factors. A much better, but equally unrealistic, solution would be outright banning alcohol and smoking. Those things cause more harm then your genes will ever do. Smoking gives you a much higher chance of getting cancer then any gene will ever do.

so in other words she knows bugger all about the science as well? ha even better *grumble...stupid people*

 

[AndyFromMonday]

Yes, let's take away peoples reproductive rights. Nothing bad has ever come out of taking rights away from people and giving them to the government.

 

[Hagi]

so in other words she knows bugger all about the science as well? ha even better *grumble...stupid people*

Yup. That about sums it up.

She knows bugger all about history as well.

They already tried what she's suggesting 70 years ago in Germany. It's generally agreed upon that it didn't end well and shouldn't be tried again.

 

[khiliani]

I can support genetic screening to prevent the passage of genetic disorders like huntingtons and the like, but it shouldnt be manditory. not all mutations are bad, and some genetic disorders can be partialy benifical, like having a single alele for sickle cell anemia can prevent malaria infections

 

[Tanakh]

At first I thought little of it but as I?ve dwelled on it. Well I?m losing my hair at 26 and it does have an effect on me. It took me a long time to come to grips with it. Even now I hate thinking about it. It started me wondering can anyone think of a reason why people with bad gene should have children?

The more I think about what you post the more i rage -.-

Are you seriously telling me that you would rather never being born instead of being bald? Wow...

They already tried what she's suggesting 70 years ago in Germany. It's generally agreed upon that it didn't end well and shouldn't be tried again.

Well... to be fair the father of Eugenetics was British, and a lot of the pre Nazi research was done in the US with guys like Graham Bell being fervent believers in it.

Also, the Nazis did little for that field, did a lot more for stuff like operant conditioning in psychology.

Finally, i see no harm in choosing your best genes for your children by bioengineering if/when it becomes possible, more or less Gattaca like.

 

[Kinokohatake]

You need to punch her in the old baby maker. That is reaaaaaallly dumb. I knew a couple with a lot of medical issues and they took every precaution not to ever have children. But if they wanted to, then they should have been allowed.

And where would her perfection begin anyway? If a kid would need glasses? Asthma? Need tonsils taken out? And how would this be done? Would we screen any potential parents and sterilize them if they don't pass or would we abort any fetus that doesn't pass her test? Again, punch her right in the crotch.

Edit- I failed the captcha 3 times before I got it right. Can we ask for captchas without lines running through the middle of the god damn words?

 

[Hagi]

They already tried what she's suggesting 70 years ago in Germany. It's generally agreed upon that it didn't end well and shouldn't be tried again.

Well... to be fair the father of Eugenetics was British, and a lot of the pre Nazi research was done in the US with guys like Graham Bell being fervent believers in it.

Also, the Nazis did little for that field, did a lot more for stuff like operant conditioning in psychology.

Finally, i see no harm in choosing your best genes for your children by bioengineering if/when it becomes possible, more or less Gattaca like.

Part of Nazi policy was to ensure that people with good genes (white Germans basically) were separated from those with bad genes (Jewish people, homosexuals, people with birth defects etc.). First by putting those with bad genes into Ghettos, later in concentration camps and after that... well you should know.

All to ensure the purity and strength of the German gene-pool.

The motivation behind that sounds a little too much like what's being suggested in this thread if I'm honest.

 

[Tanakh]

Part of Nazi policy was to ensure that people with good genes (white Germans basically) were separated from those with bad genes (Jewish people, homosexuals, people with birth defects etc.). First by putting those with bad genes into Ghettos, later in concentration camps and after that... well you should know.

All to ensure the purity and strength of the German gene-pool.

The motivation behind that sounds a little too much like what's being suggested in this thread if I'm honest.

Ohh, yeah, and i am not supporting the Nazis here nor saying it wasn't horrible the killing they did of Russians, Gipsies (Romanies or whatever they want to be called), Gays and Jews among others, just saying that they couldn't really do much in the eugenics field because that kind of stuff take a couple of hundred of years to really implement (the selective breeding process).

Specially found of the Gipsy people... and they are always forgotten in the WWII history



Fun fact: Did you know that the National Socialists (Nazis) actually chased Socialist for being dangerous for em?

 

[zehydra]

Well, empathy is good for the race as a whole, so perhaps we should remove this woman from the gene pool before she can breed.

alas, I don't think empathy is a genetic trait.

Alas, it isn't; sociopaths only have sociopathic children when they actually raise said children. It was a joke.

Sorry. It's just I've heard people say stuff like that when totally serious quite frequently on comments and such that it's hard to tell who's being serious about it.

 

[Sizzle Montyjing]

She can go fuck herself.
Does this mean i wouldn't be able to have children?
Becasue i have ADD amd pale skin?

There is no reason why people shouldn't breed, she is completely wrong.

 

[Sam Warrior]

This I think is wholly dependant on what you class as bad genes, to some extent I agree but only in the respect of genetic diseases for instance huntington's chorea is a dominant gene which give your children a high likely hood of dying before 40. On the other hand purely aesthetic genes like baldness, which I'm reasonably sure isn't purely genetic, shouldn't be discriminated against, afterall some people find baldness attractive.

 

[Jakub324]

You should have to acquire a pro-creation licence, but skin conditions and the like should not impede that. It should be about whether or not you're a good person.

 

[Aedrial]

I'd rather not strap a child with the burden of perfection. Hell, expectations are bad enough, let alone engineering the human to be 'perfect'.

 

[Panorama]

Doesn't every person no matter how 'good' there genes are they must have some kind of problem or things which they are not happy with, they may have many things wrong and may not even know it.

So no

 

[JoJo]

Nope. Only a tiny percentage of the population truly have nothing wrong with them, and really baldness? Of all the diseases I would fear passing down to my future children that one would come very low on the list. The only people who should really take genes into account are those with potentially lethal inherited diseases and even for them it's absolutely their choice and in their case I'd probably have them anyway, better some life than none.