Compulsory eugenics

I don't mind if it's free or not, but it should not be compulsory because that intrudes on the civil liberties of the parents. Parents have the right to choose whether or not their children will be born disabled or not.

I'm going to say, yes, I think any sort of genetic screening for severe defects should be implemented, including abortions. It should be mandatory if the disease is serious enough, and optional for milder defects.

Question: Suppose we were to find a genetic test for homosexuality. Should that be an acceptable reason to abort?

Answer: Quit trolling.

edited 3rd May '11 3:45:06 AM by joeyjojo

petrie 911: If we find that, then we have much more interisting things to cure than something that society in time will look up to.

Results just in, your kid isn't white, blond, blue eyed, straight, and likely to perform well in both athletics and school. Abort, Y/N?

listen roe vs wade decided that a woman can terminate her pregnant for any reason, lesbians could just as easily screen their babies for a 'christian gene' if such a thing exists.

You don't have to agree with her reason or abortion on demand for that matter (hell I'm not sure I do). But that is the law as written. You will have to repeal the ruling before you start stopping people aborting for the 'wrong' reasons.

edited 3rd May '11 1:05:12 PM by joeyjojo

The answer is no, I don't see why a gay gene would be a reason to mandate an abortion.

I'm talking about real, serious defects like Down Syndrome or Marfan's.

Down syndrome is a spectrum disorder. You could have a short painful life and you can be basically fine, life is like that.

Any way regardless of the condition I can't say forced abortions are a good idea...

edited 3rd May '11 11:40:44 PM by joeyjojo

"I'm talking about real, serious defects like Down Syndrome or Marfan's."

I know plenty of Down Syndrome kids - happy, sociable, loads-of-fun kids who learn things more slowly and have a distinctive appearance. If they'd never been born, the world would be a poorer place.

that's sweet. But you must remember that down's syndrome isn't just being a little slow and funny looking, your whole genome is out of whack.

Your child is going to be plagued with health problems for life. Patents who terminate aren't just doing it out social prejudices, although sadly that plays a major part in it.

edited 4th May '11 1:29:22 PM by joeyjojo

I've never known a Down's syndrome victim who'd have been better off dead. The couple that I have known have been well-liked members of their community. Lots of people suffer chronic health problems. It's not the end of the world.

And, incidentally, Abraham Lincoln is thought to have had Marfan's. Imagine if he'd been aborted?

edited 5th May '11 6:56:17 AM by EdwardsGrizzly

Due to an experience related to google images I don't look up genetic diseses, what's Marfan's?

edited 5th May '11 7:00:30 AM by Zolnier

Basically what Ape Lincoln looked like: Tall and lanky, with unusually long, thin bones. it also can cause heart trouble, poor eyesight, and chronic pain.

Marfan Syndrome is a connective tissue disorder. Connective tissue is basically joint tissue, skin tissue, certain parts of the heart, etc.

Marfan Syndrome can cause a distinctive appearance (like Abraham Lincoln), hyperflexibility, joint pain, heart problems, detached retina (a possible cause of sudden blindness), and some other traits. Not everyone with Marfan Syndrome has all the traits, I believe the distinctive appearance, hyperflexibility and joint pain are near-universal though.

It's an autosomal dominant trait. A child of someone with Marfan Syndrome has a 50% chance of having it as well. If a person with Marfan Syndrome is born to two unaffected parents, it's because of a random mutation and their siblings are no more likely than anyone else to have Marfan Syndrome.

What's up with this popular idea that homosexuality is genetic, anyway? I mean that gene would be a dead end in reproduction, should someone be homosexual. It seems to me that a lot of people insist it so that bigots, particularly religious nutjobs, are unable to hate them as if "They are born gay, you must accept God's/other god's/other gods' intentions".

On the topic of eugenics, however, restrictions should certainly be put in place on what they can pick. Like barring elimintaion for anything that does not pose a proper risk to health (mentally or physically,) for starters.

Dead ends of reproduction can be useful to help a species survive.

Compulsory eugenics is not a road you want to go down, for whatever reason.

No matter how much good it would do.

Eugenics assumes that some human lives are inherently more valuable than others, which goes against pretty much everything modern civilization stands for.

Also, it's dangerously close to Nazi policy towards people who were genetically "undesirable", and seeing as how that's actually an accurate comparison here, Godwin's Law doesn't apply.

Yes it does!

You lose! Nazi chicken!

Oh, Crap!!

Anyway, it ultimately reduces genetic diversity, which is a Bad Thing for the human race in the long run.

I hesitate to compare birth defects to bestiality, but I couldn't help but be reminded of this (page SFW, but parts of site NSFW.)

yeah it's BS, pseudoscientific BS at that.

edited 22nd Aug '11 8:09:29 PM by joeyjojo