Compulsory eugenics

[1]

New technologies already allow us to prevent children with certain diseases and disabilities from being born. Should this be legal? Many disability rights advocates would say it should not be. I am of the opinion it should be free and compulsory. What do you think?

Ideally we should be able to treat and inevitably cure genetic defects, not purge living beings with them.

I'm just glad parents can make an informed decision now.

Does it involve abortions? If it does, hell no.

But then, I am one of these silly people who think that all specimens of homo sapiens have human rights ;)

If instead we are talking about techniques involving, I dunno, screening for healthy ova and spermatozoa, or perhaps gene therapy... well, I have no objections to that, but I do not particularly like the concept of compulsory medical treatments. Perhaps make it elective, but connect it to some sort of tax break in order to encourage it?

edited 26th Apr '11 1:37:23 PM by Carciofus

Recommended and cheaply provided gene therapy, yes. Mandatory abortions, a thousand times no.

Hell, mandatory much of anything short of vaccinations no.

edited 26th Apr '11 1:49:23 PM by Pykrete

"But then, I am one of these silly people who think that all specimens of homo sapiens have human rights ;)"

Yeah, it does (I think). This made me uneasy which is why I asked this question. Now, I very much like your idea but I don't want any children to have to go through that. A forced abortion seems trivial in comparison. It's extremely irresponsible. Say, Down's Syndrome is fine and all. They're happier even. But severe painful diseases, no way in hell does it seem OK to allow that to me. I'm willing to change my mind though.

edited 26th Apr '11 1:50:16 PM by LoveHappiness

Honestly, maybe I'd feel differently if I'd grown up with any serious hereditary diseases, but if you're talking about forced abortions, that sounds to me like an absolutely horrendous thing to inflict upon parents who are unwilling to undergo them.

I mean, first of all you have the pro-lifers. Obviously they're not going to be down with that. As far as they're concerned, you'd be murdering their baby.

Then, think how happy some parents are when they find out they're pregnant, and then think about how upsetting miscarriages can be. Is it really ethical to inflict that upon a couple? I'm not totally sure I'm qualified to say, since as I say, I don't really know how traumatic it is to live with a serious congenital disease, but I really wouldn't have thought so.

You're also kind of pissing off the pro-choicers, what with...taking away the mother's choice.

So let's throw Pro-Life and Pro-Choice out the door in exchange for Pro-Darwinism and try for that race of perfection again. There'd be an ethical debate here if people could be allowed to have abortions based on their child having disabilities, but forced abortions, no...

(Plus, I'm against abortions in general, so yeah, screw compulsory set ups.)

OK, I think I've made up my mind now. It's very wrong but should be legal. I need to separate the two. I mean I'm a radfem anarchist who's crazy about body sovereignty, so yeah I should be against compulsory abortions.

edited 26th Apr '11 2:11:34 PM by LoveHappiness

...forced abortions? I am all in favor of the right to get abortions, but forcing it because your child has a genetic defect society has deemed grave enough is just...no. No. Fuck. Forcing anything greater than vaccinations is a no.

If you want to though then...well...your choice I guess.

"But severe painful diseases, no way in hell does it seem OK to allow that to me. I'm willing to change my mind though. "

If the individual in question feels the same way you do, they can always kill themselves. Even if you ignore the issue of abortion, you are still basically saying that you can decide for another human being that they would be better off dead.

"Even if you ignore the issue of abortion, you are still basically saying that you can decide for another human being that they would be better off dead."

No, I'm saying it would be better for them not to be born. But I'm already aware that you think they are persons, so.. Still, good point.

"Forcing anything greater than vaccinations is a no"

A few of you said that. But what about compulsory schooling?

edited 26th Apr '11 2:39:37 PM by LoveHappiness

Trying to make stuff like this mandatory would open the door for all kinds of stupidity (arbitrary definitions, slippery slope, etc…). That said, a harsh cultural atmosphere should exist over things like fertility treatments, most of which have enormously increased risks of birth defects and miscarriages, and couples with severe congenital problems having kids, which is also very inconsiderate. There's plenty of children in need of adoption.

"That said, a harsh cultural atmosphere should exist over things like fertility treatments, most of which have enormously increased risks of birth defects and miscarriages, and couples with severe congenital problems having kids, which is also very inconsiderate."

Yeah, someone who actually has the condition in question certainly isn't in a position to judge whether life with that condition is worthwhile.

I'm hardly saying it's worthless, but burdening your kids with something really nasty (say… Blindness for instance) out of sheer egotism isn't nice.

A pair of deaf lesbian in the UK recently wanted to use ivf so they could screen for deafness. Thankfully they were told to go cram it.

No. Just no.

Should the option be available? Yes. A child with a grave disability is a burden to the parents and society, has no future, and will probably know very little happiness and truckloads of suffering. An abortion would be better for all parties involved.

Should it be mandatory? No. The parents are probably a better judge on the matter then the law.

Having the option seems reasonable, I guess, though I'm not a parent, so I'm not really qualified to form a very strong opinion on that.. Making it mandatory? Not good.

What about mandatory genetic correction of disease/disability?

Leave it to the parents, I suppose. Though I don't see why anyone would say no to such treatment.

I'm not that fond of mandatory things in general. Way I see it, the government has no business getting that involved in people's lives.

I think the option should be made available, but I'm very much against any sort of compulsory eugenics.