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

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

Those are your words not mine. I'm simply talking about a better informed population. Are you personally afraid of knowing what your DNA would reveal about you?

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.
Click to expand...

I'm not assuming anything and the point you are making only serve to strengthen my case. I would very much want to know what my genetic challenges are as early in my life as is possible. Because most of those diseases you mentioned can be mitigated by lifestyle changes and the earlier those changes are made the longer you will get to live a healthier life.

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?
Click to expand...

Again you haven't been reading what I've been saying. Not once did I ever say anyone didn't deserve to breed or make a judgment about it. What I did say is that you or me as informed possible parents can make better choices about who we will have children with or if we even want to have children. Maybe we would feel better adopting or choosing some alternative method. In any event it would be a better informed choice.

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)?
Click to expand...

Yes Hawking has made substantial contributions to society. Wouldn't it have been much better if he had a longer healthier life instead of being everybody's example of a defective made good?
 
What about deafness? A lot of deaf people don't even concider that a disability and there is a whole culture built around being deaf. What if they found a genetic cause for being gay, would it be acceptable to screen out the gay gen? And what about redheads, I think they are the most attractive women but its a "genetic disease"
 
Asguard said:
What about deafness? A lot of deaf people don't even concider that a disability and there is a whole culture built around being deaf. What if they found a genetic cause for being gay, would it be acceptable to screen out the gay gen? And what about redheads, I think they are the most attractive women but its a "genetic disease"
Click to expand...

The only bad genes I'd like to see laws against passing on would be the really serious problems and yet even those might be avoided by knowing who you could safely have children with. Many of the worst genetic nightmares takes both parents to produce. As to the other rather mild non life threatening types, well that would be up to the parents doing the childbirth planning.

All I ask is for you to put yourself in the place of either a man or woman planning on having a child together. What would you do if you know you have a 50-50 chance of having a deaf baby? You are both informed and whatever choice you make is okay by me. So I have to wonder are you suggesting people who want to become parents shouldn't learn what their genetic odds together are?

What's one of the first things a new mother does after the birth of a child. She makes sure physically everything about the child is where it should be. I believe people will want to know as much about their genetic profiles as possible before conceiving a child don't you? However, what do we do about the good times turned into accidental pregnancy? My preference would be to make sure there are no accidents.
 
gmilam said:
How does "illegal" = "informed choice"?
Click to expand...

Obviously illegal is not the same as informed choice. But if you are informed that you have some seriously bad genes and you choose to have unprotected sex with an uninformed partner I'm going to think you are a criminal that needs to be removed from society.
 
KilljoyKlown said:
Obviously illegal is not the same as informed choice. But if you are informed that you have some seriously bad genes and you choose to have unprotected sex with an uninformed partner I'm going to think you are a criminal that needs to be removed from society.
Click to expand...

The title of the Thread is a question of legality. There is a difference between informed choice and illegality, but that's what the thread asked.
While I would not want to know what diseases are lurking around in my DNA, because I would obsess over it. I couldn't possibly care less about what other people want to do. But I don't think there should be any legal issues over whether I'm allowed to conceive or not.
 
SilentLi89 said:
While I would not want to know what diseases are lurking around in my DNA, because I would obsess over it.
Click to expand...

I suppose you would rather find out when it's to late to do anything about it. Good thinking.

I couldn't possibly care less about what other people want to do.
Click to expand...
In society you have to care about what others want to do, because it's going to affect you. More good thinking.


But I don't think there should be any legal issues over whether I'm allowed to conceive or not.
Click to expand...

Maybe there never will be laws about who can and can't conceive with who as long as they are informed that sleeping with you could produce a little monster that they would be stuck taking care of for the rest of their life. But then if you don't know you won't have to tell. I know exactly where you are coming from.
 
KilljoyKlown said:
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.
Click to expand...

True. Insurance companies could raise rates on people with predispositions for genetic diseases. That would help everyone by making insurance rates more fair; the healthy would no longer have to pay for defectives.

We could use it when deciding who gets organ transplants. The people with a perfect genome might live longer, and would therefore get first priority for the organs.

Couples at risk for genetic diseases could be sterilized so they don't pass them on. OK, that's a bit extreme; perhaps just making it clear that their children will never be eligible for health insurance or any kind of state or federal medical care would be sufficient disincentive. We could add the genes that are predictors for homosexuality to the list of genetic diseases for the purposes of reproduction; after all, homosexuals don't reproduce anyway.

Genetic testing could also be used to place people appropriately in society. People with a genetic disposition towards low intelligence and violence could be placed in the military; people with genes that predispose one to risk-taking could be denied jobs as pilots, air traffic controllers, doctors or lawyers. They could also be required to carry extra automotive insurance to ensure that their risk-taking does not impact the rest of society. Alternatively, they could just be denied licenses and take the bus.

People with genes for perfect pitch would be encouraged to be singers, and discouraged from pursuing less-appropriate jobs. Genomes denoting strength or endurance would become athletes; people with genes seen commonly in pedophiles could be placed on watch lists _before_ they commit crimes.
 
billvon said:
True. Insurance companies could raise rates on people with predispositions for genetic diseases. That would help everyone by making insurance rates more fair; the healthy would no longer have to pay for defectives.

We could use it when deciding who gets organ transplants. The people with a perfect genome might live longer, and would therefore get first priority for the organs.

Couples at risk for genetic diseases could be sterilized so they don't pass them on. OK, that's a bit extreme; perhaps just making it clear that their children will never be eligible for health insurance or any kind of state or federal medical care would be sufficient disincentive. We could add the genes that are predictors for homosexuality to the list of genetic diseases for the purposes of reproduction; after all, homosexuals don't reproduce anyway.

Genetic testing could also be used to place people appropriately in society. People with a genetic disposition towards low intelligence and violence could be placed in the military; people with genes that predispose one to risk-taking could be denied jobs as pilots, air traffic controllers, doctors or lawyers. They could also be required to carry extra automotive insurance to ensure that their risk-taking does not impact the rest of society. Alternatively, they could just be denied licenses and take the bus.

People with genes for perfect pitch would be encouraged to be singers, and discouraged from pursuing less-appropriate jobs. Genomes denoting strength or endurance would become athletes; people with genes seen commonly in pedophiles could be placed on watch lists _before_ they commit crimes.
Click to expand...

In all of human history has there ever been a major advance that couldn't be used for both good or great evil? Just saying. Also, no matter how bad or dangerous something might be, has that ever stopped us from doing it?

I'm not saying there won't be some risk involved, but the money to be made is just to great for it not to happen. That means all the possible negatives should be worked out and then safeguards put into place before it becomes a fact of our life. Who knows over the next few generations we might raise the average human IQ to a 150 instead of 100 and the average life span of about 78 to 130 or more.
 
KilljoyKlown said:
I suppose you would rather find out when it's to late to do anything about it. Good thinking.
Click to expand...
That's right. I'm just doing what I know is best for me. I know what I'm like and I know I'd be much happier living my life the way I want to instead of locking myself in a closet to prevent a disease that I may not even develop. To be honest I'd rather live a short happy life than a long one filled with depression and misery.

In society you have to care about what others want to do, because it's going to affect you. More good thinking.
Click to expand...
But it's a personal choice. Who am I to tell other people what they should and shouldn't know about themselves. That's their choice to make not mine to make for them.

Maybe there never will be laws about who can and can't conceive with who as long as they are informed that sleeping with you could produce a little monster that they would be stuck taking care of for the rest of their life. But then if you don't know you won't have to tell. I know exactly where you are coming from.
Click to expand...

Not all genetic diseases are expressed the day a person is born. In fact most aren't. You can raise a happy healthy baby who develops breast cancer at age 50, and they may or may not die from it. I don't see how that leaves you to take care of them. You seem to have some kind of issue with those who are disabled, since you're calling them monsters and the like. That sounds like a personal problem you have. There will always be disabled people regardless of any eugenics program put in place.
 
SilentLi89 said:
That's right. I'm just doing what I know is best for me. I know what I'm like and I know I'd be much happier living my life the way I want to instead of locking myself in a closet to prevent a disease that I may not even develop. To be honest I'd rather live a short happy life than a long one filled with depression and misery.
Click to expand...

You sound like a man with something to hide. Maybe you don't care about yourself, but what about your mating partners and any children you might bring into this world? Society does have a right to protect itself from ignorant lovers such as yourself. Also whether you choose to be depressed and miserable because you might find out that you are genetically challenged is pathetically childish.

But it's a personal choice. Who am I to tell other people what they should and shouldn't know about themselves. That's their choice to make not mine to make for them.
Click to expand...

Society has a right to increase it's standard of living, with or with out your consent. When what you know or don't know about yourself will affect others, society can require that you know. The same as they require you to have a drivers license that shows you have the necessary knowledge and skill to drive a car.

Not all genetic diseases are expressed the day a person is born. In fact most aren't. You can raise a happy healthy baby who develops breast cancer at age 50, and they may or may not die from it. I don't see how that leaves you to take care of them. You seem to have some kind of issue with those who are disabled, since you're calling them monsters and the like. That sounds like a personal problem you have. There will always be disabled people regardless of any eugenics program put in place.
Click to expand...

That's right, but if you don't know what genetic predispositions both you and your mate have, that's almost the same as playing Russian roulette. Also if it's not anything that's likely to manifest until age 40 or 50, don't you think starting your kids out in life with a lifestyle that will minimize risk of getting cancers or other later life problems? It's much easier to maintain a lifestyle you grew up with than try and make changes when your ways are set later in life.

When people make informed choices based on knowledge, I don't call that eugenics. Over 2 or 3 generations of informed choices the number of genetically disabled people should be approaching zero, and the total knowledge gained should be minimizing all the marginal genetic problems.
 
There will always be disabled people regardless of any eugenics program put in place.
Click to expand...

'Fraid so. Some errors occur during meiosis, some are developmental.
I know the chances of mother to child transmission of Major Depressive Disorder is 60%, indicating it's possibly at least partly related to the sex chromosome...or depression is actually a problem in the mitochondrial DNA.

Which is a possibility.

Asthma has nearly killed me multiple times...and what I've read, the chances of having a child with asthma actually are even higher if your mother's mother smoked.

So I have a very high chance of passing both conditions to any kid I might have.

The thing that occurs to me is...we may be able to fix DNA prior to fertilization someday.
 
No it shouldn't be illegal. What one person decides is a bad gene, I may not. I don't think its bad to have deaf children. Or a dwarf child. Or a child with Down Syndrome. etc
 
KilljoyKlown said:
You sound like a man with something to hide. Maybe you don't care about yourself, but what about your mating partners and any children you might bring into this world? Society does have a right to protect itself from ignorant lovers such as yourself. Also whether you choose to be depressed and miserable because you might find out that you are genetically challenged is pathetically childish.
Click to expand...

Well it's nice to know I'm acting my age. I'm not ashamed to admit that I'm barely more than a child and that I have a lot to learn. I also know that as a child my mother banned me from reading medical books and medical self help websites for a good reason. I tend to get bad cases of hypochondria. I used to make my self physically ill worrying about diseases and conditions I've never had. (I'm also not ashamed to admit that I'm not a man, so it's not like I'd be spreading my seed everywhere and making my kids someone elses problem)

Society has a right to increase it's standard of living, with or with out your consent. When what you know or don't know about yourself will affect others, society can require that you know. The same as they require you to have a drivers license that shows you have the necessary knowledge and skill to drive a car.
Click to expand...

Whatever personal choices people make for themselves is still none of my business.

That's right, but if you don't know what genetic predispositions both you and your mate have, that's almost the same as playing Russian roulette. Also if it's not anything that's likely to manifest until age 40 or 50, don't you think starting your kids out in life with a lifestyle that will minimize risk of getting cancers or other later life problems? It's much easier to maintain a lifestyle you grew up with than try and make changes when your ways are set later in life.
Click to expand...

You mean by not letting them smoke or exposing them to smoke, making them eat healthy, making sure they get exercise, and keep them from playing in dangerously radioactive material...etc ? The things parents should do for their kids anyway?

When people make informed choices based on knowledge, I don't call that eugenics. Over 2 or 3 generations of informed choices the number of genetically disabled people should be approaching zero, and the total knowledge gained should be minimizing all the marginal genetic problems.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter what you prefer to call it. What you are proposing is eugenics by the definition of the word: the study of or belief in the possibilty in improving the qualities of the human species or a human population, especially by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics) or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits (positive eugenics)
 
I don't think it matters, within 50 years if not sooner we will have the technology to pick and choose which of our genes we pass to our offspring, or at the very least pick which sperm and ovum have the most desirable genes and choose those ones for reproduction. At this point we will be able to eradicate many genetic diseases in only a few generations. At least among those who can afford it. Assuming the practice of doing such things is not banned.
 
Orleander said:
Would this whole scenario make a Gattaca world then?
Click to expand...

That's a good question and given that humans have a history of cast systems, segregation, slavery, racial purity, superior race...etc. I'd say without some strong government action it would be a good possibility.

But just because something has the possibility of going bad is no good reason we shouldn't do it if the good that can result is worth while. Promoting a healthier more intelligent population sure seems worth while to me.
 
Orleander said:
No it shouldn't be illegal. What one person decides is a bad gene, I may not. I don't think its bad to have deaf children. Or a dwarf child. Or a child with Down Syndrome. etc
Click to expand...




We need people with defect the produce jobs . If every one is perfect and healthy there will be not much advance in medicine :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top