Having children be illegal if the parent has a family history of negative traits? Watch

This discussion is closed.
GH
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#41
Report 15 years ago
#41
(Original post by caz)
Didn't the question say severe? I don't want anybody bringing up jackass arguments like this.

Obesity is reversible, and doesn't take extreme life-threatening methods to fix it (like, say a heart-transplant or other surgeries).
It was a scarcastic argument at the actually strupidly unrealistic actions posed by you.
0
TK0
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#42
Report 15 years ago
#42
(Original post by caz)
Like I said, if souls exist, then the soul can enter a healthier body.

If souls do not exist, then life as we know it is really worthless, as when you die you will not longer exist, as to suggest you never existed at all as you are no longer existent. Thus this body lived, it suffered, and it died, and the lasting benefits are those who watched it live and die, who will also die, and will also exist no more, thus making it all very worthless.

As I said, I don't understand your argument.
its pretty likely souls dont exist.

quite obviously when you die thats it, i havent seen many dead people lately nor had their influence so i dont know what you are on about there. If after dying you left nothing worthwhile then its possibly a good riddance, those people who have contributed something however that have helped the rest of us wed be hard pressed to do without them.

you sir are an idiot
0
caz
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#43
Report Thread starter 15 years ago
#43
(Original post by MattG)
you can't have this. its ethically diabolical. human life shouldn't be defined by the diseases/disabilitys a person has or hasn't got. im just as equal compared to a person born with a disability, thier rights to life (and the right to children) is just as strong as mine.
A crippled person also deserves to walk, but may not necessarily be able to do so.

Having children, and being a parent should not even be as free as it is right now. A parent may not be physically harmful, may be able to provide for their child, and also may be rich, but that doesn't make them a good parent.

Lots of kids have to go through lots of therapy after having a rather nice life, but behind the pretty picture...sadly, there isn't a law yet to require a license to be a parent, and lots of children have less than fulfilling lives because of this.

So then, why should somebody also have to be born into lesser standards, PHYSICALLY? After all, we use our bodies for everything we do. We ARE animals.

And the argument isn't whether a person can be happy or not with a crippling disease, but if society itself AND THE INDIVIDUAL HIM/HERSELF would benefit more from having a stronger body. We live by our body, and I don't think it should be up to some jackass who wants to throw a temper tantrum because they wanna have a kid and feel loved while the kid has 1/4 chances of being mentally retarded or having only one arm.
0
caz
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#44
Report Thread starter 15 years ago
#44
(Original post by 2776 2)
It was a scarcastic argument at the actually strupidly unrealistic actions posed by you.
ok?
0
thefish_uk
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#45
Report 15 years ago
#45
If you outlawed having children without permission, then there would just be a load of kids born "outside" the system. They'd be born in someone's bedroom, have very nasty people as parents and would never officially exist without a birth certificate and not be able to go to school or get any service, anywhere, ever.
0
caz
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#46
Report Thread starter 15 years ago
#46
(Original post by thefish_uk)
If you outlawed having children without permission, then there would just be a load of kids born "outside" the system. They'd be born in someone's bedroom, have very nasty people as parents and would never officially exist without a birth certificate and not be able to go to school or get any service, anywhere, ever.
possibly but that doesn't mean they won't exist "ever", and i dont see how this isn't already possible as there really are laws that forbid some people from being parents, and i really dont see how you can stereotype all of these people "dying" to have a kid as nasty parents, as they can be nasty parents with or without the law, especially in this example
0
MattG
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#47
Report 15 years ago
#47
(Original post by caz)
A crippled person also deserves to walk, but may not necessarily be able to do so.

Having children, and being a parent should not even be as free as it is right now. A parent may not be physically harmful, may be able to provide for their child, and also may be rich, but that doesn't make them a good parent.

Lots of kids have to go through lots of therapy after having a rather nice life, but behind the pretty picture...sadly, there isn't a law yet to require a license to be a parent, and lots of children have less than fulfilling lives because of this.

So then, why should somebody also have to be born into lesser standards, PHYSICALLY? After all, we use our bodies for everything we do. We ARE animals.

And the argument isn't whether a person can be happy or not with a crippling disease, but if society itself AND THE INDIVIDUAL HIM/HERSELF would benefit more from having a stronger body. We live by our body, and I don't think it should be up to some jackass who wants to throw a temper tantrum because they wanna have a kid and feel loved while the kid has 1/4 chances of being mentally retarded or having only one arm.
you are saying (original argument) that it should be illegal to have children with certain conditions. the state should decide when a child doesnt deserve to live? bulls*it

you cant justify a persons right to live by whether society or an individual would would benefit from a stronger body. a person who has a disability wouldnt know anything different than themselves, we cannot (as a society at the moment) choose that a person has a right to life more than others.

have you ever seen kids with downs syndrome, they are some of the happinest kids in the world, far more happier than a lot of healthy able bodied kids. narrow minded good body=good happy life is a dangerous way to go
0
TK0
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#48
Report 15 years ago
#48
(Original post by MattG)
you are saying (original argument) that it should be illegal to have children with certain conditions. the state should decide when a child doesnt deserve to live? bulls*it

you cant justify a persons right to live by whether society or an individual would would benefit from a stronger body. a person who has a disability wouldnt know anything different than themselves, we cannot (as a society at the moment) choose that a person has a right to life more than others.

have you ever seen kids with downs syndrome, they are some of the happinest kids in the world, far more happier than a lot of healthy able bodied kids. narrow minded good body=good happy life is a dangerous way to go
completely right

although recently i heard people with downs sydrome campaigning to stop prenatal screening so that abortions would not be possible. It is for no1 to judge, however i think before a certain point after conception the parents should be allowed to have some influence - as indeed they do. there must be much difficulty in bringing up someone who has such a disability and certain people may know they could not do it.
0
preyingmantis
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#49
Report 15 years ago
#49
(Original post by caz)
I don't believe they did, I thought they tried making a master race? Negative traits have no racial boundaries, though they may appear more commonly in one race as opposed to the other (for obvious evolutional reasons).
What are you talking about!?
0
caz
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#50
Report Thread starter 15 years ago
#50
(Original post by MattG)
you are saying (original argument) that it should be illegal to have children with certain conditions. the state should decide when a child doesnt deserve to live? bulls*it

you cant justify a persons right to live by whether society or an individual would would benefit from a stronger body. a person who has a disability wouldnt know anything different than themselves, we cannot (as a society at the moment) choose that a person has a right to life more than others.

have you ever seen kids with downs syndrome, they are some of the happinest kids in the world, far more happier than a lot of healthy able bodied kids. narrow minded good body=good happy life is a dangerous way to go
A child doesn't deserve to live? First of all, the child may grow up to be 40 years old, or even 100 years old and die. It is really more than the right of a child's life, especially when the world is already overpopulated as it is, conditions are getting poorer and poorer, life expectancy is INCREASING, and the "child", or in this case person, never really existed at all, so nothing was lost or gained.

You are going on the basis that because a parent wants to have a kid and has the capability, a person already exists. This person does not exist, and orphancy is increasing, children needing homes (whether foster or adoption) is increasing increasing, and the population, likewise, also keeps increasing, spending all this time, money, effort, etc. trying to cure diseases and such, more and more diseases and viruses are forming (so it's a downward-spiral of pain), more food is needed, more this, and more that.

China even put a limit on the number of children parents can have (1) because of overpopulation and the effect it had. Now, you tell me every person has the right to have a child? Well this pretty little picture you're holding up about being "fair" seems, to me, and this is my opinion fully, heartless, thoughtless, ignorant, and unfair.
0
caz
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#51
Report Thread starter 15 years ago
#51
(Original post by preyingmantis)
What are you talking about!?
? Did you even read what I quoted? Honestly, this has been read and responded to. Stop being a troll
0
JSM
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#52
Report 15 years ago
#52
(Original post by caz)
A child doesn't deserve to live? First of all, the child may grow up to be 40 years old, or even 100 years old and die. It is really more than the right of a child's life, especially when the world is already overpopulated as it is, conditions are getting poorer and poorer, life expectancy is INCREASING, and the "child", or in this case person, never really existed at all, so nothing was lost or gained.

You are going on the basis that because a parent wants to have a kid and has the capability, a person already exists. This person does not exist, and orphancy is increasing, children needing homes (whether foster or adoption) is increasing increasing, and the population, likewise, also keeps increasing, spending all this time, money, effort, etc. trying to cure diseases and such, more and more diseases and viruses are forming (so it's a downward-spiral of pain), more food is needed, more this, and more that.

China even put a limit on the number of children parents can have (1) because of overpopulation and the effect it had. Now, you tell me every person has the right to have a child? Well this pretty little picture you're holding up about being "fair" seems, to me, and this is my opinion fully, heartless, thoughtless, ignorant, and unfair.

now that was a clever, well thought out post
0
Jamie
Badges: 18
#53
Report 15 years ago
#53
(Original post by caz)
A crippled person also deserves to walk, but may not necessarily be able to do so.

Having children, and being a parent should not even be as free as it is right now. A parent may not be physically harmful, may be able to provide for their child, and also may be rich, but that doesn't make them a good parent.

Lots of kids have to go through lots of therapy after having a rather nice life, but behind the pretty picture...sadly, there isn't a law yet to require a license to be a parent, and lots of children have less than fulfilling lives because of this.

So then, why should somebody also have to be born into lesser standards, PHYSICALLY? After all, we use our bodies for everything we do. We ARE animals.

And the argument isn't whether a person can be happy or not with a crippling disease, but if society itself AND THE INDIVIDUAL HIM/HERSELF would benefit more from having a stronger body. We live by our body, and I don't think it should be up to some jackass who wants to throw a temper tantrum because they wanna have a kid and feel loved while the kid has 1/4 chances of being mentally retarded or having only one arm.
You haven't thought about this at all. But then you are American after all
You are talking Eugenics, and yes the nazis did i. So did Americans, the british and numerous other countries. In America retarded people, tramps, and in some cases simply the physically disabled were offered money to be sterilised. The reasoning was to rpomote better genes, an so a healthy race. The reality is that it doesn't all quite mesh, and heres why.

In modern society you'll often find families in which a trait runs, such that they will be informed that a child has a certain risk of being born disabled. However, with each year that passes new tests are being discovered that enable typing of embryos and unborn babies to test for abnormalities. In many cases this allows for extremely crippled babies to be aborted, such as those having spina bifada. However, in some cases this power is being abused, and is meaning that foetuses with a mere cleft palete (not really much of a problem nowadays) are being aborted.

Then theres the fact that alot of children went through pregnancy with the problems undetected. In fact its increasingly more of a percentage of those born abnormal were undetected, or harmed during birth. What do you prepose we do with these children? How do you think they'd feel growing up knowing they 'slipped through the screening process' - "Sorry little jimmy, we would have aborted you if we'd have known you'd be born with a withered right arm"

Then theres the issue you brought of parents not being allowed to have kids if theres a certain risk of an 'inferior' child. Well im sure everyone was thinking it anyway, but where is the cut off point? Do you say no kids after the age of 40 because of the downs risk? or do you demand every parent go via IVF so that the embryos can be screened for abnormalities before hand. How about if theres is a higher risk of Autism, or Asperger syndrome? Will they be allowed to progress to term?

You actually don't know much on the topic. Which always bugs me, because I hate it when someone opens up an ethical debate without haveing any real basis behind them
J
TK0
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#54
Report 15 years ago
#54
doesnt anyone else find so much ignorance frightening
0
MattG
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#55
Report 15 years ago
#55
(Original post by caz)
A child doesn't deserve to live? First of all, the child may grow up to be 40 years old, or even 100 years old and die. It is really more than the right of a child's life, especially when the world is already overpopulated as it is, conditions are getting poorer and poorer, life expectancy is INCREASING, and the "child", or in this case person, never really existed at all, so nothing was lost or gained.

You are going on the basis that because a parent wants to have a kid and has the capability, a person already exists. This person does not exist, and orphancy is increasing, children needing homes (whether foster or adoption) is increasing increasing, and the population, likewise, also keeps increasing, spending all this time, money, effort, etc. trying to cure diseases and such, more and more diseases and viruses are forming (so it's a downward-spiral of pain), more food is needed, more this, and more that.

China even put a limit on the number of children parents can have (1) because of overpopulation and the effect it had. Now, you tell me every person has the right to have a child? Well this pretty little picture you're holding up about being "fair" seems, to me, and this is my opinion fully, heartless, thoughtless, ignorant, and unfair.
your taking quite an objective view on life. life is about more than living to whatever age or being healthy etc etc. ask a parent of a child that died of a lifelong disease-bet you 100% would say they felt right in having their child. same with many ppl with diseases, they would rather have lived x years than not lived at all. i take your points about the current world situation on having children. but ppl shouldnt be rejected from trying to have children.

Quote:"You are going on the basis that because a parent wants to have a kid and has the capability, a person already exists"

im not saying that: im saying that ppl with the capability should be allowed too if they wish. we (as a society) have no right to infringe on that. You are going on the basis that a child facing a chance(!) of disability has no right to life.
0
Jamie
Badges: 18
#56
Report 15 years ago
#56
(Original post by caz)
A child doesn't deserve to live? First of all, the child may grow up to be 40 years old, or even 100 years old and die. It is really more than the right of a child's life, especially when the world is already overpopulated as it is, conditions are getting poorer and poorer, life expectancy is INCREASING, and the "child", or in this case person, never really existed at all, so nothing was lost or gained.

You are going on the basis that because a parent wants to have a kid and has the capability, a person already exists. This person does not exist, and orphancy is increasing, children needing homes (whether foster or adoption) is increasing increasing, and the population, likewise, also keeps increasing, spending all this time, money, effort, etc. trying to cure diseases and such, more and more diseases and viruses are forming (so it's a downward-spiral of pain), more food is needed, more this, and more that.

China even put a limit on the number of children parents can have (1) because of overpopulation and the effect it had. Now, you tell me every person has the right to have a child? Well this pretty little picture you're holding up about being "fair" seems, to me, and this is my opinion fully, heartless, thoughtless, ignorant, and unfair.
Chinas problem came because post war they desperately told the population to breed like rabbits. The baby booms in UK and America were NOTHING compared to China. The population rose by such an unsustainable amount that they had to put a harsh limit on children per family. The result was then that in a certain generation in rural areas men outnumber women hugely. And the whole 'little emperor' situation too whereby swathes of the population are destined to grow to be fat, lazy...kind of American-esque really.

As for your comment for disease and viruses. Ha. I don't think you want to go anywhere near that topic. I'll just say that if thats the sort of area you're concerned about it would be far more prudent to argue that all AIDS/HIV sufferers are killed. (NOT that im advocating that!!!!)
J
emom100
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#57
Report 15 years ago
#57
(Original post by caz)
I don't believe they did, I thought they tried making a master race? Negative traits have no racial boundaries, though they may appear more commonly in one race as opposed to the other (for obvious evolutional reasons).
as well as preventing jews and other races from producing they also sterilised those with mental and physical handicap in order not to "contaminate" the pure blood of the aryan race. However way you look at it, defining who can have children or not is deplorable whether in modern society or in the nazi's time.

My mum has a serious mental illness, yet does that mean me and my sister should never have been born incase something was wrong with us? We have both led perfectly healthy lives etc. Also if the state was to restict child birth to those people that have never had mental problems they would be a bit stuffed as 1/4 people will have some sort of mental problem in their lifetime.
0
caz
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#58
Report Thread starter 15 years ago
#58
(Original post by foolfarian)
You actually don't know much on the topic. Which always bugs me, because I hate it when someone opens up an ethical debate without haveing any real basis behind them
J
I don't know much on the topic? Yet I'm the one who made the topic up? Um okay? Next time you want to come to my thread posting a bunch of your moral crap as to say you were right (oh, and yes, I believe we had the Nazi thing cleared up, and even ruled irrelevant, so we don't need you reinstating your "intelligence" on the matter, because you have offered nothing new to do the table, sorry big guy).

And the topic is a matter of opinion, not a matter of fact, you idiot, so don't even try telling any of us we "don't know much on the topic"--especially when all you posted was a bunch of crap about instances that are already happening.

The question is not whether or not it is possible, or if any laws already have similar parts to them, it's whether or not you would agree with it if it was true. So don't tell any of us what we do, or do not know, especially when the only fact you provided seems to be medical, which may be your forte, but most of us here are not into all the medical mumbo-jumbo, as it really even has no relevance in this case.

As to the actual argument you made, past your little ignorant and disagreeable ending to the post:

(Original post by foolfarian)
You haven't thought about this at all. But then you are American after all
Thought about what? The negative aspects to it? This is not the point. We as people have conversations, if you don't yet know what a conversation or discussion it, you can check your local library or even swing over to dictionary.com

There are always going to be down-sides to every law, because every law can be broken, and unfortunately the human mind has a tendency to run around in circles over negativity without ever stopping, using it as an excuse as to why something is not good. There are more benefits than negative, other than the frequent arguments people post about, "People should be able to have kids if they want to!!!!" Um, okay? People who want kids want to fill something missing in their life. This is true. Offer me some evidence to prove otherwise, I can throw a thousand psychological arguments back at you if you wanna challenge my intelligence on this matter.

And as this is true, I will tell you: I find it very selfish that these people cannot find healthier children, in the best interest of the child itself. You quoted me on this, as well, in which I repeated many valid, and excellent arguments. So I will not repeat them

(Original post by foolfarian)
You are talking Eugenics, and yes the nazis did i. So did Americans, the british and numerous other countries. In America retarded people, tramps, and in some cases simply the physically disabled were offered money to be sterilised. The reasoning was to rpomote better genes, an so a healthy race. The reality is that it doesn't all quite mesh, and heres why.
I don't care who did it. The fact that they were offered money makes it that much fairer.

(Original post by foolfarian)
In modern society you'll often find families in which a trait runs, such that they will be informed that a child has a certain risk of being born disabled. However, with each year that passes new tests are being discovered that enable typing of embryos and unborn babies to test for abnormalities. In many cases this allows for extremely crippled babies to be aborted, such as those having spina bifada. However, in some cases this power is being abused, and is meaning that foetuses with a mere cleft palete (not really much of a problem nowadays) are being aborted.
Yes, technology is improving. Unfortunately, this technology is meant to assist the body of each living person, and this as a law would improve society, it wouldn't do any harm, except for how people may react to it. But then again, we all hated prohibition, didn't we?...not to mention making marijuana illegal, which was at one time legal, and was something lots of people enjoyed.

The only thing I would fear about this law is that it would lead to discrimination among peers. Oh, but don't pay any attention to me, I don't know any "facts" on the matter.

(Original post by foolfarian)
Then theres the fact that alot of children went through pregnancy with the problems undetected. In fact its increasingly more of a percentage of those born abnormal were undetected, or harmed during birth. What do you prepose we do with these children? How do you think they'd feel growing up knowing they 'slipped through the screening process' - "Sorry little jimmy, we would have aborted you if we'd have known you'd be born with a withered right arm"
Actually, I never proposed anything about abortion or people born with abnormalities. You brought this up, you rambled on about it, and you made it another issue. My proposal, in the original QUESTION (note it was a question, not a suggestion) was that we prevent the possibility of these "defected fetuses" to begin with.

If YOU want to go aborting people, or go protesting abortion, whatever, that's your thing.

Not to mention, children born with the abnormality and are living ARE living, it is not our job to say, "Well they wouldn't like knowing that they would have been aborted if we could detect their defects!"

And, I'll repeat, I never said anything about abortion. You brought this on YOURSELF. So you can get the hell out if you wanna get pissed off more and more as you type your own proposals.

(Original post by foolfarian)
Then theres the issue you brought of parents not being allowed to have kids if theres a certain risk of an 'inferior' child. Well im sure everyone was thinking it anyway, but where is the cut off point? Do you say no kids after the age of 40 because of the downs risk? or do you demand every parent go via IVF so that the embryos can be screened for abnormalities before hand. How about if theres is a higher risk of Autism, or Asperger syndrome? Will they be allowed to progress to term?
When did I say inferior child? And I thought this was the only issue I brought? Please quit being stupid.

And where's the cut-off point? Sorry, guy, laws are not vague, and you being the big medical guru that you seem to pret...I mean seem to be, you'd know there are medical cut-off points. If your eyesight is bad, you cannot drive without glasses. If they can put cut-off points on my eye-sight, they can put cut-off points on severe medical risks. I'm sorry, I guess I have more common sense, so until now I didn't think it needed to be said.

And if people get pregnant with high risk genes, I never suggested screening or abortion, but being that it would be illegal, they would be taken to trial and sentenced accordingly (if not jailtime, a fine, in case you want to be even dumber and ask what the setencings might be--honestly, you have a ****ing head, use your imagination).
0
caz
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#59
Report Thread starter 15 years ago
#59
(Original post by emom100)
as well as preventing jews and other races from producing they also sterilised those with mental and physical handicap in order not to "contaminate" the pure blood of the aryan race. However way you look at it, defining who can have children or not is deplorable whether in modern society or in the nazi's time.

My mum has a serious mental illness, yet does that mean me and my sister should never have been born incase something was wrong with us? We have both led perfectly healthy lives etc. Also if the state was to restict child birth to those people that have never had mental problems they would be a bit stuffed as 1/4 people will have some sort of mental problem in their lifetime.
I personally think mental-illness is an exception, as it can be cured. I don't know about all these other people.
0
caz
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#60
Report Thread starter 15 years ago
#60
(Original post by foolfarian)
Chinas problem came because post war they desperately told the population to breed like rabbits. The baby booms in UK and America were NOTHING compared to China. The population rose by such an unsustainable amount that they had to put a harsh limit on children per family. The result was then that in a certain generation in rural areas men outnumber women hugely. And the whole 'little emperor' situation too whereby swathes of the population are destined to grow to be fat, lazy...kind of American-esque really.

As for your comment for disease and viruses. Ha. I don't think you want to go anywhere near that topic. I'll just say that if thats the sort of area you're concerned about it would be far more prudent to argue that all AIDS/HIV sufferers are killed. (NOT that im advocating that!!!!)
J
Thanks for the history lesson, however it made absolutely no difference. It was put into effect because overpopulation. Was this not my point? And conditions became poor. Men outnumbered women? This may be true, but is only part of the reason, and still makes no difference to the point being made.

What not go near the "diseases and viruses" comment? Come doctor! Enlighten us! As you seem to have skipped over most of the thread and felt that I was the one making up arguments, when in reality (yes, I have recollection of reality too!) I was actually responding.
0
X
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Brexit: Given the chance now, would you vote leave or remain?

Remain (1384)
79.54%
Leave (356)
20.46%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise