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

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).

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.

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.

It was a scarcastic argument at the actually strupidly unrealistic actions posed by you.

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.

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

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).

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

What are you talking about!?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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

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?

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.

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