for example in cases of passing on fatal genetic diseases.
Should it be illegal for some people to reproduce?
What Girls Said 3
This is eugenics talk. It's much more complex for me to form so simply on such a topic but I believe everyone has freedom of mind and freedom of body and no superior authority should take that away. ESPECIALLY in cases where the person wasn't able to prevent their problems, such as genes. Why punish the person for something they were not able to control?1
Genetics is always only a matter of chances, therefore I don't think it should be illegal. If the child was disabled it could still be aborted.0
What Guys Said 11
I know i will probably get hate for this but fuck it.
Personally, I do not think, it is morally okay, For parents who have SERIOUS life altering conditions (Such as Down Syndrome), To be allowed to have children, I think it is extremely cruel, To have a child, Knowing you are extremely likely to pass down to them a disease which will so massively disadvantage them. But thats just me.
I mean, I don't think it should really be illegal, Because if they want to have kids then thats their choice, But, It annoys me when they do that, And then suddenly they start claiming bennefits of the government because parents with down syndrome cannot be capable to look after a child with Down syndrome. And thus just cost taxpayers money.2
Genetics are like a game of blackjack. Sometimes you win big, sometimes you lose a lot. You can't predict what your children will come out like just because of genes. I do think people who know damn well they have HIV should NOT have kids because that can be passed down. I also think that if you can barely afford to take care of yourself, then you shouldn't have kids. Trust me, from experience, that's the most selfish thing a parent can do.2
I am not a fan of eugenics, the practice of selecting specific genes in favor of others to reach desired traits, but I will say that some people should not be parents, if that makes sense. There are too many idiots out there that are parents but who probably should have their children taken away because they are raising more idiots.2
Crack addicted moms come to mind. A child shouldn't come into this world suffering on someone's drug addiction.2
No but people who have obvious genetic problems should show a little more consideration for the future by not passing on defective genes.2
No. As much as I'm sympathetic to the idea, reproduction is a natural human function like eating and going to the bathroom. We're not talking about a privilege like driving, but a fundamental right--a part of nature. I couldn't in good faith support the use of law for the purpose of prohibiting this. It would greatly be overstepping the bounds of the law, and set a dangerous precedent for our government. We wouldn't be much better than police states like North Korea. Furthermore, as much as I hate to pull the Godwinslaw card, this is too uncomfortably close to the Eugenics movements of the early 20th that produced Naziism, White Supremacy, and the little-known forced sterilizations that took place in California. In fact, the Nazis were actually inspired by the American Eugenics Movement and it was many of those figures such as Lothrop Stoddard, Madison Grant, and the entire IBM that helped them to an extent.0
I think it's good idea if there is a valid reason to restrict their genes from the gene pool...1
Hmmmmmmmmmm I invite you to watch this video - I have posted it as a query and in reply to your query. It is not that I do not trust mainstream medical science, but more often medical science is corporate driven than patient driven and these Big Pharma industries have an agenda of their own and that includes fear mongering - my cousin is a Genetic Scientist himself and he confirms that most agendas around genetic engineering or fear mongering is entirely statistically based and none of these findings have any tangible accuracy - www.girlsaskguys.com/.../q1552367-how-well-are-you-acquainted-with-current-medical-practice-i-invite0
We are moving into forced sterilisation territory1
No. A not-yet-existing entity has no rights. And only rights-violations should be illegal.1
Hell to the no0
Select as Most Helpful Opinion?
You cannot undo this action. The opinion owner is going to be notified and earn 7 XPER points.