Should people with "high risk" genes suffer genocide?

[Must_B_Free]

Do they have a right to procreate? After all they are just a burden to society, right? (playing devil's advocate, here)

People with a genetic disposition towards alcoholism or other negative afflictions - aren't they just a problem? Should they be sterilized so they don't create future alcoholics who might drive a car into your child?

What will our rights be genetically? Is it like domain names? Do we have to patent our own now, before someone else gets them and charges us to posses them?

[lapfog_1]

1. I think you already have your answer

Who decides what genetic traits are "negative"?
And do any negative genes carry any positive traits?

[underseasurveyor]

2. Fuck No

No sentient being deserves to have their fate determined by what their genes contain or what they may lack.

If fate and destiny are predetermined based on genetics, what use is there for the wonderous, unknown paths, struggles, choices and journeys of life :shrug:

Square peg in square hole. Round peg in round hole. Boring, unfulfilling, predictable = lifeless.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

3. Isn't that kinda what... you know.... HITLER wanted to do?

Eugenics?

(Never mind.... I just read your Devil's Advocate disclaimer)

:toast:

[Gwerlain]

13. You read my mind.

Anybody see Gattaca?

[tibbir]

4. I have bipolar disorder bad enough that the depression side

forced me to sell a succesful CPA practice 10 years ago. I'm on disability still.

I had my son a decade before I was diagnosed so I never had to face the very difficult question of genetic counseling. Would I have had a child had I known that I have bipolar disorder, knowing that my child would have a genetic predisposition to acquire it? Probably,
but I wouldn't have more than one. Not because of the fear of them developing it but because I wouldn't feel like I could take care of two children the way they ought to be while struggling with manic depression. It was hard enough with one child, especially since I'm a single parent.

My nineteen year old son is simply a treasure. He did well in high school and is now a productive guy working diligently at his job. He hasn't exhibited any signs of bipolar disorder yet but it'd likely start in his twenties if he's going to get it. If he does develop bipolar I count on the fact that his would be caught and treated much earlier than mine - and the treatment options are getting better all the time.

All that to say, I really don't buy into the idea of forcing steriliztion on a person because he/she has something that can be passed on to their children. What illnesses or disorders would be picked - and by whom?

[Must_B_Free]

5. first off, insurance companies will decline you coverage

employers will also refuse to hire you, for the same reason - increased insurance claims.

The "free market" will essentially push people with genetic defects to the lower rungs of society where they will not be able to afford medical coverage and will die more quickly.

if I recall correctly, I believe Bush changed something about the HIPAA regulation to the effect that you don't have privacy? I know your records are confidential to individuals, but I am not sure they are confidential to things like institutions and insurers.

[autorank]

7. Excellent points!!!

I hope you get some help with the bipolar disorder and I'm glad you enjoy your son, all the proof you need that the 'brave new world' of genetic triage is absurd. If we look back at history and subtract those with bipolar disorder, we would be absent many of our greatest cultural achievements.

[autorank]

6. Are you out of your fucking mind? What a question. Hawking?!?!

[REP]

8. People Should Make Their Own Decisions

And they should give those decisions long, serious thought instead of just thinking they're entitled to whatever they want, and instead realize they're making decisions that will effect the life of another person, perhaps in terrible ways.

[TexasBushwhacker]

9. A genetic predisposition is not a guarantee

Alcoholism runs on my dad's side of the family, but I don't have to worry about being an alcoholic because I DON'T DRINK. A person who is predisposed to heart disease can take extra good care of themselves and go in for regular check ups. Even a woman who inherits the BCRA gene that increases the chances of breast and ovarian cancer can have her ovaries removed as a precaution. Some women even choose to have a prophylatic mastectomy and breast reconstruction, rather than live with the risk of the faulty gene.

While I personally have a problem with someone who would have children even though they know they are the carrier of a genetic disease, especially if it's a dominant gene which means the risk to the child is 50%, that's not my choice to make. We don't force women to have abortions if they're carrying a fetus with a birth defect. Choice is choice.

[Must_B_Free]

10. its not about your personal choice

its about discrimination against you, regardless of your personal choices. The insurers only use statistics. Genes predict statistics.

[TexasBushwhacker]

15. Uh, your original question was about procreation

But now that you bring up insurers, I will say that discrimination is one of the reasons I think we should have a basic national health care plan. Everyone that works pays into it, just like Social Security and Medicare.

[flaminbats]

11. only if Bush supports it..

after all, why should those with the wrong genes have the same Constitutional rights as the rest of us? :eyes:

[DoNotRefill]

12. If somebody tries to tell me I can't procreate because of bad genes...

they're going to be entered in the Darwin Awards.

[CHIMO]

14. I Wonder

Where the dinosaurs went wrong?