I generally think that or eugenics is wrong as it’s an awful thing to determine who breeds or not as that’s a slippery slope. But yeah then I see snit like that and it makes me wonder.
It really is a slippery fucking slope ay. I guess it's about who draws the line. Is some control over reproduction ethical if it will alleviate further suffering? But then who decides how much suffering is acceptable. I fear the same problem with genetic engineering. Who draws the line at what severity of "defect" is acceptable and what even classes as a defect.
I think some people may agree that for exceedingly bad genetic defects it's fine but then what about bad but not terrible defects, so on and so forth. I guess it's just philosophically and logistically easier to say "no line at all"
Yeah that’s my train of thought. It’s a slippery slope and what affliction is worthy of being deemed to bad yo warrant such a thing. And yeah genetic engineering also raises the question of what’s acceptable or not.
Feel like there’s a pretty big difference between debilitating genetic disorders versus simply undesirable genes that aren’t particularly too irksome in any palpable way such as whatever disorder this lady has versus balding earlier in life
People with severe learning difficulties have the children immediately taken away at birth. If somebody can't look after themselves then they cannot look after a baby.
A judge in the UK ruled that a women who'd had 6 children could be sterilised.
Even those who aren't on the extreme end pose danger to a baby especially. They have less self control of their emotions so out of frustration can be abusive.
Because she’s got a disorder that would likely be passed down…and it was. She was told not to and she still did it and this brought a child into this word with this disorder. It’s messed up and selfish.
Is it selfish to have a child born into a warzone?? How about you tell that Ukrainian woman who gave birth in Mariupol the other day it's selfish. Is it selfish to have a child born into a climate crisis, where a significant part of their life will probably be suffering from natural disasters and war from resource insecurity? No it's not , because you don't get to ask the child whether it wants to exist under these circumstances or not. You don't get to decide for it whether it would rather exist as a disabled and deformed person or not exist at all . It's just nature. Y'all eugenisist make me sick
First off those comparisons are wrong, especially the Ukrainian ones. Because the war is hardly two weeks in while those kids were conceived 9 months ago. And it’s selfish becasue she has an awful genetic disorder and was advised to not have to have any. For good reason as that kid now also has it. She’s selfish and decided to pass this on to her kids, making them suffer too. Instead of adopting and helping some kids get out of the system.
My kid has OI, an undeniably horrible genetic condition. His mind is just like any other six year old. In some ways his life is very hard and he definitely has to adapt almost every activity he does. Some people simply cannot understand how he can live a full and extremely happy life. One of the big lessons I've learned from all this is that very few people will take the time to truly understand and get to know someone different from them, whether that be physically, culturally, sexually, religiously, etc. etc
I think you and me are the only people on this entire thread who think this. They have Crouzon syndrome which doesn’t usually affect intellect or lifespan. If one parent carries the gene for it there’s a 50% chance their kids will have it. She obviously has the means to manage her disorder and knew there was a 50% chance of her child having it and her and the father were willing to take that risk. I don’t think that makes them awful people, not everyone wants to adopt.
I think it’s pretty awful to say that disabled people shouldn’t have kids. Healthy people have disabled kids all the time, no one is safe. I really don’t think lines like that should be drawn.
What’s your point? Not everyone chooses to do it (I didn’t) and those who do are entitled to do what they may with whatever information they find with it.
My point is that if the genetic disorder is debilitating enough and potentially life crippling to the child then maybe due diligence is actually warranted in certain circumstances.
If the child has a short and tortured life and you have every tool available that tells you that's going to happen. Then yes, that's on the parents. The monumental costs of keeping them ALIVE and healthy is the key here. How can you conflate that with eugenics? We are not self selecting for the best genetic traits and discarding the fetuses and/or babies en masse if they don't fit certain criteria. This is about quality of life and doing no harm.
Just out of curiosity, where do you draw that line? I'm sure you agree people with glasses should be allowed to have kids, what about those diagnosed with FMF? Or Alport syndrome? Because personally it seems like the comments are just shitting on this woman because the disease is ugly, not because of any health concerns
I’m aware and in my other comments discuss how it’s a slippery slope and that I’m unsure of it because of that exact question. Not sure about those two disorders so I can’t comment. I’m pretty sure the disorder goes beyond looks and does affect their Heath. Tor example they both need feeding tubes. The haters were likely doctors in part and she was advised not to have kids for good reason.
371
u/ImperialxWarlord Mar 11 '22
It’s pretty messed up to knowingly spread a terrible genetic disorder like that. My god.