| Sounds like the OP is dangerously close to the mindset of Margaret Sanger. Besides, what should we expect next when the government can place those kinds of restrictions on people? |
| Moral perspective, yes. Evolutionary perspective, no. Not that any of this matters to humans on a grand scale because natural selection will weed out those who deem unfit for the gene pool thousands of years from now. |
  |
| Legally I don't think it's reasonably enforceable; morally I do however consider it highly irresponsible and unfair to the child to knowingly reproduce with the understanding that you are greatly increasing the risk of severe disabilities being passed on to him/her. Yes I think they should be allowed to, but they should have the better judgment not to do it. |
kingcity20 said: Oh for the love of -_- nvm gotta love MAL |
| Its fine as long as it aint a hick, if a retarded hick reproduced it would be like the hills have eyes all over again |
| Wow pretty impressive. Yes and No are tied for 26 votes each right now, not bad thread idea OP Personally, I think the (government) should give you a fair option to do so or not. Not outlaw it, but maybe withhold some privileges from the spawned child like they can't collect welfare in the future or vote, or if you want to get really strict about it, deny them the right to basic education or health care. Or simply give money to people with disabilities for notreproducing, since this would still save education and benefits costs. Options are good, and when you're given options, you can't complain as much about it. |
   I envy your delusion; I wish I could live in it  |
| If I had to pick, I'd say no, the world is populated enough as it is. And while they themselves may be happy, their children might lead unhappy lives due to their disabilities. |
Protaku94 said: Personally, I think the (government) should give you a fair option to do so or not. Not outlaw it, but maybe withhold some privileges from the spawned child like they can't collect welfare in the future or vote, or if you want to get really strict about it, deny them the right to basic education or health care. Or simply give money to people with disabilities for notreproducing, since this would still save education and benefits costs. That's even more unfair to the child. On top of the fact that he's born with severe disabilities through no fault of his own, he now also has to have his education, healthcare, and citizenship taken away on the basis of circumstances that were well beyond his control. |
kingcity20 said: Oh for the love of -_- nvm gotta love MAL |
| Got bad genes? Try an adoption! |
| I rarely revisit threads, so if you're after a reply you should PM me or post a comment on my profile. |
| Some of you say that it is more moral to let people have a choice, but is having a choice more important than the general well-being of a human life? Remember that we're working under the assumption that the child will suffer from severe issues that dominate their lives from birth to death, and there will most certainly be pain and suffering involved. Some of you might argue that who's to judge whether someone can live a fulfilling life or not? But surely some potential humans would have been better off not existing at all? Protaku94 said: Wow pretty impressive. Yes and No are tied for 26 votes each right now, not bad thread idea OP Aye, it's quite interesting. |
 (to various people in this thread) |
| They're allowed to make threads on the MAL forums. I don't see why they can't have kids. |
NTAD said: They're allowed to make threads on the MAL forums. I don't see why they can't have kids. /thread |
| Apparently 40 percent of MAL's CD forum would support eugenics, and I am pretty sure they are serious too. Ouch |
RedArmyShogun said: (to various people in this thread) Hitler also banned fox hunting and was a vegetarian. Also well done for proving Godwins law. |
ElPysCongroo said: RedArmyShogun said: (to various people in this thread) Hitler also banned fox hunting and was a vegetarian. Also well done for proving Godwins law. I've been wanting to use this picture for awhile. Any suitable topic the mods lock before I can get to it. |
| Yes, people with tumblr syndrome should not be allowed to reproduce. |
| No. The reason why is because their children will most likely NOT live entirely fulfilling lives, and depending on the disability, they could even be bullied, taken advantage of, and mistreated. Also, in America many people with disabilities are on welfare. Honestly, their live do not serve much purpose and they are just costing the government more money. Frankly, some are nuisances to society. |
| "It's time for beatin' the homeless to the oldies!" - Hajime Muroto. |
Lencurryboy said: they should definitely have the right to reproduce. If I was the one with an inheritable disability I probably wouldn't do it though, but it should be up to the individual. And what mandates this? Do you have infallible proof that is a morally correct law? You don't, this is just something you impulsively feel sounds fair, as you've assumed fairness is correct. However, fairness is only an arbitrary value propagated by people that desire efficient cooperation in society. The majority of people say they want to stand on even ground with others under the systems and structures that control our lives indirectly. It gives them a sense of security and responsibility for the consequences of their actions. Just because an idea works in accord with what the majority will, that does not make it right. Democracy has been proven to be imperfect under the political context of an ideal system which it is defined around. So using the 'it's only fair' argument politically or morally is not something you can use to logically justify yourself with, when you claim something "should" happen or "should" be. |
| Depending on the disability, absolutely not. If it's a pretty impactful disability, then giving birth to children while knowing that it'll translate to the next generation is just absolutely selfish. If you want to be a parent that bad, then go adopt one of the many kids already out there who don't even have parents. That's a billion times better of an alternative to bringing ANOTHER kid into the world, AND forcing them to deal with your inherited disabilities bullshit. "but no el oh el I wanna kid of my own because it's special who cares if I give them disabilities" There are people that actually think like that, unfortunately. Don't be like them. |
☕ Truth be told, I'm quite proud of my house blend. To attain my flavor and fragrance, I use five different types of coffee beans. ☕ |
| Sigh~ I thought we stopped impulsively deciding if something was right or wrong and pitting it against the baseless irrationalities of others, back in the playground? Selfishness is wrong. Fairness is right. Ad infinitum. This is something that earns a discussion board criticism on the rationalization level. |
JustaCratDec 18, 2014 11:16 AM
| Yes! This question is similar to those asked by eugenicists in the 20th century. |
 |
Autocrat said: You're trying to make the discussion far more deeper than it's trying to be.Sigh~ I thought we stopped impulsively deciding if something was right or wrong and pitting it against the baseless irrationalities of others, back in the playground? Selfishness is wrong. Fairness is right. Ad infinitum. This is something that earns a discussion board criticism on the rationalization level. The thread is a compilation of different opinions, not a circlejerk mindset that revolves around a micromanaged definition of anything that that has to do with morality. Let it be what it's trying to be instead of trying to drench it with your tryhard pseudo-intellectualism steak sauce. |
☕ Truth be told, I'm quite proud of my house blend. To attain my flavor and fragrance, I use five different types of coffee beans. ☕ |
| No i dont believe they should be able to reproduce. After all nature only lets the strongest live. And if we keep letting them fuck around and have babies then the future would possible have mutant humans Stupid earlier comment. |
zygisrkoDec 18, 2014 11:29 AM
zygisrko said: watThis is stupid as hell, inheritable disabilities means that their children dont have to worry about having a disabilities in the future.... |
☕ Truth be told, I'm quite proud of my house blend. To attain my flavor and fragrance, I use five different types of coffee beans. ☕ |
Korrvo said: zygisrko said: watThis is stupid as hell, inheritable disabilities means that their children dont have to worry about having a disabilities in the future.... Woops, i thought heritable and inheratible is like Pro & Con. Let me change my oppinion on that post xD |
| Oh god who res'd this thread |
 |
Korrvo said: You're trying to make the discussion far more deeper than it's trying to be. The thread is a compilation of different opinions, not a circlejerk mindset that revolves around a micromanaged definition of anything that that has to do with morality. Let it be what it's trying to be instead of trying to drench it with your tryhard pseudo-intellectualism steak sauce. Whilst I must compliment your artistic creativity with words - that "steak sauce" part was simply ingenious - the bottom line is, is that you are enforcing your own idea of the thread onto the public definition of the nature of this thread. How, I must ask, was my post not my opinion? If you think it was, then you did well at respecting my addition to the compilation of different opinions. Your irrational nonsense certainly qualifies as an opinion, in your opinion, though, doesn't it? zygisrko said: No i dont believe they should be able to reproduce. After all nature only lets the strongest live. And if we keep letting them fuck around and have babies then the future would possible have mutant humans Stupid earlier comment. This kid... |
ImaginaryFire said: If I had to pick, I'd say no, the world is populated enough as it is. And while they themselves may be happy, their children might lead unhappy lives due to their disabilities. Korrvo said: "but no el oh el I wanna kid of my own because it's special who cares if I give them disabilities" There are people that actually think like that, unfortunately. Don't be like them. This and xytech said: Got bad genes? Try an adoption! too bad a lot of people feel the NEED to make the baby themselves |
| From a Genetic stand point no. From a human one, yes. |
Autocrat said: No I thought it yours was an opinion just like mine and everyone else's.Korrvo said: You're trying to make the discussion far more deeper than it's trying to be. The thread is a compilation of different opinions, not a circlejerk mindset that revolves around a micromanaged definition of anything that that has to do with morality. Let it be what it's trying to be instead of trying to drench it with your tryhard pseudo-intellectualism steak sauce. Whilst I must compliment your artistic creativity with words - that "stake sauce" part was simply ingenious - the bottom line is, is that you are enforcing your own idea of the thread onto the public definition of the nature of this thread. How, I must ask, was my post not my opinion? If you think it was, then you did well at respecting my addition to the compilation of different opinions. Your irrational nonsense certainly qualifies as an opinion in your opinion, though, doesn't it? It's that the "deeper than it needs to be" people just make me salty, especially when they force their ideals onto others when that doesn't need to happen. pjsalt4days |
☕ Truth be told, I'm quite proud of my house blend. To attain my flavor and fragrance, I use five different types of coffee beans. ☕ |
zygisrko said: No i dont believe they should be able to reproduce. After all nature only lets the strongest live. And if we keep letting them fuck around and have babies then the future would possible have mutant humans Stupid earlier comment. This kid...[/quote] Hey everyone makes mistakes lol. Unless your arguing about my recent change of opinion. Edit: And Im older than you by 3 years xD |
Korrvo said: Autocrat said: No I thought it yours was an opinion just like mine and everyone else's.Whilst I must compliment your artistic creativity with words - that "stake sauce" part was simply ingenious - the bottom line is, is that you are enforcing your own idea of the thread onto the public definition of the nature of this thread. How, I must ask, was my post not my opinion? If you think it was, then you did well at respecting my addition to the compilation of different opinions. Your irrational nonsense certainly qualifies as an opinion in your opinion, though, doesn't it? It's that the "deeper than it needs to be" people just make me salty, especially when they force their ideals onto others when that doesn't need to happen. pjsalt4days 2deep4u, bitch. |
Autocrat said: that's offensive and im telling2deep4u, bitch. |
☕ Truth be told, I'm quite proud of my house blend. To attain my flavor and fragrance, I use five different types of coffee beans. ☕ |
Korrvo said: Autocrat said: that's offensive and im telling2deep4u, bitch. Nooo! Don't do that... :/ |
| This question screams ignorance. |
p r o f i l e 👀 |
| By this logic, by the time darwinism was developed, we should all just let Darwin decide who to kill and who to survive. Dear goodness, who are you people to decide these things, killing people you think is inferior, isn't that what Hitler did? |
VanPatten said: By this logic, by the time darwinism was developed, we should all just let Darwin decide who to kill and who to survive. Dear goodness, who are you people to decide these things, killing people you think is inferior, isn't that what Hitler did? even hitler-chan is better than this. |
 |
Stalker-tan said: Nanet said: even hitler-chan is better than this. Rather than "kill off" it's more the option of adapting selective breeding to humans. We've done it before with domesticated pets to get the most attractive traits in breeds, so why not do it to get the best genes in humans? the problem is how exactly you do an analysis to pick out the best traits from the population of 7 billion, this is a census so you will have to analyze each person which costs a hell lot of money. furthermore, there is the argument on who exactly has the right to judge what types of traits are "superior" and "inferior" because the argument is that no mortal being can simply label themselves and act like god. |
|
| It's the same shit with how 40+ year old women are allowed to breed. Or any other human being, considering there's always a chance for disabilities to happen. "Selfish", oh my Me, is that your problem, you hypocrite? |
Play League of Legends here! Autocrat said: Hitler was good, objectively. |
Rarusu-sama said: People with Down syndrome are already sterile Apparently this is only true with male patients. Women with Down syndrome are not sterile. Anyway, after this random quote and on topic. The question here is that inheritable doesn't equal inherited (and inherited doesn't equal expressed, to further complicate things). There is a degree, a percent of transmission and actually the most common case is that the carriers of the inherited disability are healthy individuals. There are various mechanisms that explain this, the most relevant of them being recessivity, but penetrance, influence of sex or environment among many others can reveal a mutation that remained unrevealed in the parents... One of the few cases of 100% chance in the transmission of an inheritable disability (Down syndrome through robertsonian translocation 21;21) is not expressed in the parental fenotype. The moral question on this is already crude and I personally can't handle it due to its many prejudgements and implications, but scientifically speaking eugenics are nonsense and their purposes impossible to reach even in the long term. |
jal90 said: You win.Rarusu-sama said: People with Down syndrome are already sterile Apparently this is only true with male patients. Women with Down syndrome are not sterile. Anyway, after this random quote and on topic. The question here is that inheritable doesn't equal inherited (and inherited doesn't equal expressed, to further complicate things). There is a degree, a percent of transmission and actually the most common case is that the carriers of the inherited disability are healthy individuals. There are various mechanisms that explain this, the most relevant of them being recessivity, but penetrance, influence of sex or environment among many others can reveal a mutation that remained unrevealed in the parents... One of the few cases of 100% chance in the transmission of an inheritable disability (Down syndrome through robertsonian translocation 21;21) is not expressed in the parental fenotype. The moral question on this is already crude and I personally can't handle it due to its many prejudgements and implications, but scientifically speaking eugenics are nonsense and their purposes impossible to reach even in the long term. |
Play League of Legends here! Autocrat said: Hitler was good, objectively. |
| Someone chose to revive this preversion? Good job MAL. |
| "Let Justice Be Done!" My Theme Fight again, fight again for justice! |
| I don't see why we should disallow people from reproducing. Who are we to start deciding who should and who should not, as that would lead one into Nazi ideology. Furthermore, it is very unlikely that they will reproduce due to their illness in the first place. |
 |
| No, we should feed them to the grinder it's not like they'd understand. |
| Bringing a human into this world is selfish as-is, but bringing a child into this world with a serious disease is inhumane. |
More topics from this board
» Does knowing how MAL user looks like change how you see/treat them? ( 1 2 )barababas - Apr 28 |
53 |
by Noboru
»»
7 minutes ago |
|
» How many of your friends are friends with you just to make fun of you?LenRea - Yesterday |
13 |
by MeanMrMusician
»»
17 minutes ago |
|
» I am trying to get over 10,000 posts on this site by the end of this year....DesuMaiden - Yesterday |
24 |
by MeanMrMusician
»»
18 minutes ago |
|
» Do you collect trading cards?Malkshake - Apr 30 |
21 |
by MeanMrMusician
»»
20 minutes ago |
|
» What is the weather like in your regionST63LTH - Yesterday |
15 |
by MeanMrMusician
»»
22 minutes ago |