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.
Okay, well now I'm going to be putting my views out there.
In short, I think that, if the person desires so, he/she should reproduce, as it is fundamentally that person's right to do so. Regarding the whole "But what about his kid?" aspect... What the child does with his life thereon after is his decision (albeit he should at least be restricted from doing what he wants until he is of a mature age with clear cognitive thinking and mature emotionally).
Obviously, nothing in the world right now that was an offspring of another could've chosen what characteristics, birthplace, traits, sexual orientation, gender, or familial members, etc. What we're born with is basically what we have, like it or not, and though we COULD try to correct or eluding from our physical attributes through plastic surgery and/or accessories of clothing, piercings, dyes, etc, we still can't change the fundamental aspects of ourselves.
We're not at a level where gene manipulation is an everyday thing, and so, you can make the argument that what the child is born with was never his right in the first place. Now, hear me out, since that sounds harsh. What I mean that whether the child has the choice of being born or not is nonexistent, it doesn't matter if one is doing an injustice to the child when he or she is born. What matters is what the child does afterwards, and that the child should choose for himself whether he wants to live or die. Hell, some people take suicidal measures just for the fact that they were human.
Besides, I posit that since the parent was able to reproduce, let us, for argument's sake, assume that he was happy and that this was not an accidental pregnancy. Then you could also make the argument that happiness is possible for the offspring, given the right conditions. And, when the child is deemed mature enough, he should be given the choice of deciding whether his life is too excruciating to bear, or worth living.
Though the child didn't have the choice to live, at least he has the choice of whether or not to continue living.
What does one consider "mature enough"? When they're conditioned to only want to live by being labeled crazy until they do?
Well, I think maturity can't be defined by a set age. 16? 18? 21? Numbers can be thrown around, but ultimately, a child needs to go at his or her own pace. And certainly, society will have a huge part to play in the development of that child's psychological state. Although I can't give some definitive answer on when, I think that it should be when the child has found his or her 'identity'. They know who they are, their values and morals are set, and they've gain enough experience to see the world for what it is. When they are "emotionally complete", you could say. Or, at the very least, when they at least are experienced enough to understand the entirety of their circumstance and what situation they're in. When one transitions from "child" to "adult" psychologically.
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
Denying the ability of reproduction is interesting. However I don't think that a person like this would be denied "reproduction rights" if it just effect this one person. If they commit suicide, it's on them. If they're a serial killer and that could be genetic then I think that this person should not reproduce.
Even if the offspring's of this person who feels urges of self destruction has a genetic issue that may spread we need to take into consideration that this issue could eventually die off due to other genetic behaviors. And yes it's true genetics don't truly "die off" but it would be suppressed by other peoples genetics.
What does one consider "mature enough"?
I believe it would mean when someone reaches an age in which they show maturity. With this definition we can't say a specific age, it may vary. Could be 10, could be 20. Who knows.
Do you think that Non-existence is better than suffering?
If it agrees with ones personal wants then yes. If it is imposed by others no.
What do you mean with your last comment PauseBreak? i don't quite follow
Eugenics. Hitler. The Arian race. Kill all the Jews, cripples, the sick, and other people considered "disadvantageous". And now read the OP of this thread again.
No, I'm not accusing the OP of racism/discrimination/whatever. Because the question at hand here is from the point of view of the people born with an illness; nevertheless, both topics go hand in hand.
