SaiyanHajime

Apr 12 2014, 09:26 PM

I dunno guys, where do you draw the line?

If it's morally sound to reject an otherwise wanted child because it has downs syndrome, why not dyslexia?

Forgetting the fact that downs varies drastically. Many of those with the condition have jobs and get on with life like anyone else. I just think it's cruel to judge. Everyone is different, and disabilities are kinda part of that natural variation.

lunar2

Apr 13 2014, 01:36 AM

SaiyanHajime

Apr 12 2014, 09:26 PM

I dunno guys, where do you draw the line?

If it's morally sound to reject an otherwise wanted child because it has downs syndrome, why not dyslexia?

Forgetting the fact that downs varies drastically. Many of those with the condition have jobs and get on with life like anyone else. I just think it's cruel to judge. Everyone is different, and disabilities are kinda part of that natural variation.

no one is talking about aborting children with bad genes here (at least, i hope not). i was simply saying that people with genetic disorders probably shouldn't be reproducing in the first place. once the kid is here, it's here. there's nothing you can do about that.

lunar2

Apr 13 2014, 04:07 AM

there is absolutely 0 evidence that most mental disorders, including depression, have a genetic component. and if you'd notice, my method was not to force them not to reproduce, but to reward them for choosing not to reproduce. i would never force someone to do something they didn't want to do, or prevent them from doing something they want to do, as long as nobody is harmed without their explicit, informed consent. since the hypothetical children of these people with genetic defects don't even exist yet (if they ever will), there is very little consideration you can actually give them. how do you measure the value of a life that may have a few more problems than normal vs. not ever having a life at all. no one can really make that decision for anyone else, which is why i'm against aborting disabled or "defective" fetuses, unless they wouldn't survive to their first birthday anyway.

Ssj3vegito96

Apr 13 2014, 02:47 PM

Isn't there something called the westermark effect? Like brothers and sisters don't get sexually attracted because they've lived so close for so long that they just don't care to be sexually attracted to each other? Not sure if I'm wrong just something I've heard of

SaiyanHajime

Apr 13 2014, 09:56 AM

It's irrelevant that it's genetic or not lunar. (Though, as a dyslexic, I can tell you that specific learning disabilities are most definitely genetic because both my brother, grandfather, aunts and cousins are all sufferers in varying degrees of severity.)

If we had a way of telling the future, and predicting every condition a child could possibly have even before it was conceived, would it be morally sound to make judgements based on the presence of disability?

And if it is, then how bad does that disability need to be before it's moral?

You have to remember that what is difficult for one person barely affects another. Some people take in their stride what would cripple another.

I just don't think it's moral. If a couple suffer from a severe hereditary condition, they know the risk. It's themselves who they will most profoundly inflict the implications on. I just don't see how it's okay to deny them the right to a child, who may have a severely difficult life or may not.

And so, the disabilities from inbreeding argument is just a non issue to me. I think the impact on society and how that child would cope in an "unusual" upbringing is far more relevant, but still not enough of an argument to say "this is WRONG!"