Genetic Disease, Should it Be Illegal to Knowingly Pass it On

Discussion in 'Science & Society' started by KilljoyKlown, Apr 27, 2011.

  1. KilljoyKlown Whatever Valued Senior Member

    For most of human existence knowing you were a carrier of bad genes wasn't guaranteed and there was always a good chance it might skip a generation. But now we have a way to check everybody and that test is getting cheaper very fast.

    At the very least everybody should be tested and know their genetic make up and if there are bad genes it should be illegal not to notify any sex partners before unprotected sex that you have bad genes.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    What counts as "bad gens"? I have a strong family history of breast and prostate cancer and heart disease, my partner has a family history of diabetes. To take the cancer Gen as an example even if I did have the genetic test to see if I have it there is no garentiee it would mean I will get prostate cancer or that my children will get prostate or breast cancer. Furthermore it would mean being unable to get life insurance
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. KilljoyKlown Whatever Valued Senior Member

    That's a very good question. Most of the problems you mentioned don't provide a lifetime of a lower quality of life. But if a test could confirm that you are pron to early onset of certain cancers and heart disease, it would be to your advantage to adjust your lifestyle to mitigate the effects of those particular gene weaknesses. The sooner you can know about those problems and make the correct modifications to your lifestyle the longer you will live the good life. If I was an insurance company I would automatically charge more for clients that refused to be tested. Given that a knowledgeable informed client has a better chance of living a longer life.

    I'm sure there will be many less clear cut cases which should be challenged in the courts. One thing I do know is that kind of foreknowledge given to all humans would greatly increase the average lifespan and might help many others make better choices about having children together. In other words knowing how you and your prospective mate fit together genetically might make a big difference to the children you will choose to have or not have.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. livingin360 Registered Senior Member

    yes i think it should be illegal.
  8. KilljoyKlown Whatever Valued Senior Member

    I agree, informed choice must trump ignorance every time.
  9. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    But how far do you take it? If you have had laser surgery to correct short sightness should your partner automatically have that knowledge? Currently its illegal to disclose ANY medical Infomation, there was a law proposed that sterlisation would require your partners consent but that required a lot of acts to be changed. So where do you draw the line with your proposal? A one night stand for pleasure? Well the contraceptives might fail and she falls pregnant anyway
  10. chimpkin C'mon, get happy! Registered Senior Member

    Not for a one-nighter.
    OTOH if you're not planning on commitment you shouldn't have unprotected sex anyway. That's terribly irresponsible.
    I think you owe it to your partner to get tested, and if you are going to be a high-risk genetic parent...have a child through alternative means or adopt.

    But I don't like coercive measures.
  11. KilljoyKlown Whatever Valued Senior Member

    Well I won't pretend to know all the answers, but I do have a strong sense of doing the right thing for both the community and the individual. Once we get a cheap easy way to map everyone's DNA, not to use it for the benefit of all would be criminal in my opinion. How we solve the problems looks like a lawyers dream to me.
  12. Oniw17 ascetic, sage, diogenes, bum? Valued Senior Member

    Hell no! This is one of the few cases where I would ever use the argument that such a thing has a potential to go all kinds of wrong and be used for all types of fucked up agendas. Not to mention, it's a bit arrogant, don't you think? We don't know a lot about a lot still. Just because we also do know a lot about a lot doesn't mean we should pick the evil we don't know by default.
  13. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Ginger Kids

    In truth, I think it would be more effective to require people to notify any potential sex partners if they believe this sort of thing.

    The implications of the policies you suggest are nearly insane.

    I mean, what, with all the global warming and such, maybe it should be illegal to be a Ginger. I mean, what, with the reduced tolerance of sunlight, and all, them's some "bad genes".

    • • •​

    Two words: Ginger bashing.
  14. charles brough Registered Senior Member

    . . . a good point! What should more likely be made illegal is the type of genetic disorder that results in children most likely to be impaired to the extent of being unable to ever care for themselves, unable to ever become self-supporting.

    But you know, it won't happen. Our Secular Humanism ideology has leered so far into humanism that the issue wont be taken up by Congress. Even the Republicans got all upset over what they called "the Death Panel" provisions in the new medical program.

    Besides, it is reminiscent of the Nazi sterilizing euphanesia program.

    It makes sense to me, however. The Earth is getting crowded and medical expenses and welfar needs are skyrocketing. Our secular way of over-humanism is beginning to be as counter-productive and non-beneficial as the mythology of all the old religions people still worship.

    oh, by the way, Donald Trump says he is proud of himself! That makes me sooooooo happy!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    civilization-overview dot com
    Last edited: Apr 28, 2011
  15. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    There are no death panel provisions in the new health care act.
  16. KilljoyKlown Whatever Valued Senior Member

    By require, do you mean laws with teeth or a slap on the wrist if you don't do it. To me giving someone a deformed baby is worse than giving them aids and both can be considered deliberate if the person knew that it was possible. The only way to make someone pay for a crime is to make sure they know they are committing one.

    Are they really? Exactly what implications are you referring to? If information can be used for bad purposes, that can be corrected and enforced by laws. I'm willing to bet just about every possible problem can be foreseen and countered in an appropriate way, so that when the books are balanced, the good will far outweigh the bad.

    I'm sure a reasonable spectrum or classification of bad genes can be charted, and being redheaded and sensitive to sunlight would be if at all just barely over the line. So what point are you really trying to make here? That humans just can't be trusted no matter what we can do?

    The technology is just about here and it's going to be used. Are we going to be caught with our heads berried in the sand, saying we didn't know? How stupid is that going to be?
  17. Me-Ki-Gal Banned Banned

    Heil Hitler , We can bread the shit out right? Is that called Eugenics ? Wasn't that What Hitler wanted to do? Make a superior race of all tall white people ( Intelligence is debatable when it comes to the white devil )
  18. Me-Ki-Gal Banned Banned

    Administration eats the world up, Not a few autistic children . Every dollar of revenue is divided up into a chart of accounts for you that don't understand accounting , being the flaming liberals you are I know it is a hard concept sense you think money is just printed . If you look at the chart of accounts and track them for just about all business endeavors you will find that more and more goes to Administration year by year . We use to think 50/50 but now I think it is more like 65/35 and some non profits are more like 80/20 . The myth " Non Profits are not business " What a bold face lie that one is
  19. KilljoyKlown Whatever Valued Senior Member

    My idea about better breading is to maximize genetic diversity as much as possible. Also if I know that breading with someone has a good chance of producing a deformed child or some costly life time nightmare, I might like to choose someone else to have a child with. Do you have a problem with that?

    White devil, that almost sound raciest. Maybe you can clarify a bit?
  20. SilentLi89 Registered Senior Member

    But doesn't this idea actually limit genetic diversity, that could then lead to evolutionary advantages? "Bad genes" are relative. While a disease might plague one individual it might strengthen their offspring's chance of survival. For example, Sickle Cell Anemia. By using eugenics don't we stunt our evolutionary development, become too finely bred, end up with more irregular mutations just like dogs? I can't forsee messing with genes to have a happy ending.
  21. KilljoyKlown Whatever Valued Senior Member

    Not the way I see it. Let's take the extreme point of view and imagine everyone in the world is listed in the DNA data base, and our skill at identifying the best possible male/female genetic matches is close to perfect. Now lets say you are ready to settle down to family life and you want the very best for your children, starting with making sure they have the best genes possible. You then ask the data base for a list of the top 100 to 1000 available best matches for you, ranked in order of the very best on down. You then work your way down the list for a compatible match (could be any race or nationality) keeping in mind you are placing a very high priority on having the best kids possible.

    Relative to who? The family that gave birth to a lifetime of heartache and pain?

    The reason we call them bad genes is because they don't enhance anyone's chance for survival and way more often than not they cause the exact opposite to happen. Also as our knowledge increases in how to solve and adjust genetic problems the less need we will have of maintaining some population with the bad genes such as Sickle Cell Anemia.

    Giving us the best available choices for mates doesn't sound like eugenics to me. It sounds like what we hope to do by chance when we are in the market for a mate. I like knowledge over chance every time and I want the healthiest smartest kids I can possibly have every time.
  22. madanthonywayne Morning in America Registered Senior Member

    That is a horrible, fascist, totalitarian idea. What next? Shall we round up the genetic defectives and execute them? Or perhaps simple forced sterilization?

    Furthermore, you are assuming that there are just a few genetic defectives out there soiling the gene pool for the rest of us. I assure you, that is absolutely not true. As we get older, almost everyone ends up with one or more diseases such as hypertension, hyperlipidemia, diabetes, osteoporosis, depression, anxiety, bipolar disorder, etc. And as we gain more and more knowledge of the genetic component of these various diseases, we're going to find that almost everyone carries one or more genetic time bombs just waiting to go off.

    Now, you may say that you really only mean people who carry the genes for really bad diseases. They're the ones who don't deserve to breed. Well, who are you to judge the worth of a human being? Is a man defined by a disease? Can a person suffering from even a serious disease not still make a contribution to society?

    Consider Stephen Hawking. Has he not made a greater contribution to society than most able bodied and healthy men? Should his parents have been allowed to breed if it had been known that they carried the gene for ALS (the horrible disease that Stephen Hawking suffers from)?
  23. jmpet Valued Senior Member

    Know of two families with bad genes. Three if you include Mickey Mantle.

Share This Page