A place for interesting and non-interesting thread ideas.
Joined:
June 2010
Location: All-Hail Master Virgo, Censor of NolanFans
Master Virgo wrote:It's nothing but an excuse to criticise sex between family members.
Agree because it's the taboo thing we were talking about.
But now, in this case, you don't have sex between family members nor you have just an increase in chance of something bad happening.
Now you have almost a certainty. And all of a sudden now we CARE about what people feel and what they wanna do? This is what baffles me. So we should be repulsed more by the idea that a guy has sex with his sister than by the idea that someone knowingly gives birth to a child that will be born with Tay-Sachs? I mean in the latter scenario you didn't just doomed someone to suffering, you doomed them to die. That's murder. And we should have second thoughts about regulating something like this because "it's their right to make a decision since they're living with that disease". Blows my mind. You have all the right in the world to condemn yourself to suffering but not another human life. Period.
cooldude wrote:This is just plain wrong.
The presumption that genetic disabled people automatically transmit their disability to their offspring is flawed. Scientifically speaking, inheritance is spoken as in 1 in 2 chance or 50 percent.
You do realize this doesn't change the argument at all. You're playing with a 50/50 chance. The sibling sex is just an increase in chance. Prince explained this scenario pretty well.
In the case of sibling sex if the chances were of 0,1% then an increase of 0,4% means there's a 0,5% chance.
In the case of inheritable diseases it's directly a 50% chance on average. That's just rolling the dice.
Last edited by
RIFA on May 29th, 2017, 3:34 am, edited 4 times in total.
Joined:
February 2011
Location: The Discount Inn
cooldude wrote:RIFA wrote:cooldude wrote:would be to educate them to make an informed choice.
What does this mean exactly?
I'm surprised you guys are more okay with this than sibling incest to be honest lol. Makes no sense. I mean y'all main reason why you're against sibling incest is science based, that there's a higher chance of the child to be born with certain issues.
Higher chance. While in the case of an inheritable disease, it's a 100% certainty. 
This is just plain wrong.
The presumption that genetic disabled people
automatically transmit their disability to their offspring is flawed. Scientifically speaking, inheritance is spoken as in 1 in 2 chance or 50 percent. Depending on the parents' gene, the chance of them passing the condition could be higher or lower. There are some inheritable disabilities like Cystic Fibrosis that are recessive disease. The only known way to pass it on to their children is if both parents have cystic fibrosis or the recessive gene. The likelihood that a disability is 100% inheritable is extremely, extremely rare.
Which begs the question, what is meant by 'serious inheritable disabilities' and the likelihood of it being passed on?
There are many talented disabled people, being disabled does not mean incapable. It just means some stuff in life is a challenge. A person with genetic condition that cause blindness might have enhanced sense and hearing, compared to the average person. Does that fall into the 'serious inheritable disabilities'?
What does this mean exactly?
What I meant by that is, they should be aware of the chances of passing the genetic condition. They are genetic testing that can help people understand these chances and help them make an informed decision on reproduction. Simply having the disability doesn't mean limiting your research and not expanding your knowledge of the risks and benefits. They are researchers who are working fictitiously to identifying a treatment for various disabilities.
Someone has been doing his Punnett squares.
Joined:
May 2010
Location: Mumbai
Cilogy wrote:Prince, don't you lol at me you worthless Bulgarian, Pratham and cooldude are even more pathetic libtards than me.
Even I'm surprised by that tbh
Can you imagine how suffocating it must be to be a libtard and live in a regressive af country?
RIFA wrote:
cooldude wrote:This is just plain wrong.
The presumption that genetic disabled people automatically transmit their disability to their offspring is flawed. Scientifically speaking, inheritance is spoken as in 1 in 2 chance or 50 percent.
You do realize this doesn't change the argument at all. You're playing with a 50/50 chance. The sibling sex is just an increase in chance. Prince explained this scenario pretty well.
In the case of sibling sex if the chances were of 0,1% then an increase of 0,4% means there's a 0,5% chance.
In the case of inheritable diseases it's directly a 50% chance on average. That's just rolling the dice.
You realize that I never argued against or for incest. I just pointed out a flaw in that statement.
Joined:
June 2010
Location: All-Hail Master Virgo, Censor of NolanFans
cooldude wrote:You realize that I never argued against or for incest. I just pointed out a flaw in that statement.
Yes. I was mainly pointing that to the people that did. Anyway, while it's not a 100% certainty it's more than just a gamble. 50% is too high of a risk to play with that shit. If I really want a kid I will just adopt one instead of probably forcing a new soul (my own child on top of that) to suffer.
My main issue with this would not be that it's incredibly cruel to deliberately condemn an innocent child to a life of suffering (because I agree), but that such regulations would be really hard to impose - like which diseases and disorders exactly would fall under the policy? Where would exactly be the line of what's okay and what isn't? No way in hell people would at least somewhat universally agree to this. Besides, what if a policy like this was abused - radical, but next thing we know, anyone that skews just a little from the average or even "perfection", could be prohibited from reproducing.
edit: besides no one I think said that it'd their right to decide since they're living with the disease
And isn't it kinda stupid to say that it's okay for someone to condemn themselves, but not their kids? Like how does a person condemn himself? I thought we were talking inheritable diseases or disabilities? It's impossible to condemn yourself, literally no one would ask for disability even if it was possible
dafox wrote:cooldude wrote:RIFA wrote:
What does this mean exactly?
I'm surprised you guys are more okay with this than sibling incest to be honest lol. Makes no sense. I mean y'all main reason why you're against sibling incest is science based, that there's a higher chance of the child to be born with certain issues.
Higher chance. While in the case of an inheritable disease, it's a 100% certainty.
This is just plain wrong.
The presumption that genetic disabled people
automatically transmit their disability to their offspring is flawed. Scientifically speaking, inheritance is spoken as in 1 in 2 chance or 50 percent. Depending on the parents' gene, the chance of them passing the condition could be higher or lower. There are some inheritable disabilities like Cystic Fibrosis that are recessive disease. The only known way to pass it on to their children is if both parents have cystic fibrosis or the recessive gene. The likelihood that a disability is 100% inheritable is extremely, extremely rare.
Which begs the question, what is meant by 'serious inheritable disabilities' and the likelihood of it being passed on?
There are many talented disabled people, being disabled does not mean incapable. It just means some stuff in life is a challenge. A person with genetic condition that cause blindness might have enhanced sense and hearing, compared to the average person. Does that fall into the 'serious inheritable disabilities'?
What does this mean exactly?
What I meant by that is, they should be aware of the chances of passing the genetic condition. They are genetic testing that can help people understand these chances and help them make an informed decision on reproduction. Simply having the disability doesn't mean limiting your research and not expanding your knowledge of the risks and benefits. They are researchers who are working fictitiously to identifying a treatment for various disabilities.
Someone has been doing his Punnett squares.
LOL, not gonna deny it I did play around with it when my wife was pregnant.
Joined:
June 2010
Location: All-Hail Master Virgo, Censor of NolanFans
Ruth wrote:No way in hell people would at least somewhat universally agree to this.
Well there's plenty of laws for which there isn't a universal agreement. I mean that's the entire point of democracy. To have a majority and not a universal agreement on things. Leave that to utopian societies.
Ruth wrote:Besides, what if a policy like this was abused - radical, but next thing we know, anyone that skews just a little from the average or even "perfection", could be prohibited from reproducing.
Just like religion can be abused, birth control or gun control. Anything can really do harm if it's abused.
Ruth wrote:edit: besides no one I think said that it'd their right to decide since they're living with the disease
Michaelf's comment pretty much suggests that.
Michaelf2225 wrote:who am i to decide that two people with down syndrome, for instance, who have lived with those issues all they're lives and understand what comes with them, can't reproduce?
So just because they understand the situation somehow makes them morally bound to put another person through the same situation.
Ruth wrote:And isn't it kinda stupid to say that it's okay for someone to condemn themselves, but not their kids? Like how does a person condemn himself? I thought we were talking inheritable diseases or disabilities? It's impossible to condemn yourself, literally no one would ask for disability even if it was possible
What I meant by that was that, conceptually speaking, you have the right to do whatever the heck you want with yourself but not with others. It wasn't tied to inheritable diseases but with a general moral code. Like you can inject yourself with aids if you want but obviously not another person.
RIFA wrote:
Well there's plenty of laws for which there isn't a universal agreement. I mean that's the entire point of democracy. To have a majority and not a universal agreement on things. Leave that to utopian societies.
Noo, I get it. I meant more like this wouldn't just be your regular - some people agree, some don't, but the majority would still agree kind of thing. A policy like this would be met with extreeeeme controversy.
RIFA wrote:
Michaelf's comment pretty much suggests that.
Michaelf2225 wrote:who am i to decide that two people with down syndrome, for instance, who have lived with those issues all they're lives and understand what comes with them, can't reproduce?
So just because they understand the situation somehow makes them morally bound to put another person through the same situation.
Okay, I must've missed that lol. Down's syndrome is kind of a bad example in this case, I'd say. I'm not an expert and wouldn't want to say something stupid, but people with Down's generally have a reduced fertility rate, don't they? Besides, a vast majority of people with Down's also have moderate intellectual disabilities and, unfortunately, quite a few of them have very severe disabilities, and while some of them can, with help and support, live somewhat independently and maintain relationships, I'm not sure if a person with Down's syndrome would have the mental capacity to even understand the difficult situation and make a sound choice when it comes to reproducing.
RIFA wrote:
What I meant by that was that, conceptually speaking, you have the right to do whatever the heck you want with yourself but not with others. It wasn't tied to inheritable diseases but with a general moral code. Like you can inject yourself with aids if you want but obviously not another person.
That I can agree with. Still think it's a very problematic topic which can't just possibly have one easy answer.
Joined:
October 2014
Location: ny but philly has my <3
i'm not defending it on the grounds of it being moral or right or anything
i'm defending it on the grounds of eugenics being a bad idea
