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

    Messages:
    6,493
    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?

    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.

    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.

    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?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



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

    Messages:
    23,049
    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"
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



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

    Messages:
    6,493
    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.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. gmilam Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,378
    How does "illegal" = "informed choice"?
     
  8. KilljoyKlown Whatever Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,493
    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.
     
  9. SilentLi89 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    263
    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.
     
  10. KilljoyKlown Whatever Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,493
    I suppose you would rather find out when it's to late to do anything about it. Good thinking.

    In society you have to care about what others want to do, because it's going to affect you. More good thinking.


    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.
     
  11. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,696
    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.
     
  12. KilljoyKlown Whatever Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,493
    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.
     
  13. SilentLi89 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    263
    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.

    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.

    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.
     
  14. KilljoyKlown Whatever Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,493
    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.

    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.

    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.
     
  15. chimpkin C'mon, get happy! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,416
    '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.
     
  16. Orleander OH JOY!!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    25,817
    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
     
  17. SilentLi89 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    263
    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)

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

    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?

    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)
     
  18. Orleander OH JOY!!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    25,817
    please please please can I see a picture of you breading someone? :roflmao: Do you use flour or cracker crumbs?
     
  19. kurros Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    793
    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.
     
  20. KilljoyKlown Whatever Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,493
    Good catch, I do proof read what I write, but some typos still do get by me.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  21. Orleander OH JOY!!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    25,817
    Would this whole scenario make a Gattaca world then?
     
  22. KilljoyKlown Whatever Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,493
    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.
     
  23. yaracuy Banned Banned

    Messages:
    364



    We need people with defect the produce jobs . If every one is perfect and healthy there will be not much advance in medicine

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     

Share This Page