Disability and inheritable diseases

[Trumptonium]

Let's get into a touchy subject without going too far. The question is one where political ideology generally doesn't affect the answer, as people on both sides (and more) are all over the place on the political spectrum.

The question relates to people with serious inheritable disabilities, and to serious disabilities as a whole. Let's make it clearer: we're not talking about someone having dyslexia or being born without your toenail, or even genetic susceptibility to heart disease or strokes. We're talking about conditions within which you effectively become a total dependent. I guess I have two ways to pull this debate; whether they (carriers - with each other or in general) should be able to breed (arguments for and against both, namely degeneration of the gene pool (we're not talking about designer babies or eugenics here)) and whether they (the severely disabled) should be born.

Now, it's obviously a touchy subject, and it affects many people, including myself. We're talking purely from an abortion standpoint, not some weird post-birth standpoint, just before anyone with an 88 avatar gets excited. But no point in closing this thread so let's not take it there.

In my opinion, there's got to be a middle ground. To enforce some kind of mandatory program of abortions would be immoral, as people can generally live fulfilling lives and they're also human deserving of their own rights. On the other hand, we're back to mother nature. Without going into the fend-for-thyself, there needs to be a realisation that an unending degeneration of the gene pool is unhealthy. There's also questions of who will take care of them, how will they be taken care of, and whether we can actually do it. It's not just a financing argument. Although I don't see how some totally-dependent people will be taken care of once their all-loving parents pass away and have nobody to take over. I would definitely make this part of sex education, and I would promote abortion in certain cases where the end result can only be a severe disease where the person cannot function.

So, to put it simply, what controls, if any, would you put in place regarding carriers as well as confirmed or probable births of people with disabilities?

[Sanctissima]

Moderate eugenics.

If you have a high-risk of producing children with serious genetic defects, you aren't allowed to reproduce, on pain of forced sterilization.

[Albrenia]

Well, as a disabled person myself, I see this as a very tricky minefield.

I don't see the whole 'genepool' argument as having any merit. Such things make up such a tiny minority of people that there's no danger of non-disabled people becoming endangered at all.

I don't really see how it is other people's business if somebody else breeds or not. Plenty of non-disabled people are born and become a strain on society, either through criminality or other means. Once you start deciding who can and cannot breed you go down a dark path with few benefits.

Obviously I'd be against anything which required abortion to occur under almost any circumstances.

[Trumptonium]

I don't see the whole 'genepool' argument as having any merit. Such things make up such a tiny minority of people that there's no danger of non-disabled people becoming endangered at all.

The problem is that they make up an increasing part of the gene pool/population, that is growing faster than population itself. Remember that humans are not immune to evolution, and artificial medical assistance can change our genes. It's been a known fact that vaginas have been getting progressively smaller for the last 100 years, and the prolificness of caesarians is being blamed for this, rather than letting nature run it's course which is seeing them unable to give birth.

For example, Dr David Richmond, the president of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG), has warned that this hurts human development as the number of first-time mothers having C-sections is has risen 250% in just 30 years. Each of these children will have ever-smaller vaginas, leading to more caesarians. Of course, this is not a problem due to modern medicine allowing it to happen, but two questions arise. Could it be a problem in the future and whether it's right that we're reduced to one in four women now being unable to have a natural birth?

Here's a useful statistic on adults with severe disabilities in the United States, which is now growing faster than the population as a whole. More than that, as of 2017, the amount of people with any disabilities in the United States is now larger than the entire population of England (55m vs 53m)

[Dooom35796821595]

Increase R&D spending on genetic modification and have the national healthcare program offer gene modding to remove such genetic disease.

[Galloism]

I think this can be mostly handled with a much defter touch. Genetics have come a long way, and for all the hysteria over designer babies, there's something to be set for genetic selection to eliminate inheritable diseases.

Three parent babies can possibly offer us a way out of genetic diseases without forbidding those suffering them from reproducing. It needs more study and blah blah blah, but it's a promising method of eliminating genetic diseases without infringing on peoples' rights.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Where do you draw the line on a "debilitating disability"? I have a rare condition that prevents me from breathing when I sleep, but I function just fine other than that. And I'd very much love to have biological children.

[Albrenia]

Again, that may be a 'problem', but it's not something you can do anything about without serious problems.

Two paths:

One, do something about it. From the lightest approach as mentioned above by Sanctissima, or full blown gene purity death camps, they all involve the dehumanisation and stripping of rights from some people. Some particularly nasty genetic problems occur only to particular ethnic groups - do the bans apply to them. What is considered an 'acceptable chance' and what is not? Do you forcefully test everyone in the womb against the mother's wishes, or only those who submit to testing?

Two, do nothing about it. Evolution's hand may be stayed by modern medicine, and this may case a number of strains on society. This could be solved by finding ways to 'fix' genetic disabilities, which would require the consent of the mother or the person themselves.

EDIT - three extra responses in the time I took to write this, and they pretty much say what I agree with too - too many problems with eugenics. Medical gene treatment for the willing is much preferred.

[Trumptonium]

Where do you draw the line on a "debilitating disability"?

Being dependent on another human being for day-to-day functioning is a pretty good line to draw.

[Albrenia]

Where do you draw the line on a "debilitating disability"?

Being dependent on another human being for day-to-day functioning is a pretty good line to draw.

People who are disabled to -that- extent rarely have children to begin with.

[Trumptonium]

Being dependent on another human being for day-to-day functioning is a pretty good line to draw.

People who are disabled to -that- extent rarely have children to begin with.

We're obviously referring to people with carrier genes or in situations where the child is known to have a highly probably or certain chance of having such a disability during pregnancy checks.

[Albrenia]

People who are disabled to -that- extent rarely have children to begin with.

We're obviously referring to people with carrier genes or in situations where the child is known to have a highly probably or certain chance of having such a disability during pregnancy checks.

Good luck making a law telling perfectly healthy people that their genes are bad and so they can't have children then.

[Republic of La Boca]

I'm myself a disabled person. I move thanks to a wheelchair since I was 6 years. Before then, I used to move everywhere with help. If my nation were a real one, I'd make a law outlawing any kind of discrimination against disabled people.

[Trumptonium]

We're obviously referring to people with carrier genes or in situations where the child is known to have a highly probably or certain chance of having such a disability during pregnancy checks.

Good luck making a law telling perfectly healthy people that their genes are bad and so they can't have children then.

Sigh

No ... with other carriers. Or modified genes.

[Costa Fierro]

If Iceland can almost eradicate Down's Syndrome from it's gene pool thanks to selective abortions, why can't we? I'd rather future generations continue as nature intended, with those with healthy genetic material reproducing and those without not. It's why I am seriously considering getting a vasectomy, because I have no interest in spreading seriously bad inheritable developmental disabilities onto future generations. They wouldn't have any quality of life worth living.

[Albrenia]

If Iceland can almost eradicate Down's Syndrome from it's gene pool thanks to selective abortions, why can't we? I'd rather future generations continue as nature intended, with those with healthy genetic material reproducing and those without not. It's why I am seriously considering getting a vasectomy, because I have no interest in spreading seriously bad inheritable developmental disabilities onto future generations. They wouldn't have any quality of life worth living.

Strangely enough, I agree with you on some parts there. I will most likely not have children for that very reason. The difference here is we choose not to procreate, it's not forced upon us by law.

I'm still not sure a government should be deciding who has pure enough genes to procreate though. As for what 'nature intended', nature intends a pretty horrible place to live to be honest.

I'm all for genetic therapy though. That's the best of both worlds.

[Katganistan]

If you're seriously suggesting eugenics, that doesn't end well. See: Nazis in WWII.

[Goldwater Coast]

The problem is that they make up an increasing part of the gene pool/population, that is growing faster than population itself. Remember that humans are not immune to evolution, and artificial medical assistance can change our genes. It's been a known fact that vaginas have been getting progressively smaller for the last 100 years, and the prolificness of caesarians is being blamed for this, rather than letting nature run it's course which is seeing them unable to give birth.

All I can think about now is Russian nesting dolls, since you brought this up.

I have to wonder, however, if the rise of disinfectant-resistant bacteria won't put an end to this problem?

Either way, I'm vehemently against the government meddling in peoples' lives, trying to perfect the gene pool in any way at all. If they do it, they'll be invasive, they're not gonna do it right, and nothing is worth them having that much influence in peoples' personal lives. It's bad enough we already have a problem with surveillance. I could understand the desire to retreat into the wilderness, completely unaided by modern society, and just live off the land. That in and of itself could wipe out quite a few people if they tried it, although I would still consider attempting to live like the ancestors a noble pursuit.

[Thermodolia]

If you're seriously suggesting eugenics, that doesn't end well. See: Nazis in WWII.

Ya the Nazis pretty much tainted eugenics.

[Eclius]

I don't like eugenics, it's a very fascistic way of solving issues. Personally, I think inheritable conditions and disabilities should be treated with technology, such as bionics or gene editing and more money should be used on research and development of such technologies

[Albrenia]

I don't like eugenics, it's a very fascistic way of solving issues. Personally, I think inheritable conditions and disabilities should be treated with technology, such as bionics or gene editing and more money should be used on research and development of such technologies

Agreed.

[Greed and Death]

Moderate eugenics.

If you have a high-risk of producing children with serious genetic defects, you aren't allowed to reproduce, on pain of forced sterilization.

Or just screen and abort the fetus. France has done a lovely job on that front.

[Greed and Death]

If you're seriously suggesting eugenics, that doesn't end well. See: Nazis in WWII.

In fairness then we did not understand how genetics works.

Modern day gene technology and birth control we can screen couples before they reproduce and see if either are carriers of inheritable diseases if they both are (assuming recessive genes) then we recommend against them reproducing.

[Hakons]

No, eugenics must be stopped at every opportunity. People with rare conditions can voluntarily refuse to reproduce, but they should never be forced to be sterilized.

[Romanum Dominium]

In no case, at any point, should the government ever be allowed to dictate who gets to have children with whom (incest aside) nor should the government ever be allowed to mandate abortions. However, ignoring all fancy future technologies such as gene editing and whatnot, I would imagine that access to genetic screening for expecting mothers combined with access to safe abortions would do a lot of good.