.

Jan 23, 2017 11:15 AM

GiantMidgetMan

Views

278134

Likes

6644

Dislikes

1300

Passing down a serious disability to a child is incredibly fucked up. You are knowingly going to make that child's life significantly more difficult just because *you* want to have a kid of your own.

Imagine if an amputee parent cut off some of their child's limbs right when they came out of the womb. Would that be okay? No, it isn't, Isn't it? So how is willingly passing down your disability any different? How!?

I am aware that Hitler did this shit too, but just because Hitler did it, doesn't make it automatically bad. If the only argument against my opinion is "Hitler thought like that too", then you are being intellectually dishonest.

"Imagine if an amputee" - false equivalency. Amputation impacts an existing victim. The act of reproduction has no existing victim.

9 years ago | Likes 21 Dislikes 1

9 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 0

Sorry OP but I think you are about to experience down vote syndrome

9 years ago | Likes 19 Dislikes 3

With this line of thought we wouldn't have Stephen Hawkings, one of the most brilliant minds on earth.

9 years ago | Likes 37 Dislikes 4

Would you let me make medical decisions about your body without your consent? Do you feel comfortable relaxing the right to bodily autonomy?

9 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 1

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

9 years ago | Likes 17 Dislikes 1

Guys his only other post is a bunch of paintings that didn't gain nearly as many points as his post about eugenics. He is totally Hitler.

9 years ago | Likes 515 Dislikes 9

heh

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I did nazi that until now

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Then we need to make sure they get more points so he can go to art college

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

This... Look, man...this isn't how college works. I'm sorry.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I don't know what you're talking about. This is totally how it works

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

You may be right, after all.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Hahahahaha I never really thought about it like that. +1

9 years ago | Likes 83 Dislikes 6

Inner @OP: this bitch is gonna be the first one in the oven

9 years ago | Likes 26 Dislikes 0

Well I have ADHD and am probably genetically inclined to alcoholism, so I suppose it would be his moral duty

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

My oven is occupied. Im making cookies. <3

9 years ago | Likes 17 Dislikes 1

And I'm making a nice jewsy pie.

9 years ago | Likes 11 Dislikes 0

"The Imgur eugenics program was short lived; it was cancelled after evidenced showed nobody there was getting laid anyway."

9 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 0

We tried that. It's called eugenics. It got out of hand and we figured out that people need to choose for themselves.

9 years ago | Likes 45 Dislikes 3

Sure, but now were depleting Earth's resources faster than they can replenish because "yay everyone decides". Cool.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

Shhh, we don't want people to know the US did a thing Hitler did!

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

"...Just because Hitler did it, doesn't make it automatically bad."

9 years ago | Likes 14 Dislikes 3

Hitler painted, therefore painting is bad right?

9 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 15

I have a final solution to the jewish world conspiracy I want to talk to you about.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

Why me ? because I'm a jew ?

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Hitler sucked at painting

9 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 1

Your logic is awful.

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

Problem is, someone will have to decide whats a serious disorder and these people will abuse their power. Only suffering aling this path.

9 years ago | Likes 38 Dislikes 4

I think it's obvious what would disqualify people. Serious stuff, like veganism, and believing in God.

9 years ago | Likes 15 Dislikes 10

Imgur Eugenics ™

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

Exactly. I actually believe in God and was a vegetarian for several years.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Crap, I believe in God. Where do I go to get euthanized?

9 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 1

no no, not you, just your reproductive organs, like commonly done to cats and dogs.

9 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 2

Don't admit it on Imgur!

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

Nah, fuck you. Passing disabilities isn't a guarantee and, more importantly, you don't get to decide whose lives are worth living.

9 years ago | Likes 103 Dislikes 12

fallowing that logic, "hey tod! wanna play Russian roulette?" i mean death isn't guaranteed.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 8

I have reduced mobility caused by genetic disease. I'm quite happy that OP wasn't allowed to decide that I shouldn't exist.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 2

You're absolutely right! But as someone with a genetic disability - I do wish parents put more thought into the life the child would have.'

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

fallowing that logic, "hey tod! wanna play Russian roulette?" i mean death isn't guaranteed.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 7

On the other hand, an unpopular opinion puffin was actually used correctly. So...?

9 years ago | Likes 15 Dislikes 1

If it's not insightful, funny, touching, impressive, or valuable in any way, who cares if it follows the rules?

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

It made it to the front page of a community that is widely in favor of eugenics, of course it wasn't used correctly.

9 years ago | Likes 11 Dislikes 2

I'm having doubts that you should be allowed to reproduce, OP

9 years ago | Likes 15 Dislikes 3

I respect your opinion. +1

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 12

I'm having doubts that he's ever gonna have the chance.

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

Well. What tells me youre qualified to reproduce. What tells me i cannot define a certain flaw of yours as a disability, because i hate you?

9 years ago | Likes 36 Dislikes 3

Good point. But my point is that I can function on my own, and my accommodations (glasses) aren't too burdensome.

9 years ago | Likes 14 Dislikes 37

Oh so it's the "other people should do this but not to me or mine" line of reasoning. I can tell you did'nt think this through very well.

9 years ago | Likes 20 Dislikes 2

perhaps we should only breed small people cause thay less a carbon footprint, and lactose int so we need few cows, it won't stop Pandora

9 years ago | Likes 19 Dislikes 1

Maybe I want glasses to stop being required. Maybe everyone who needs glasses should not be allowed to reproduce to curb the amount!

9 years ago | Likes 12 Dislikes 0

Eugenics on imgur's front page. Wonderful.

9 years ago | Likes 56 Dislikes 4

Yeah. It's on the front page because it's unpopular...

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 8

This is just a warm-up for the inevitable post condemning "black culture" or a power fantasy greentext about humiliating a feminist.

9 years ago | Likes 15 Dislikes 1

February is next month. I can't wait to see the same race baiting pics on Imgurs FP again.

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

I have a genetic disorder - even if we did want kids, I'd adopt. So much suffering, I wouldn't choose that.

9 years ago | Likes 34 Dislikes 2

Ditto, doctors have told me I would die in childbirth, so I am very pro-choice so I can live. No offense to unborn babies.

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 2

That's so selfish of you!! J/k, sorry about your situation/condition. I don't want kids, but really wish I didn't have the curiosity

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

I mean, I don't want them born without a mother, and I don't want to die just to pass on this horrible disorder. I could die from my period.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I have a blood disorder that just fucking sucks, and if I don't have to pass it on, I won't.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Same here. Luckily I am gay, don't even have to worry about passing the gene on.

9 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

Wouldn't want you're kids to catch the gay

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 4

apparently a couple people that I was serious

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

And that makes sense, but a law forbidding you from reproducing as being advocated by OP strikes me as very scary.

9 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 2

Then we will have a pure race of superior human. Vermin parasites and undesirables must be weeded out. We will have a great fatherland!

9 years ago | Likes 25 Dislikes 8

didn't read the description eh?

9 years ago | Likes 12 Dislikes 26

I read it.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Where you wanted to ignore the most infamous example of gov't sponsored eugenics programs? We read it. Wait... you were serious about dat??

9 years ago | Likes 12 Dislikes 0

No, just because Hitler did something does not make it bad. But you pick one of the worst things he did.

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

With products like CRISPR on the rise, we won't worry about who can breed anymore. Then we get to have the fun discussion of why we 1/2

9 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

While true, using CRISPR on humans to that degree is still a ways off.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

While true, using CRISPR on humans to that degree is still a ways off.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

Fix every baby. Then, how far is too far?

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

That would require every baby to be born from IVF to eliminate the disease for all future births you would have to edit the sperm/egg cell

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

What happens when every parent wants a tall, blue eyed, blonde boy? Do we let people edit their kids to be their perfect child?

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

1/2Huntingtons and the likes perhaps? What if we find a gene for drug abuse or major depressions? The only thing I "know" as a biologist is

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

2/2 that most (not all ofc) of these things wouldn't have survived evolution unless they had some sort of advantage.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

3/2 though it can be linked to other "good" genes etc.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Slippery slope. First disabled people and where would that end? No interracial couples etc etc

9 years ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 0

2/2 in line with the current ethics of either the people, the rulers (and peeps get the rulers they "deserve") and those doing "the job".

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

1/2 Yes, and no. Slippery slope _can_ be argued, but we don't (normally) give abortions past a certain point etc. Our legislation is usually

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

But once the precedent is set, you can't know who will always be determining the criteria. That's the problem. What is a rich populist (1)

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

(2)asshole who thinks success and wealth is genetic gets elected, and suddenly decides no on who makes less than $50,000/year can reproduce?

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Then the people who put said person in charge are, at the very least, not reproducing anymore ;) as said: we get the leaders we deserve...

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Nice try Hitler.

9 years ago | Likes 872 Dislikes 41

Best me too it lol

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 2

@GiantMidgetMan

9 years ago | Likes 15 Dislikes 0

Ah so it WAS an Austrian accent!

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

I legit lol'd

9 years ago | Likes 49 Dislikes 14

9 years ago | Likes 20 Dislikes 1

Whoa there's a flag on the play! Let's see the ruling --

9 years ago | Likes 95 Dislikes 9

You know that it isn't an actual law or fallacy, right?

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Godwin's law doesn't prohibit the invocation of Hitler. You should read the actual law.

9 years ago | Likes 19 Dislikes 4

True: It says that you've lost the debate / argument...

9 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 6

No, it doesn't: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

9 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 2

Look it up on Urban dictionary.com... "The person guilty of invoking Godwin's Law has effectively forfieted the argument."

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 2

Did you read the article?? "once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned Hitler has automatically lost"

9 years ago | Likes 11 Dislikes 4

Imgur on gun control: "The Nazis want to take away our guns. Revolt!" Imgur on forcing a specific group of people to have surgery and taking

9 years ago | Likes 63 Dislikes 7

Holy shit! It's almost as if more than 1 person uses imgur!

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 6

If I created a Venn-diagramm of people defending gun-rights and people defending reproductive rights I doubt there'd be much overlap.

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 1

er, there are plenty of pro-gun liberals out there :|

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

away their reproductive rights: "Now that's level-headed, common sense policy!"

9 years ago | Likes 62 Dislikes 4

A bit like how all the "Imma run over those BLM negroes!" crew also condemned the Spencer punch?

9 years ago | Likes 11 Dislikes 0

Thanks for reminding me of that, I always get slightly nauseous when I read one of those posts/comments.

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

If they pose a threat, run them down. Public highways aren't for protests unless authorized by the city.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 6

So what do you think about Spencer getting thwacked?

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Seeing as how he is on the street, not blocking traffic, and answering questions; it's a case of assault but well deserved bc of provocation

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

His provocation should have been dealt with ASAP as it is a threat to public safety and peace. Should have been escorted away from protests

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

But everyone has the right to speak their minds so long as they are not a threat to public security i.e on the sidewalk, not highway

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

Next: being gay is declared a genetic disability.

9 years ago | Likes 29 Dislikes 4

even if it were a genetic disability, it wouldn't be a serious one.

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 21

I agree, but ultimately who decides that? If the people in power are anti-gay what stops them from deciding that of "the gays" or anyone

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

from that family line since its generic, aren't overly burdensome due to not falling within the family structure the anti-gay groups

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

designate as correct?

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

You haven't seen the tons of front page posts calling trans people mentally ill?

9 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 1

Except transgender people and homosexuals are completely different.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Exactly. The lists shouldn't be associated with eachother....

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

It's apparently something wrong with their brains in most cases, so yes, it is a mental issue. Not in the case of parents' force, though...

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Impossiburu. Almost all gay people is conceived by straight people (except for gay people who have kids while still in the closet).

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

You're making some very dangerous assumptions. Just because a gay person doesn't have children doesn't mean their genes aren't passed (1)

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

(2)down. Siblings share, on average, 50% of their genes. In fact,a gene that is linked to homosexuality in males is also linked to increased

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

(3)fertility in females- an evolutionary advantage that propagates the gene. http://www.nature.com/nrg/journal/v5/n12/full/nrg1510.html

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Anyways, if said sibling had a "sleeping gay gene" and had gay kids, he/she would still be a straight person giving bitrth to a gay child.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

It's more likely to be affected by multiple genes. And we can't risk out factors such as crossing-over and mutation.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

There is no such thing as a "Gay Gene" (again, except for my gay cousin Gene), as there are many shades of homossexuality.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

There isn't a person alive that isn't passing on some disability via genetics.

9 years ago | Likes 76 Dislikes 3

I guess I should say "wouldn't be" because let's be honest, most people on this site will never actually pass them on.

9 years ago | Likes 23 Dislikes 0

I specifically said "Serious" disabilities. I'm not talking about people who need glasses and shit like that.

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 11

Not being able to see a few feet in front of them is pretty fucking serious for many people. Where do you draw the line?

9 years ago | Likes 11 Dislikes 0

Hmm.. "Where do [ I ] draw the line".. good question. Im not too sure, because it isnt black and white but i'd say, as long as the 1/2

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 11

condition doesn't require too much accommodation such as handlers and special schooling. Though im not sure. 2/2

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 12

whoops meant to reply here. Anyway. Eugenics, even done as politely as possible and unlike hitler, has great room for serious corruption.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

It isn't black and white. Therefor its WRONG to hand out the ability to take your basic right to starting a family to a government.

9 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 0

Don't forget, people can still get chronic/terminal conditions from healthy people too. You have carriers, mutations etc.

9 years ago | Likes 206 Dislikes 12

Yup. My husband's parents were both carriers without symptoms, he wasn't diagnosed 'til after we had our daughter, and she's a carrier too.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

So basically everyone should stop reproducing as that would be best for the human species. Got it.

9 years ago | Likes 11 Dislikes 1

Really now? I'm going to have to look into that.

9 years ago | Likes 12 Dislikes 11

That's how cystic fibrosis gets passed on. Most people who are carriers are unaware.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

So there's a 25% chance of getting the two alleles when animals reproduce. The offspring will suffer from the disease if it has both.

9 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

I'm disappointed OP, so I'm revoking your euthanasia privileges

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Yup. I posted it in another comment, but my hubby's parents were unknowing carriers of Gitelman Syndrome. He was diagnosed with it after 1/

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

2/ our daughter was already born. She was born a carrier without symptoms just like her grandparents. Billy had a vasectomy after finding 3/

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

3/ out. We didn't want more kids anyway, and vasectomy was always in the plan, but now there's no chance of him passing on his genes again.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Yup, alleles and genes

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Yeah, many diseases passed down are by carriers. They carry one recessive allele, and two are required to express what it codes for. (1/2)

9 years ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 0

OP's gotta go back to high school biology and watch Lorenzo's Oil

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

A significant number of common genetic disorders are autosomal recessive, meaning there is a good chance parents don't know they carry..

9 years ago | Likes 13 Dislikes 0

Even if they do, both parents have to carry for there to be a 25% prob of a symptomatic child. Even if one parent is a sufferer, if the..

9 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 0

..other isn't the child won't be either. If both parents suffer there's still a 50% chance the child won't either. Mothers with X-linked...

9 years ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 0

..recessive traits might not know they carry either. People with autosomal dominant disorders are less likely to have children for a whole..

9 years ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 0

While that's true and OP has already responded, the post is aimed at people who knowingly have something they will pass on.

9 years ago | Likes 47 Dislikes 4

In reality though, sufferers of autosomal dominant illnesses are unlikely to have children.

9 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 2

Sure you CAN but that doesn't invalidate OP's point.

9 years ago | Likes 15 Dislikes 2

The only answer to that is universal genetic screening...

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

the designer baby argument comes full circle. After a few generations there's nothing but defects from no gen diversity.3 parents maby

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

To be honest, human genomics is such a briar patch that once you go in screening whole populations you might never come out. We're full of..

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

..potentially deleterious mutations. Sorting the wheat from the chaff would be a nightmare. Better to stop us all from breeding and give...

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

True, but the point was that diseases can be passed on even when people don't have it themselves. Also people can pass on Huntingtons (1/2)

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

Disease because it usually affects people later on in life after they have had children. Sometimes they don't know they have it. (2/2)

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 3

But your point is irrelevant to the post, because the post is about people who knowingly pass their disability on.

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

I disagree. It is relevant. Stopping people from knowingly passing on diseases will not stop people from suffering from diseases.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 2

No, but it would lower the amount of people suffering from diseases

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 2

His point isn't completely stopping people from suffering diseases either. so yes, your point is irrelevant

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

The issue is "shouldn't be allowed". By whom, on what authority?

9 years ago | Likes 84 Dislikes 4

the gummint's authority

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Right? Are we in Sparta, now?

9 years ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 1

By kids, like OP, who don't think about their silly comments.

9 years ago | Likes 15 Dislikes 4

I would assume the problem would be identified and outlined by geneticists, and a medical ethics committee, then voted upon by the people.

9 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 1

The problem is that historically that's not how it goes down. The ruling elite makes those decisions, until they are overthrown.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

It's traditionally been instilled by dictatorships. It worked well in Sparta for a short time before eugenics ended up reducing their...

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

numbers to the point where their society was militarily threatened by an only decently trained sizeable army.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

It's traditionally been instilled by dictatorships. It worked well in Sparta for a short time before eugenics ended up reducing their...

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

You can't vote to take away someone's reproductive rights

9 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 2

You asked a question, I answered it. That's how it would go down, and then fail in the legal process due to human rights violations.

9 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

Fair enough

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

A right? What is a right? No, it's a biological capacity. You physically (likely) can do it, doesn't automatically make it a right.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 3

Hey that's great. You've been designated as prime breeding stock to make up for the shortfall and must be caretaker of no less than 5

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

children at any one time until the age of 60

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

It's a basic human right as laid out by the human rights committee.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Vasectomy at age 27! I've got a bunch of health problems and so does the wife... We're "not good breeding stock" and we embrace reality.

9 years ago | Likes 2381 Dislikes 30

Same here, I have a number of genetically inherited health issues, decided long ago i'm not giving this shit to anyone else.

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

Takes a LOT of balls man, I'm probably too young to even begin to understand the extent of what you did, but man, that deserves respect

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

that is heartbreaking...but also incredibly brave of you.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Mine at 32. I'm good stock, technically, but would not be a good father.

9 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

Am gay. I think my fashion sense is terrible and should not be applied to children. (Oh god, someone thought of the children?)

9 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

Is fashion sense genetic or memetic though?

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

that is heartbreaking...but also incredibly brave of you.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

In the name of Charles Darwin: Thank you!

9 years ago | Likes 17 Dislikes 4

mutation & "natural" selection is the driver for life. I'm actually not sure Darwin would say that.

9 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

You embrace pop culture. Reality is we're curing these illnesses every day and gene editing is the future. You're diminishing our gene pool.

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 26

But if gene editing is the future, they can edit other peoples genes so the pool is wider right?

9 years ago | Likes 13 Dislikes 1

Not really. Being able to retool current genetic stock is entirely different, and coming far sooner, than engineering entirely new traits.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 2

So neon green skin isn't coming any time soon? What about introducing chloroplasts to the cells?

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I have a ton of health issues, at least one of which is caused solely by a genetic mutation. I will never have kids. And honestly if I 1/?

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Get pregnant I will most likely have an abortion for that reason. 2/2

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

There's a difference between making that choice for yourselves and forcing that choice on someone

9 years ago | Likes 20 Dislikes 3

A little hypocritical when a parent makes the choice to force their genetic disability onto their kids.

9 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 2

A splendid point.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Wife and I can't breed, but we both have some serious problems that we wouldn't want to pass on either. Yay for understanding!

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Personal choice not the same as unilateral decision about reproductive rights

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Good for you though, realizing the legitimate highlights of bringing in a human with troubles. This works is hard enough to live in

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

World not works

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

I too got a vasectomy at age 27. I'm tots healthy. But the world is overpopulated and I'm in deep financial debt.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Same, friend! Except the vasectomy part, I have to get spayed the other way

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

I think it's always better for a man to be sterilized instead of a woman, as it's much less severe. While safe, tubes are a little riskier.

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

It feels weird asking him to get a vasectomy when I'm the one with the nonsense genetics. It's hard finding someone to do it though.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Understandab, although you two are a team. Either way the team takes a short term hit for longterm gain; one hit is smaller than the other.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

You make a valid point +1

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

I'm a heavily single 20 year old lad and, despite my stuff not being 'severe', I would still prefer to adopt over fathering a child.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Ive got a chronic autoimmune pain condition that my grandma and i share that makes every day agony and pretty serious OCD. I cant (1)...

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

(2) let another child suffer just because i want children... itd be cruel

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Did you adopt

9 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 0

Sure did. This poor guy spent years chained to a garage... we contacted the people and adopted him. :-) --

9 years ago | Likes 14 Dislikes 0

He looks great! Eventually a human too?

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

oh my god he is glorious

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

What health problems?

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

That's a tough one buddy.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

You couls still adopt if you want kids. You are also a good human.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Meanwhile I know a guy who's father died of some kind of palsy at 35. He was just diagnosed as well, so he had a son while he still can. -_-

9 years ago | Likes 38 Dislikes 0

Hey just to let you know you should get that checked yearly. My husband and I decided not to reproduce and now we have 7 week old.

9 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 0

I recently made the decision to get a vasectomy, so that's good to know.

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

I'm not saying it's not good birth control. But don't believe it won't happen to you because we did and then bam baby!

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

I'm not saying it changed my mind. Just that it's good to know that I need to make sure it sticks.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

I warn everyone now lol. We truly thought we were safe. Now I'm getting a tubal and he's getting his big V redone.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

His vasectomy failed like 5 years after he got it.

9 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 0

Life... Finds a way.

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

ain't that the truth!

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Hey did your insurance cover that or did you pay out of pocket? Fiance wants to get one but idk if we can pay thousands upfront.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

I got my nuts whacked in 2009.... I paid $35 for the pre-op consultation. Then insurance covered 100% of the $1150 surgery bill :-)

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

That's awesome! Thank you, I'll have him speak to our doctor about it and see if it'll be covered for him too!

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Studies have shown that increased knowledge of cystic fibrosis decreases incidence of the disease. All we need to do is spread awareness 1/2

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

And people will do the rest. Most of the time hopefully. 2/2

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

My mom calls my husband a "sickly man" and in the same breath doesn't get why we're not reproducing. Thank you!

9 years ago | Likes 11 Dislikes 0

I'm glad you were able to make that choice! But the post you commented on proposes that choice be removed from the equation. Do you agree?

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

So where does this put everyone on the Social Economic totem pole for reproduction? Should you, and is it ethically problematic to have...

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Kids while on welfare or any other burdening social program?

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Same here. Would never want to pass my pains to a child. Dont know how a small kid could ever live with this suffering.

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

As a small child who inherited chronic pain, I resented my mother for a long time. I didn't know hers started after I was born. Today 1

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

at 25 years old, I had to make plans for surgery to prevent my body from falling apart as early as hers did, and my grandmother before her.2

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Even if I weren't probably barren and psychologically unsuitable (childhood chronic illness fucks you up), I would never have kids. 3/3

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

My situation is never fixed by operation. But still, i hope everything goes well for you.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Thank you for doing the eugenically responsible thing. Now, about the social burden of your health issues?

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

That must be a very difficult thing to realise and come to terms with. Good on you.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

We have one daughter, who is a carrier, but my husband found out he has Gitelman Syndrome in 2011. 1/

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

2/ We didn't want more kids anyway, but he had a Vasectomy after learning this.

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

Agreed. Having asthma has sucked so bad for me that I honestly don't think I will ever bring a kid into this world & risk passing it on.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

Asking for a friend, any negative side affects from the vasectomy? They're in a similar situation

9 years ago | Likes 45 Dislikes 0

Nah. I had it done by an old school urologist and got 2 big incisions, but even still I was back to 100% a week later. Totally worth doing!

9 years ago | Likes 19 Dislikes 0

Just be sure to use alternate birth control for a few months. It takes a while for all the swimmers to get cleared from your plumbing. :-)

9 years ago | Likes 17 Dislikes 0

One side effect. Amazing sex with no worries or surprises. When with a clean partner.

9 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 0

There is still the chance for the tubes to grow back or for you to have an alternative tube that they missed. I have a 5 yr post V baby sooo

9 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 0

Less than 1% percent if you do post vasectomy semen analysis max 6 months after the procedure.

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

I hear ya but my husband had been testing his semen for a year after. Always the all clear. & he still had it grow back. It depends on the

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

Way the doc did it too. You want cut clipped and cauterize (he was) you also want him to take as much out as possible when he does. So 1%

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

There's a possibility of some cramping in the cremaster muscles for a few weeks after, especially during orgasm. Some chance of pain.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

[deleted]

[deleted]

9 years ago (deleted Jun 2, 2017 2:45 PM) | Likes 0 Dislikes 0

Ok but can this be expressed in a way that shows you have an education?

9 years ago | Likes 48 Dislikes 3

Lemme try. Only fools fear vasectomies, being able to perform coitus with no fear of children, as well as the benefit of not needing a (1/2)

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Condom enhances the experience trifold (2/2)

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

9 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 0

lol well it was an am shitter post, so my thoughts were very neat and fancy. 1/2

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 2

2/3 a vasectomy is a simple out patient procedure. Most males are very misinformed about the procedure which causes them to fear it. 3/3

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 2

Your balls will be sore for three days. Literally, that's it. Do it; my only regret is not doing it earlier.

9 years ago | Likes 69 Dislikes 0

You have answered my questions and I thank you, take my upvotes

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Fun fact: many guys get the procedure done during March Madness so they can stay at home and watch basketball while recuperating.

9 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

Can a man still ejaculate?

9 years ago | Likes 21 Dislikes 0

Sperm is only 5% of "content" ... The volume is virtually identical and sensation is unchanged. :-)

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

Still could account for a taste difference.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Most of the ejaculatory fluid is to keep the sperm alive and healthy so they can crack the egg. All you do is get rid of the swimmers but (1

9 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 0

Keep the coaches and nutritionists (2/2)

9 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 0

Buddy had it done. His wife said it tasted different.

9 years ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 1

Oh yeah. You'll notice absolutely no physical difference.

9 years ago | Likes 20 Dislikes 0

Hahaha, my exact words, "oh yeah"

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

How much did it cost? Asking for a friend too

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

That's a hard decision, but probably the right one. Do you two plan on adopting?

9 years ago | Likes 477 Dislikes 2

Hard decision? You get more money free time and never have to take care of any kids. Sounds like a good time here

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

You two sound like entirely reasonable people, I'm glad the world has you.

9 years ago | Likes 33 Dislikes 0

That's another point-anyone (okay most) can adopt kids if they want them that bad

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

Not a hard decision for me and my partner. We hate kids and love freedom

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Nah, I've got psychological "baggage" and I want nothing to do with kids... The cycle of ignorance & stupidity is going to end with me. :-)

9 years ago | Likes 641 Dislikes 1

Yay im not alone!

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

My hero! If only more of the world thought like this.

9 years ago | Likes 11 Dislikes 0

I'm just a small town beekeeper, but if you pm me your address Iwill mail you some honey as a thanks for being responsible.

9 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 0

What about your wife? Sorry, not cause I'm trying to be an asshole to you, I just think it's important to remember that women get 1/2

9 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

Different biological stuff the older they get, I've known women who were convinced child free, but once they got to 35 y.o they got 2/3

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

Pregnant just for the sake of it, not even with a dad in a picture. Not saying it'll happen to your wife, just raising awareness I guess?..

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

Respect to you!

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

This comment alone should be the reason you and your wife adopt.

9 years ago | Likes 11 Dislikes 2

This sounds like me whenever I get married. Psychologically and bodily unsuitable, and I don't want kids anyway. Gonna get sterilized.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Go enjoy your bags of money then.

9 years ago | Likes 61 Dislikes 0

Perhaps donate some to a charity that you feel connected to.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

And all the spare time and freedom you have with those bags of money! Lol

9 years ago | Likes 12 Dislikes 0

agreed. :-D --

9 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 0

If the argument "Hitler did it, it must be bad" were true then I'd have bad news for any aspiring painters

9 years ago | Likes 1096 Dislikes 38

And Volkswagens would be hella illegal.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

And anyone who campaigns to ban smoking.

9 years ago | Likes 52 Dislikes 0

I'm good with segregating smokers from non-smokers though. And anti-vaxxers from people with brains for that matter.

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

And my variables from my ODE.

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

Letters in math. Who would've ever thunk it?

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Except eugenics was kind of key to the whole killing people thing... Painting not so much...

9 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 0

Remember to make sure the trains don't run on time, just to be safe.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Or road builders.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

The US did it too, equally still bad as we accepted the idea that not being normal/us is an acceptable reason to remove human rights

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Or dog owners

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

I can't get ze trees right. Damn! I will kill everybody in ze world!

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

Not even war heroes are safe or aspiring writers either!

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

better not breathe

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

It's OK, Hitler did landscapes and still life, so as long as you only do modern art, you're safe.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

P.S. And by still life, I mean painting dogs. JUST LIKE GEORGE W BUSH! WAKE UP SHEEPLE!

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

True his paintings were pretty good as well

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Hitler ate sugar.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

Aww, dammit! (Hitler actually wasn't a horribly bad painter though)

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Pretty sure "Hitler was alright" when it comes to his genes.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Actually, his body was a mess.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

So it seems after a google search. Can't imagine just having one ball, I'd be so not plural.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Hitler loved dogs. Ergo everyone that loves dogs is a Nazi.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

I can agree with this. Dogs suck.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Architectural watercolors are just right out.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

And recyclers.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Hitler loved animals, that must be bad

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Or anyone thinking of committing suicide.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Starting to select who can and cant breed sounds pretty hitler to me.

9 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 1

theres credence to the consideration of whats best for humanity, being scared to draw the lines doesnt make it less objectively beneficial

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

theres credence to the consideration of whats best for humanity, being scared to draw the lines doesnt make it less objectively beneficial

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

The road to hell is plastered with guys that said "the ends justify the means".

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 2

i like 'the road to hell is paved with good intentions' but i see your point. however, humanity has always taken risky sacrifice with 1/?

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

greater good over neutrality and moral peace of mind. just take a look at: imperialism, industrialism, agriculture, pretty much any 2/?

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Pretty sure Hitler drank water, too!

9 years ago | Likes 228 Dislikes 2

Apparently he doesn't even have a butthole

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Every serial killer in history drank dihydrogen monoxide!!!

9 years ago | Likes 41 Dislikes 0

9 years ago | Likes 16 Dislikes 0

What about inhaling oxygen? O_O

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

oh god. Does that mean im secretly a nazi?

9 years ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 0

You drink water which he did and inhale oxygen which he did! Join your local Neo Nazis today! It's where you belong, you filth!~

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

There's nothing secret about it, ya socialist bastard.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Except eugenics wasn't some side thing that he did. It was inseparably woven in to the greatest atrocities his regime committed.

9 years ago | Likes 25 Dislikes 3

So was socialized medicine. Can't have all those genetically undesirable folks costing the people all that money, can we?

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Or is it possible that separate ideas can be judged by their own merits?

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Next you're going to tell me Hitler didn't bomb Pearl Harbor.

9 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 4

9 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 0

people upvoting this should also upvote the previous comment

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I'm honestly not against a controlled form of it. No more genetic diseases? fuck yes and thank you.

9 years ago | Likes 11 Dislikes 3

So what genetic conditions would be included/excluded? Where do you draw the line?

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Who will watch the watchmen?

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

Define "controlled." I mean in the first place, what's the penalty for illegally reproducing?

9 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 0

"First lets not let the jews, gypsies, blacks, or cripples reproduce and we'll adjust from there" -nazi apologist, probably

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 2

Crippling debt. Oh wait that's any reproducing.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Science is almost at a point where it can take out the 'broken dna' that would cripple your kid and repair it wouldn't you want that?

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 2

Emphasis on "almost". And "x shouldn't be allowed to reproduce" is very different from prenatal screening.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

The original posit is that people with genetic conditions "shouldn't be allowed" to reproduce. So what happens if they do?

9 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 0

The only problem I see with this is that it takes away some peoples freedoms, and at that point it becomes grey and people go too far.

9 years ago | Likes 153 Dislikes 15

Literally every law either gives or takes some of people's freedoms

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 2

It's the people going too far that concerns me. Give people an inch and next thing you know only models and athletes can have kids.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Exactly, I have psoriasis (like eczema) would I be told no? Where would the line be drawn?

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 3

The interesting thing to note is that humans are the odd ones- in the rest of the animal kingdom, genetic selection and pruning happens 1/2

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Naturally, and animals with illness or bad genes don't get to mate, they die and don't spread their genes. We as humans think to protect 2/3

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Other's rights we shouldn't control breeding population. It's a very hard topic, but in reality our species and the rest of the planet 3/4

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Would benefit from SOME selective breeding. At 7billion+ humans we should be culling our own population like other animals do. 4/4

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

It doesn't have to be. e.g. subsidize IVF, screen for and only implant the healthy embryos.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

This is the main problem.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 3

I agree with op but I would consider it more of a sense of responsibility. People with such conditions shouldn't be forced to not have (1/2)

9 years ago | Likes 13 Dislikes 1

kids, but definitely should give it some real thought before conceiving a child likely to inherit a disability. I feel its unfair to the kid

9 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 0

I'm 100% on board with that. There are a lot of people who shouldn't have kids. But I don't think we should decide for them.

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

I can't see how there is any grey area here. It violates bodily autonomy which is a serious breach of human rights.

9 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 0

Getting sterile should be covered by the govt for free. Better to have no kids than to have the government assistance with raising one.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

This a thousand times. Eventually, "questions the policies of our glorious leader" would be considered a genetic disorder.

9 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 2

Snowball argument isn't a great defence when used by itself. It's used to argue against hate speech laws in the US frequently, saying...

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

that any infringement of free speech will snowball into police state government censorships. Fact of the matter is most 1st world nations...

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

have laws against hate speech and the only place they are really subjectively oppressive is Germany.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I believe it's less of a question of if we should stop them from having children, but how can we stop the disabilities from being passed on.

9 years ago | Likes 51 Dislikes 4

But also be able to recognize that parents who have some disabilities or diseases wnt be able to care for a child longterm or w/o assistance

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Genetic modification satisfies both conditions, but then there's the negative baseless stigma attached.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

How else can you stop a genetic disorder aside from preventing reproduction?

9 years ago | Likes 25 Dislikes 35

There's always eugenics, another thing Hitler was into, he's surprisingly on both sides of this argument.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Dude. Even people who don't have genetic disorders can have children who do. Having a genetic disorder doesn't make you worth anything less.

9 years ago | Likes 16 Dislikes 4

I'm not saying that people with genetic disorders are anything less, and i'm not denying the fact that genetic disorders can occur 1/2

9 years ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 10

without a parent with the disorder. I just forgot that could happen when i made the comment.

9 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 8

Seems kinda silly you got downvoted for asking a question... so you get a +1 from me.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Cure it.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

As of right now I think that's the only way.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

We're getting close, though. There are people alive today who may get to see a cure for their genetic disorder.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

So mandatory sterilization?

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

They do have ways to fix hereditary abnormalities in utero, and CRISPR technology will eventually be able to fix them as well.

9 years ago | Likes 18 Dislikes 0

I can't wait for CRISPR

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

CRISPR ??

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

It's a function on a microwave oven

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

It's a function on a microwave oven

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

I'm not a scientist but I believe the tl;dr is that it's a pretty good method for gene therapy. Cheaper or more precise or something better.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Who gets to decide what a "serious genetic disability" is.

9 years ago | Likes 321 Dislikes 14

The one whos had it or the one who looks after.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

It should never be a law- merely decided by would be, mature parents.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Nature does this already no? My step dad has CF(55 and couting there is hope friends!)..and is infertile

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Not agreeing with this because the choices are hard is not a good enough reason

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

That would be me! And yes, stupidity is a serious genetic disability in my book.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Typically stuff that requires constant help. Unable to sustain their life alone.

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 2

A very good question, one that should be discussed

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

The other potential parent.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

A medical professional? There are numerous disorders that greatly negatively impact quality of life and are highly genetic.

9 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 11

Would we elect this medical professional? How about other medical professionals with opposing opinions? It just seems like a dangerous game

9 years ago | Likes 12 Dislikes 0

You misunderstand. Not ONE professional, your own doctor, several doctors if you like. This is a thing doctors already do TBH, they advise

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 10

I think advising is a great idea. My issue is OP's opinion that certain people should not be allowed to reproduce.

9 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 0

I think it's a statement people say too harshly. Like no one should be forcibly sterilized or arrested or forced to abort BUT it might be

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Look at how ethics committees function at hospitals. They specialize in these ethically questionable arguments.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

The other potential parent.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Hospitals have ethics committees. I assume it would be a national ethics committee with many biologists involved. Suffice it to say; the...

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

prohibitive disabilities would be IDENTIFIED by the committee, and then action VOTED upon by the people.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Although I suspect the whole idea may just be unconstitutional? I don't know, I haven't read the thing.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

voting on this without sufficient data (which we don't have about the genome), results in enforcing beliefs. See analogous to this Switzerla

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

nd. Homeopathy has been voted (by the people) to be accepted as medicine, albeit not having any scientific data to support it.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

I totally agree with that whole statement!

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Some families like mine are extremely prone to both cancers and severe psychological issues. I'm not passing that shit down.

9 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

that applies to so many people though. I'd have to check numbers but it could very well be the majority of the population.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Most people get cancer sooner or later as it seems. And I'd guess every third has some sort of (undiagnosed) mental illness.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

@OP has green eyes, he's impure, purge him and his blood line!

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

OP is a faggot, don't want more faggots, OP doesn't get to reproduce.

9 years ago | Likes 22 Dislikes 4

This, I probably have lynch syndrome, and while it's easily inherited it doesn't cause problems till late in life

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 1

I have the inherited form of RLS (which causes uncontrollable muscle spasms and tactile hallucinations). It gets worse through age and 1/2

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Generations. My sister doesn't appear to have it though, so I don't think it's a 100% chance to pass on 2/2

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

This. What OP is opining is on the road to eugenics. Not that he necessarily means that, but it is that type of thinking that leads there.

9 years ago | Likes 52 Dislikes 9

I mean... To be fare eugenics would work to advance the human species betterer. Not saying it should happen, just that itd work

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 8

"Betterer" okay so we found one who doesn't get to reproduce

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

And we all just hope you dont <3

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 3

I mean, he didn't say that it would be bad if they did, he said they shouldn't be allowed to, so that kinda is what he is saying.

9 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 1

Sparta had eugenics. Worked great. Only problem was, come one day, they ended up not having the numbers to wage war anymore.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

And what if the probability of passing on the disease is less than 100%? Where is the cutoff? 50%? 25%? Who decides?

9 years ago | Likes 119 Dislikes 2

16.6% is the cut off, and let level headed utilitarians decide

9 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 13

thats an arbatariy number, and there is no such thing as a level headed person, we all have a bias and humans are temperamental

9 years ago | Likes 11 Dislikes 4

Fair enough, but when that is dealt with do we continue with the next worse one? and the next? and the next? where is the line?

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

I'm not a doctor but you have a 50% of fucking up your child's life you're pretty fucked up. You should adopt, there are tons of kids

9 years ago | Likes 19 Dislikes 6

How many children have you adopted? Is it loads?

9 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 4

Great question, unfortunately I am not able to adopt a child at this time. However, our goal is in the next 5-10 yrs to do foster care

9 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 0

So you haven't done so yet then? Until you do, you're the same as everyone else.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 4

that need a family

9 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 0

something like Huntington's which is always fatal and strongly inherited.

9 years ago | Likes 72 Dislikes 6

Maybe you'd rather not have Huntington's, but plenty of people have it and live happy fulfilling lives. Would you be willing to be medically

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

castrated if you had Huntington's to prevent passing it on?

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Wikipedia: "Symptoms usually begin between 30 & 50 years" and "Death typically occurs 15-20 years from when the disease was first detected."

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

the thing about Huntington's is, you're right, it doesn't appear until later. Which is really scary because you usually don't know you have

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 2

already reproduced. However, it is a debilitating, degenerative brain disease and those who have it usually end up dying of aspiration or

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 2

something like that. Point is, since it's a strongly inherited disease, preventing it via these measures would probably be the most useful

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

My uncle had Huntingtons, its a terrible disease, but by that rational, my entire family, who probably dosent have it, wouldn't be here.

9 years ago | Likes 39 Dislikes 3

Huntingtons is nearly always passed down due to it being a dominant allele, also on the other side it's impossible to see unless person old

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

Or like I have haemophilia, which cannot be passed to male children, but if you have a female child they will be a carrier and their son 1/2

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

Will have the disorder, also it's a 'royal' genetic disorder so as a brit I'm cool with it

9 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 0

Dutchy here with haemophilia. We also still have a king. Are we sensing a pattern? :O

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

Unless you're suggesting mandatory genetic screening this wouldn't necessarily work for HD. Not everyone with a HD parent wants to know

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Sure but then you're being negligent, because you're actively avoiding responsibility

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

i mean, if you're planning on having a kids and know you might possibly have it, testing should be required.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Life is always fatal and strongly inherited. You need a better standard.

9 years ago | Likes 38 Dislikes 8

don't be like that...clearly we are talking about quality of life here

9 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 17

A person with Huntingtons can live 50 years without any problems, and you're saying it would be better if he never was born.

9 years ago | Likes 24 Dislikes 0

It usually starts presenting in the 30's and there's rapid decline after onset. Seriously debilitating. It would suck to have 30 years of

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 13

Sooooo, where would you draw the line exactly - when it should be disallowed to reproduce. What would be the enforcement mechanism? 1/2

9 years ago | Likes 669 Dislikes 23

Voluntary self-enforcement would be a good start.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

We've had good luck cutting down on smoking and unprotected sex via media campaigns, why not do the same for genetic testing? Don't 1/2

9 years ago | Likes 26 Dislikes 2

enforce anything by law, just make testing easily available and educate people about adopting instead of risking passing on a disorder. 2/2

9 years ago | Likes 27 Dislikes 3

Possibly legalise "picking healthy embryos" that have been tested. Then people can make their own decision

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

See, I too believe in this. But it's way too much of a slippery slope to make it a law. Evolution demands diversity.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I think just education would be best, when laws come in stating who can and cannot reproduce it's start looking a lot like eugenics.

9 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 0

I have a congenital bicuspid valve that I get echoes for but wicked happy I was born nonetheless I'm sure people worse off feel the same.

9 years ago | Likes 11 Dislikes 3

?1

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

These are the important questions.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

There's a fantastic episode of Black Mirror on this. S03Ep04 I think.

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 1

Like, I have celiac disease. That has shown serious trends in being linked to heredity. Should I be allowed?

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

As long as you can provide without assistance from others constantly....have them babies.

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

this.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Nowhere. Government sponsored eugenics is inherently anti-liberal. It can only be done morally via education and personal choice.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

That's the problem w/ this argument that always comes up on imgur. People forget we have liberal principles that hold society together.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Blonde hair, blue eyes. Maybe greenies like me could qualify for a waver.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

If they vote for (____insert political party that isnt yours here___).

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

Both of my parents have poor eyesight, and mine is better than all of my peers. Should I never have been born?

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

1/? CPS (in Norway) will sometimes take children into foster care if the parents' disability is too major (e.g. Downs). Basically parents

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

5/? but as you stated, where should a line be drawn (even just as a moral "obligation" to not reproduce)? Personally I have, and so does

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

2/? may not keep their custodial rights, though they'll have visiting time etc (for those unenlightened; foster care =/= adoption). But for

9 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 0

8/8 sure they don't take some of the same paths I did, unknowing of what was "wrong" with me.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

7/? enough IQ to become a Mensa member for that matter. I want kids, but am aware that I'll have to take some extra precautions to make sure

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

3/? how one can make sure those with major genetic disorders will not reproduce? Don't think Norways way if sterilising people (gypsies; up

9 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

4/? until late 60's) is the way to go... So I think genetic tests (free of charge) is better. E.g. Huntingtons can skip generations.

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

6/? many in my family, some psychological issues. Both mine and my parent's generation live fulfilling lives nonetheless. I have just a high

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

You would have to have a list of defects passed into law by elected legislators and subject to review. Like any law.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

Perhaps legalizing later term abortions if the condition can be diagnosed at that point

9 years ago | Likes 15 Dislikes 14

So we want to force women to have abortions now?

9 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 11

He only said legalize, not force.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

legalize != force

9 years ago | Likes 13 Dislikes 2

Exactly! Just to make the option available

9 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 2

But again, what will the punishment be if a woman with a genetic disorder gets pregnant?

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Boi, this is imgur. That is a question for a large scale debate with people of higher importance and education on the matter

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 2

As a person of higher importance and education, every mature adult deserves a vote. Too much is left to blindly following "experts" lately.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Great examples are hybrid car laws, solar and wind power in US. Tech isn't ready, isn't green, inefficient, but "experts" rake in $ for it.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Dude, I was just saying that he was asking the question to the wrong person, he's an imgur OP throwing out an idea

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

if only educated and qualified people have a say, the population riots for being left out. If it's done through referendum, too many people

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Dude, I was just saying that he was asking the question to the wrong person, he's an imgur OP throwing out an idea

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

are voting purely on an emotional basis instead of rational. Touchy subject I guess?

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

I think the natural, "people with severe disabilities have a harder time finding someone and conceiving," is enough.

9 years ago | Likes 26 Dislikes 10

I have a 17 yo student on his 2nd kid. He has disabilities & barely can spell more than his name. He's not the only 1 in my school either.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

As someone who works with adults with DD, they can and do have sex at any point they are able. With other disabled people. And have kids.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

As far as I can tell DD is a disease that affects cows. I feel like that's not what you meant. What did you mean?

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Developmental disabilities. Sorry lol

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Interesting point. But although theoretically these diseases would go away, they obviously haven't yet. What about 1/2

9 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 1

the ones that don't manifest until after young adulthood, when people might have already had children?

9 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

Most still wouldn't go away. You'd need to genetically test the entire population to remove masked recessive alleles. Benefit < cost

9 years ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 0

True. Damn you, logistics!

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

according to what theory would they go away? genetic afflictions exist in numerous animal species.

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

the argument would probably be that human society has a unique level of stigma towards genetic afflictions, but I don't think it follows.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

By having modern medicine. More people with genetic dosorders live to reproductive age now where in the past they didnt. 2/2

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

Theoretically natural selection should weed out genetic dosorders but we are artifically prolongong the diseases "life" 1/2

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

I reiterate my counterargument to this: genetic afflictions exist in numerous animal species. They don't have "modern medicine".

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

No I'm saying that over a massive period of time they would be selected against. The idea behind eugenics is that we can't wait that long.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

Agreed, and they are selected against. The presence of medicine in our society is one component of the environment of that selection.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I am not trying to be a dick here, for me this line of thinking always fails when you think about its implementation.

9 years ago | Likes 562 Dislikes 14

[deleted]

[deleted]

9 years ago (deleted Jan 24, 2017 3:17 AM) | Likes 0 Dislikes 0

[deleted]

[deleted]

9 years ago (deleted Jan 24, 2017 3:17 AM) | Likes 0 Dislikes 0

Especially if people have children before they are aware of their disorders. Or if their genetic disorder is on a spectrum.

9 years ago | Likes 20 Dislikes 0

Basically giving the government the ability to decide what people get to reproduce, despite what defenitions you give. Sound familiar?

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

You have to mark those disabled somehow, maybe make them where a yellow star or tattoo a number on their arm so we know not to reproduce wit

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Them

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Reminds me of the videos asking pro-lifers, "If abortion is made illegal, what should be the consequences for women who still get them?"

9 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

@op saying its up to debate is dangerous, we can't even agree on women's rights, let alone who can and cannot reproduce.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Hit the nail on the head. The problem is always with distinction and enforcement.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

The slippery slope is also when someone in charge decides to broaden the definition of genetic disabilities. As well-meaning as you may be.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Well we're on the verge of eliminating genetic disorders with CRISPR anyway https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAhjPd4uNFY

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

You could start by having parents with existing conditions sign away the right to public money if their child has that condition.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

Nah. You aren't being a dick. I'm just presenting the premise. Where the line is, is up for debate.

9 years ago | Likes 105 Dislikes 36

+1 for rational, respectful debate on imgur!

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 2

What do you see as a major genetic disability?

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

Ok so you care enough about it to make a post, but you aren't capable of defending your own eugenics bullshit.

9 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 1

It's a slippery slope.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

so if you choose to have a child under those circumstances healthcare will be denied bc you are willingly having an unhealthy child 2/2

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I think maybe it should be more like, genetics testing, then ok you have x diesease your children will inherit this /1

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Problem is getting everyone on the same page with it, just like abortion.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

Some people consider disabilities like autism a gift. They may see the world in a different way, arguably with diverse/unique ideas.

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

Nah. The world would be a much better place if 99

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

% of the population had blonde hair and had IQs of exactly 90.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Hi

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

How would this apply to people who show no symptoms but carry recessive jeans and could potentially have children that are affected?

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Just not allowed to reproduce with other carriers?

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

Would it be less ethical test every fetus and abort all the affected? Expensive but allows people to keep trying, perhaps if self funded?

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

1) It doesn't matter where you draw the line. What matters is implementation. The only way to implement it would be to force people to be

9 years ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 0

2) neutered or to get abortions. Or...to just straight up kill people because it's cheaper than neutering/abortions. Either way, enforcing

9 years ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 0

3) any kind of eugenics is unethical due to the huge violation of rights involved in ensuring the results.

9 years ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 0

1 This is the biggest problem with your argument. If we're going to disallow certain people from breeding, that would have to be handled...

9 years ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 1

2 by the govt. Here in the US, I would NEVER be willing to surrender that sort of power to the govt. They get to start deciding who can...

9 years ago | Likes 11 Dislikes 1

3 conceive and who can't, and that's it for any illusion of freedom still existing. The other problem is what counts as serious enough...

9 years ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 1

It's not really a debate. We decided a long time ago the right to bodily autonomy outweighed social desire to sterilize people.

9 years ago | Likes 91 Dislikes 9

How about encouraging it financially, but not making it mandatory? We have social support for disabled people, maybe instead we should (...)

9 years ago | Likes 16 Dislikes 7

(...) give the money to anybody who is willing to give up reproduction for the betterment of the gene pool.

9 years ago | Likes 15 Dislikes 7

Then people came to remove the ability to receive an abortion... So rules on autonomy and bodily choices are made, FWIW

9 years ago | Likes 14 Dislikes 0

And a lot of us fight those rules tooth and nail.

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

"Hey man I'm just saying we should have a debate on forced eugenics, not that I'm going to actually defend my suggestion."

9 years ago | Likes 18 Dislikes 3

I've got a fairly uncommon genetic condition which makes life a bit more difficult but I otherwise work, pay taxes etc.

9 years ago | Likes 46 Dislikes 4

Same. I have thalassemia and Crohn's. Sure they're annoying, but typically not life-threatening and aren't 100% passed down. It's a lottery.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

It's actually spectacularly insulting that you'd suggest you should have some sort of say in my decision to have kids.

9 years ago | Likes 48 Dislikes 6

This is a very emotional topic for most people, but I think OP was referring to severe conditions, not milder conditions that can still work

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Username exceptionally relevant. +1 for your clear and reasonable point as well.

9 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 1

No enforcement mechanism at all. Allow it as a choice and give a tax reward incentive.

9 years ago | Likes 92 Dislikes 12

BUT WHAT ABOUT THE BABIES WITHOUT A VOICE?! ::cue Sarah McLachlan's In the Arms of an Angel::

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

This seems reasonable

9 years ago | Likes 16 Dislikes 5

I laughed at your username. Nice one

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Thank you. This is the first compliment I've got

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Eh, people would argue that just means you're sterilizing the poor, not the genetically unfit, since they need it more than well-off people.

9 years ago | Likes 57 Dislikes 4

Perhaps increase the tax incentives for adopting if you have a genetic disorder

9 years ago | Likes 16 Dislikes 0

Great idea

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

Or for anybody, regardless of their health.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think there already are incentives for adopting

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

I think that is a much better idea! :)

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 1

Just because someones poor, doesnt mean they have problematic genetics. Just means the lower class now has a genetic advantage.

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 3

That was the US eugenics argument. Poverty and being Black were genetic defects.

9 years ago | Likes 129 Dislikes 8

Devil's Avocado, how poor we talking? Is the family impregnating each other for the 6th generation in a shelter? How black?

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 9

I am stealing Devil's Avacado for later use

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

I'm poor as shit & in a private college. Opportunity can change fates. Birth circumstances with matter, but aren't what totally define you.

9 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 1

Isn't being a jerk hereditary?

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Nature vs nurture ;)

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Exactly this. It sounds good on paper, but who gets to decide what a disability is? It seems obvious at first but there are very real (1/?)

9 years ago | Likes 44 Dislikes 1

differences in opinion in wide populations on what is considered a serious defect. One that pops into mind is autism. Autism definitely (2/

9 years ago | Likes 29 Dislikes 1

You answered yourself, take OPINIONS out of the equation and let science find fact, and then let the facts decide where the line is drawn.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

What facts would these be? Whether a genetic issue would be serious enough to forbid reproduction is by definition an opinion

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Autism is a giant blanket term that covers shit from full on retard-smash-and-scream behavior, to regular-but-doesnt-get-humor.

9 years ago | Likes 12 Dislikes 3

That's exactly my point. Who gets to decide what is acceptable and what's not?

9 years ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 1

More than that actually, I'm in the "regular but a little odd" category. I get humor.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

has a genetic opponent, but I bet there are plenty of people who would argue against forbidding autistic people from having children. (3/

9 years ago | Likes 27 Dislikes 1

As a guy with mild Asperger's, yes. In fact if some government tried to forbid it I would go out of my way to have kids elsewhere to spite >

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

In my opinion, there are way too many potentially problematic issues with legislating who is allowed to reproduce. (4/4)

9 years ago | Likes 21 Dislikes 1