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

[Rin Little]

Umm.. ok, I know I'm always saying that certain people shouldn't have children but that's because their horrible parents who let their children do whatever they want or neglect/abuse them. But seriously???? Restricting who can have kids based on superficial reasons? I have anxiety and depression, and I'll be damned if someone says I shouldn't be allowed to have kids because of it. If my mom and I can both deal with it then I can teach my kids to deal with it too if they have it.

 

[MordinSolus]

I feel like if that was the world we lived in, people would basically say, "You're ugly. Therefore, you can't have children."

 

[IkeGreil29]

The fact that we want to decrease genetic pools is stupid beyond belief. How do you think we came along? Selective breeding? We came from a grand mix of different variants of humans, that's why we're so amazingly capable of all we are capable of, and also why we are all so unique and interesting. Otherwise it would be boring and uneventful. We all want to be CEOs and perfect beings, but we will always need the bare bones of it all, the layman, so to speak, if we are to get anywhere.

 

[Hero in a half shell]

Baldness we can deal with. We need to stop the stupid and poor from multiplying. We're already headed for the movie Idiocracy. As for genetic problems we need to focus on removing them from the gene sequence itself not just isolate the people.

Obligatory XKCD comic needed:

Yeah, what Eugenics tries to do is to regulate our DNA sequences to eliminate all the bad genes, but what modern genetic science has shown us is that this is pretty much impossible to do in reality. As someone mentioned earlier in the thread, everyone has around 10 rare, inactive, recessive, deadly gene sequences hidden in their genetic makeup. You can't only breed the healthy people because on a genetic level no one is healthy! And if we do restrict the gene pool, then there is more liklihood of the rare genes becoming more common. Variety is in fact the best defence against bad genes.

That is the fundamental flaw of eugenics, you don't even need to go into the ethical implications (which also stack the arguemant against it) as the very idea it relys on are completely wrong and unimplementable.

It turns out genetic science is in fact a very complicated subject that can't be summed up by saying "If we let the healthy looking people breed they will make more healthy people" Who'd-a thought?

 

[The_Evermind]

I think a lot of the problem comes in from knowing where to draw the line, people are saying that there aren't good or bad genes but look at Huntington's disease. If you have Huntington's there is a 50% chance that your kid will have it, no skipping generations, just a coin flip. The only advantage being that you will probably be 30 or 40 before it slowly turns you first crazy and then dead. It could be argued that certain people shouldn't have kids if their genes bring such a timebomb, but what do you do? Let parents gamble with their kids lives and just hope that their kid gets lucky and skips over that particular sequence? Or do you knock people out and start snipping, let them adopt and try to get rid of nasty genetic disease?

 

[Nieroshai]

Who defines how good is good enough, or what is considered good? I hear good points about weeding out harmful genes that will cause deformity and illness, but you know governments will appropriate it and use it to suit themselves. I think it's a good idea to look at genes of a couple for safety reasons, but don't trust anyone to implement it right.

 

[Saelune]

Well, I think people SHOULD think hard on this before breeding, but it would be wrong to force it...unless it was a super definite I guess. But hey, could always adopt. Always kids needing a home, which is why I hate when people who cant breed (gay/infertile, whatever) use invitro as opposed to adoption.