Moe and I were talking on a chat about people with defects and if they should be allowed to reproduce.
Situation: The situation is that there is a person with a defect where they do not think they are better off dead, but sometimes have thoughts that they do.
The question is if they should be allowed to reproduce knowing that there is a chance that the defect, being genetic, could be given to the child.
Please be more specific. There are many reasons a person could think they would be better off dead, many of them possibly just a result of social stigma and not any kind of lack of function or impaired function.
The defect might well be cosmetic only, in any case.
It's up to the person with the defect to choose whether or not to reproduce and possibly pass on that defect. We shouldn't let the government or any other group decide who gets to reproduce or not. That's how the holocaust started.
We are assuming that the defect is genetic so it will be able to be pasted down to the offspring. The person feels like they would be better off dead because of slight mixture of social stigma but mainly because of impaired function.
Not quite, but I will say that if the guy is ugly, chances are decent that he'll have trouble finding a partner with whom to reproduce in the first place. And with the workforce being more and more specialized, the defect may not even provide much of a hindrance.
Governments are supposed to be instituted to secure our rights, not to limit them. I'd hope the most he'd get is discouraged from reproduction, but he should have the ability to, if he so chose. Unless bringing the child into the world would do it nothing but pointless suffering.
Whatever would put you and possibly your child thinking about killing themselves.
That's subjective, there are tons of variables such as if the person is overreacting or just doesn't care. It really comes down to our opinions of whether somebody else should live or die based on a defect.
Also... if they think that they'd be better off dead... why would they want to reproduce all of a sudden, knowing full well they could pass their gene off? If I was in that situation, I'd rather not risk the chance to pass on my defect to somebody and put them in the same situation as I was. And besides, it's not like the human race is depending on me to make kids, because the population is increasing exponentially. Some may even make the argument that it would be BETTER if I didn't reproduce, eliminating the strain of the defect, albeit not entirely as I'm sure somebody else would have it.
Reading your introduction comment, I think i can answer your prob.
Obviously, that depends on the individual. Let's say that i have the sickle cell anemia, a form of inherited anemia, or we call thalasemia. i would need to live of blood transfusion and to be extremely careful of what i eat and not to injure myself ( since that would cause me to lose blood, which would weaken me and would need more blood transfusion again ). If i was in that condition, i may curse god or myself because having the illness, maybe even thinking i would be better off dead. Or maybe have tried to commit suicide, but stopped by someone else who happen to see the act. Or the exact opposite, i would ignore the disease and try to live as a normal guy. So it is very subjective to the person's state of mind, whether he curses himself for having the sickness, or embrace the sickness and thanked god for allowing me to live despite the drawback..
For the reproduction problem, well nobody can tell anyone to not reproduce. it's basic human rights. telling someone not too reproduce is like the case in the jewish genocide in WW2, the Rwandan genocide, and much more. It's the person's choice to reproduce or not, it shouldn't be others, not even if the person is diseased with an inherited illness.
Also. according to Mendel's rule on inheritance and on it's violation of the rule, it is possible to have a child with no carrying genes whatsoever. So technically, you can't call any offspring ( or child, pick one ) a carrier to the supposed inherited disease.
Also. according to Mendel's rule on inheritance and on it's violation of the rule, it is possible to have a child with no carrying genes whatsoever. So technically, you can't call any offspring ( or child, pick one ) a carrier to the supposed inherited disease.
^this. It depends on the genetics of the 'defect', often there is just a certain chance the offspring will get it. It also depends on the individual how strong the symptoms will be.
This exact question is one that concerns couples where one person has AIDS. A patient that is treated usually has a substantially smaller risk of transmitting his disease to the other partner and/or the child. But the risk, as small as it is, will always be there. In these situations also, it's up to the couple to decide if they wanna risk it or not.
Prohibiting the reproduction of certain people is not moral, and also makes no sense. Just take the sickle cell anemia mentioned above, for instance. For most people it is just a defect, but for people living in Malaria regions, it is beneficial (sickle cell anemia reduces the symptoms of Malaria). Assuming that Malaria will spread in the future, which is very probable, we'd be dumb to ignore that.
Prohibiting the reproduction of certain people is not moral, and also makes no sense.
HahiHa hits the nail on the head - and the point I had in mind when discussing this daleks. The fun thing is that the question allows us to do a bit of philosophy!
So there's a claim on offer that it is immoral to prohibit people from reproducing. This is a strong claim, though one that many people would agree with. But there's a response along the following lines:
If the quality of life of the child would be so poor that their life wouldn't be worth living, then we ought morally to not allow the child to be born. Taking this one step back, we ought not allow the pregnancy to occur in the first place.
In short, by allowing the pregnancy to happen, we are harming a future person. There's an additional argument needed to show that we do owe things to future people, but I'd like to see how the argument on offers works.
If the quality of life of the child would be so poor that their life wouldn't be worth living, then we ought morally to not allow the child to be born. Taking this one step back, we ought not allow the pregnancy to occur in the first place.
In short, by allowing the pregnancy to happen, we are harming a future person. There's an additional argument needed to show that we do owe things to future people, but I'd like to see how the argument on offers works.
The quality of life from a future hypothetical child is not arguable. Let's come back to the Sickle cell anemic person okay? Suppose that he married to a sickle cell anemic person too, they consulted with the pregnancy advisor, and they "do it", so to speak. So they already know the possible outcome, the child maybe get a double allele for the sickle cell anemic and miscarriaged, get one and get sickle cell anemia, or none and be a healthy person.
Now suppose the 2nd outcome. the child was born with the defect. life would be harsh for the baby. But god never created a failed product, seriously. No one is destined to suffer the rest of it's life and vice versa. Of course God has a plan for the baby later in his life. So arguably, in religious views, if you stop the pregnancy from happening in the first place, then you are usurping god in a way.
If we doesn't allow the pregnancy happening in the first place, then the person would'nt have existed. We would'nt harm the future person, but he wouldn't existed, well isn't that worse. Do you think that Non-existence is better than suffering? then what do you think on people with Autism spectrum or Asperger syndrome? They are wired differently from our heads, yet we biased them and think like they are weird people. They might felt low on self esteem but that was way better than not existing. they wouldn't wished they aren't in this world
In short, by allowing the pregnancy to happen, we are harming a future person. There's an additional argument needed to show that we do owe things to future people, but I'd like to see how the argument on offers works.
Biologically speaking, we ought not forget that a certain genetic diversity is critical for surviving.
Philosophically I have not yet found a cast iron proof argument...
So arguably, in religious views, if you stop the pregnancy from happening in the first place, then you are usurping god in a way.
How could you possibly know? You are already assuming that god has a project for any unborn child, but you don't know that. Maybe he doesn't?
We would'nt harm the future person, but he wouldn't existed, well isn't that worse. Do you think that Non-existence is better than suffering?
Following that line of thought, any second you are not spending for copulation is a sin. But that just doesn't work out. The problem is you're looking at it from the wrong side. It may sound awful for an existing being to not exist, but a non-existent being is exactly that - it does not exist. There's nothing. Just because you're thinking about a pregnancy doesn't make it half-real to the point of losing something if you prevent it.
Basically you're promoting the opposite of the OP: you think we should give birth to a child, no matter what. While the OP has the merit of the support of the claim on offer formulated by Moegreche, I see no support for your argumentation. And both are ignoring the right of the parents to decide.
Do you think that Non-existence is better than suffering?
In short, yes.
Basically how I see it is playing Russian roulette with your own kid. You could possibly give the child the defect and the way the kid sees it, he or she could believe that it isn't worth living with.
