Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
It hard to say, everyone had different values and moral beliefs. This is one of those ethically challenging questions... because back in the day nature would run its own natural course and there was little anyone could do about it.
So if you and partner got pregnant and early on in the pregnancy you found out that your baby had serious birth defects what would you do? Abortion? Would you do nothing and let nature run its course, and refuse medical treatment and care for it?
Well simple fact is that back in the day this was not so tough of a question to answer, because there was a higher child birth death rate, or medical treatment was not available so most these babies were stillborn or died within the first few years, and it was not tragic it was just a fact of life.
But now days with medical advancement these baby survive and parents legally can not deny medical treatments even though it puts them seriously into debt... and then you have to ask yourself what is this child real quality of life? I mean its in and out of hospital if not seriously mentally or physically challenged... and more times than not the life expectancy is extremely shortened... so it becomes a moral question... would it of been better to have not of had it.
I know that sound brutal... but seriously the cost in economical and emotional hardship in raising child with these types of issues can be over whelming. And its a life long commitment it not like they will ever come of age and be self sustaining and how many of these parent can afford the required medical treatment to maintain any type of quality of life for themselves and the child... super tough question that I can not really answer.
Don't work that way anyway. So it does not matter if they chose to or not. Whatever happens happens. It would be the same with should we stop 2 idiots have a baby, well no because 2 idiots don't mean their baby will also be. And there is nothing stopping 2 smartasses having a baby that's a idiot.
Then there is no stopping of other problems and factors that can all play a part in other ways and miscarriages.
Only thing we do need is for people to stop wanting babies because there is too many people as it is.
Yeah. Personally, it's one of the reasons I'm childfree. I have diabetes, hypertension, cancer, birth defects, mental health issues, and osteoperosis all running in the family.
I nearly died during childbirth along with my mother.
It would be irresponsible for me to birth a child knowing they'll have to face so many of these things out of their control that I have had to face.
It would be cruel.
Perhaps others can make that choice and support their children through it, but for me it is not something I can accept. I would not wish it on a small and helpless child, and I know I don't have the resources to provide for the child to adequately make up for those issues - nor do I think they should have to live with them.
depends how handicapping having that disease is. if it's something that would prevent someone from living a normal life and just give them a shittier quality in life, they should definitely avoid having biological kids or try to prevent passing them the bad gene on if there's ways to have kids without it
Opinion
42Opinion
I don't think so, the real question there is whether they should reproduce or not. In the end it isn't even up to them, as it takes two to tango. Even if you have some hereditary illness, or carry it recessively, you'll push a lot of partners away if you sterilize yourself early on. Not to mention for some reason doctors are much more willing to sterilize men who request it and not women who don't already have kids. That one blows my mind.
Anyway, if people want to make retarded or sickle cell babies, more power to them, if they want to get x-rays of their genitals on a daily basis to fry them beyond a shadow of a doubt, that's just swell too. What other people do with their lives has nothing to do with me wanting to have and raise my babies.
Yes they need to think responsibly about their potential children and their grand children.
You can get Genetic Counselling - https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/genetic-and-genomic-testing/
this should be considered a starting point to find out what and associated risks.
Personally if the risks with two people are too high, they should not have kids..
You are presumming all morals to be accepted by everyone. Everyone can easily just say "Nah, fuck that". Like giving your seat to an elderly woman. Most people agree that's morally a good thing to do. But plenty of people don't. This only changes when we create laws and hold up precedence of law enforcement. So regardless of whether it's morally correct, unless we make it a law to prohibit this and have enough resources to enforce this law, morals don't mean anything in this case. So do we make laws for this? Then we come to the issue of relinquishing the rights to judge our fitness to reproduce to the government. That's where I give a hard no. We're getting to China levels of government bullshit. (Although America's abortion bullshit is getting close to that) Nor would the enforcement work, since this would require dna samples of every human to be collected, which again goes too far.
/rant.
A certain Herr Himmler had a similar idea...
I'd say that as long as there's no 100% of transmitting the disease, people should be free to choose, and not forced.
Logically yes but I wouldn't expect anyone to not have kids even if they want to have kids just to make it certain that they won't spread the disease because we won't know and I don't think it's that easy and common to spread the disease by just having children but even so, I don't think someone should stop themselves from having a family simply cause there's a disease in the genes, that's if the topic is about having children and we aren't talking about spreading it some other way
Great question. This depends upon the type of condition that one might have, the means in which such a condition might be inherited, the phenotypic penetrance given genetic predispositions, and other factors. Conditions such as hemophilia are why Western societies have steered away from incest over the last few centuries. Luckily, we test for many conditions in-utero.
No. If they are aware that they are a carrier, they be aware that they may pass it on to their children, and maybe take appropriate precautions, but they should not "do everything they can to prevent from passing it on". People can live good lives with diseases passed genetically.
Most genetic diseases are just that genetic it's only so much that you can do to not pass it on, however most genetic diseases are because of health issues so what you can do is maintain your health. Not only just maintaining your health but make sure that those preceding you do the same to avoid carrying on the same to the next generation
It doesn’t work that way. Recessive genes have less and less chance to pass on as generations turn.
A Down syndrome man could have a baby with a down syndrome woman and 75% probability the babe would not be Down syndrome.
You should read the debunking of eugenics.
I would say no in terms of making it a general idea because I don't see a reason to take it away from them mainly because the genetic constellation could still becoming up if all of them stopped procreation and sex.
In my case nature solved the issue by making me infertile I can't create another human.
I've got Kline Felter Syndrome.
Yes, I would not want to pass one of those conditions on to one of my kids. My father passed his colorblindness on to me and it totally screwed up my life.
Yeah, You can add "American," to that pile of diseases that should not be continued.
Nope, sickle cell anemia protects you from malaria. What is currently a genetic disadvantage can become an advantage when our environment changes. Likewise an advantage can become disadvantageous with these changes. Our continued survival as a species may be dependent upon a population with genetic disorders existing.
That is a personal decision. I know a family with a child that has Down Syndrome and debated for years if they wanted to have another child. The did and it turned out normal. Of course the risk was there but they wanted a second child no matter what...
In my opinion, depends on the disease. There are certain diseases that are terrible and also a dominant trait, where the odds are 50/50 that the offspring would have it. I certainly would not want to risk passing it on if I had it.
Down Syndrome is congenital, not inherited.
Should they do everything they can? I expect most people who know that they may be carrying those genes would.
It’s up to the partners to identify qualities that are not preferable for their offspring. In Nature, females choose the most fit. Humans are similar but emotions and other factors are a huge factor. If you are asking if government should be involved to prevent these illnesses, that would be similar to eugenics.
If they were kind and not selfish, they would not have kids of their own and just adopt some. No one should pass anything on to their kids. Especially when you know how it has affected you.
I’m not having kids for this very reason
Foster or adoption is a option I’m trying to get approval.
u "everything they can to prevent" is a dangerous proposition... the word "everything" can set dangerous precedents, because it is very vague
You can also add your opinion below!
