People with genetic disorders should be sterilised. Watch

tengentoppa
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#1
Discuss
0
reply
tengentoppa
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#2
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#2
bump
0
reply
james22
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#3
Report 5 years ago
#3
Certainly not, however for the more serious ones they should be encoraged to have any potential children screened first.
0
reply
Andy98
  • Study Helper
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#4
Report 5 years ago
#4
I'm not getting sterilized - take a hike
0
reply
Andy98
  • Study Helper
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#5
Report 5 years ago
#5
(Original post by james22)
Certainly not, however for the more serious ones they should be encoraged to have any potential children screened first.
Or the more severe ones should be encouraged towards adoption
0
reply
Rebjayal
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#6
Report 5 years ago
#6
Couldn't they just get genetic counselling and make informed decisions themselves?
0
reply
Flauta
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#7
Report 5 years ago
#7
I agree that people with something like Huntingdon's disease should be discouraged from having children without screening them, but full blown eugenics is a bit far.
0
reply
joey11223
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#8
Report 5 years ago
#8
Can't really force such a thing, though I do think those with severely debilitating genetic conditions should be encouraged to consider either genetic screening to avoid the children having the disease or adoption.
0
reply
bananaminion
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#9
Report 5 years ago
#9
Not forcibly, no. That's a decision for them to make themselves, since they know the consequences. I would be in favour of them not having children and passing it on (... depending on the severity, only the most severe... I think).
However, it's none of the NHS or state's business.
0
reply
DorianGrayism
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#10
Report 5 years ago
#10
So that means almost everyone....
1
reply
ArtGoblin
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#11
Report 5 years ago
#11
Instead of sterilising them or 'encouraging' them to make a certain decision they should be given the support they need to make the right decision for them and their potential children. If they've got the disease themselves they're going to know what they're getting themselves and their children into - it's not up to the state to decide that for them.
1
reply
Who shot John?
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#12
Report 5 years ago
#12
Giving the state strong centralized control of this manner is to invite the abuse of it.
0
reply
Hopping Cat
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#13
Report 5 years ago
#13
Sterilisation shouldn't be mandatory, but people with genetic diseases should have their reproductive freedom curtailed or at least regulated if their actions are to cause social detriment. It's also not fair to spawn people with life jeopardizing conditions -- this falls under the same principle as abortion of which is widely accepted.

I fail to understand why the principle of Eugenics is so obstinately rejected. The UK spends billions of pounds annually to enhance cognitive ability, maintain and enhance health and prevent actions that cause social harm through environmental means -- e.g. schools, health care, exercise and healthy eating, prisons -- so why not address the genetically caused component of those traits? Yes, it would result in some people having their freedom restricted, but such a program would be implemented for the same reason that we mandate for people to lend some of their wealth to those who are in dire need of financial support -- the public good.
0
reply
Falcatas
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#14
Report 5 years ago
#14
Human ability to reproduce is a human right, no one or state has the authority to take it away.
0
reply
nic-nac
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#15
Report 5 years ago
#15
If it severely affects the life of the person with the illness then yes. It is cruel and selfish to have a child knowing it will suffer, especially if you have the illness and can barely look after themselves. If we don't stop such people from having ill children then we are stopping evolution. By all means we should help ill people to lead a healthier and less painful life, but them having ill children is only causing more suffering and not helping society .
1
reply
Studentus-anonymous
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#16
Report 5 years ago
#16
It's a difficult subject. On the one hand it would sounds great to prevent more human suffering by curtailing the right to breed by those with notably detrimental genetic conditions/diseases.

However it steps firmly into the bounds of a person's right to their own life. I guess this also effects topics like the right of drug addicts to breed. Would I like to see hopeless drug addicts barred from creating more children and bringing them into their miserable lives? Yes. Would I feel comfortable giving the state wholesale ability to tell people if they can or can't breed? Not really, too many mistakes would be made or they may outright abuse it.

For now I think helping people come to the right choices of their own accord is best, and in the future we may have cures for the worst offending genetic time-bombs.

The past proved that eugenics leads to a complete callous disregard for the sanctity of human life and the basic rights therein, even if like communism on paper it sounds good.
0
reply
Snagprophet
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#17
Report 5 years ago
#17
Maybe they can be banned from having kids normally and have to reproduce through a Gatika style of selecting genes, or at least removing the genetic disorder. We all carry healthy genes so it seems silly to stop them having kids at all. This all depends on the chances of passing down genetic disorders. If there's a slim chance it seems pointless.
0
reply
PQ
  • PS Reviewer
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#18
Report 5 years ago
#18
(Original post by tengentoppa)
Discuss
not the best start to a discussion thread - what do you think?

(Original post by DorianGrayism)
So that means almost everyone....
THIS

The more we find out about genetics the more we realise that we don't really understand it or the implications of our decisions.

Attempting selective breeding of people based on societies disablist attitudes (as displayed in many posts on this thread) is short sighted. A genetic disorder does not make a life worthless - it doesn't even make someone's life worth LESS.
1
reply
Eitakbackwards
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#19
Report 5 years ago
#19
(Original post by DorianGrayism)
So that means almost everyone....
This is so true. It's likely that everyone has something wrong with them genetically, some of us just don't know it yet...
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
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

How did your AQA A-level Business Paper 1 go?

Loved the paper - Feeling positive (189)
22.74%
The paper was reasonable (383)
46.09%
Not feeling great about that exam... (154)
18.53%
It was TERRIBLE (105)
12.64%

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