# Should people with "bad" genes be legally restricted from mating? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 8, 2008, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-people-with-bad-genes-be-legally-restricted-from-mating/444404 "2008-04-08T00:47:31Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2008, 1:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-people-with-bad-genes-be-legally-restricted-from-mating/444404/101 "2008-04-10T01:06:07Z")
The point of what WE’RE saying is that yes, it would begin by targeting genetic diseases that wreak havoc with families and with government aid programs, but there’s no guarantee it would stay there. Once this “positive reproductive incentive” program is in place, nothing is keeping anyone from adding categories. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2008, 4:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-people-with-bad-genes-be-legally-restricted-from-mating/444404/102 "2008-04-10T04:10:11Z")
[QUOTE=Acid Lamp] It is a good idea, In theory. It’s just impractical and contrary to human nature, making it a poor form of government. [/QUOTE] Bingo. Eliminating these diseases is a good idea in theory, but it’s impractical (your universal sterilization idea is even worse in this regard) and a fair application would be contrary to human nature. ---
**Author:** ![monstro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@monstro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monstro)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2008, 11:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-people-with-bad-genes-be-legally-restricted-from-mating/444404/103 "2008-04-10T11:08:54Z")
[QUOTE=jayjay] The point of what WE’RE saying is that yes, it would begin by targeting genetic diseases that wreak havoc with families and with government aid programs, but there’s no guarantee it would stay there. Once this “positive reproductive incentive” program is in place, nothing is keeping anyone from adding categories. [/QUOTE] There’s no guanrantee against any policy escalating to oppression. You shouldn’t incarcerate anyone, since there’s nothing keeping anyone from incarcerating everyone. You shouldn’t start a war against any country, since there’s nothing keeping you from warring against all countries. You shouldn’t make any laws, since there’s nothing keeping you from making insane laws. You shouldn’t ban any drugs, since there’s nothing keeping you from banning all drugs. You shouldn’t ban slavery, since there’s nothing keeping you from banning all kinds of labor. You shouldn’t require parents to provide the basics for their children, since there’s nothing keeping you from dictating every facet of a family’s life. I think government-sactioned genetic screening has too many cons before I could say it would be a good idea. I raised the OP as a way to point out the irrationality of incest laws and the slap the sanctiomony out of some Dopers. What’s good for the incestuous goose is good for the random mating gander, and all that. However, the idea that we would release the flood gates and all hell would break loose doesn’t convince me very much. The government already has the right to kill people. It has control over what we put in our bodies, how we raise our children. It even has major influence over how we make our livelihoods. We can point to current and historical instances where the government oversteps, but we (well, most of us) aren’t living in a gulag. So the screaming and wailing about eugenics sounds hysterical to me. How is saying to someone carrying the gene for Huntingtons, “Hey, you probably shouldn’t be mating without gamete screening” any more oppressive than telling an alcoholic pregnant woman, “Hey, you need to stop damaging your fetus like that.” Both parents are being wreckless if they are carelessly mating. I don’t trust the government. Hell, I trust no institution. But I do like consistency. If we’re going to support preventative medicine as a way to reduce medical costs, and we’re going to support universal health care, and we’re going to say we care about the well-being of children, then it seems we wouldn’t trust fate when it comes to our progeny. This concern doesn’t require aborting fetuses or manipulating genes. It just means being aware of the risks. I don’t like being equated with Hitler just for believing this. ---
**Author:** ![Argent\_Towers](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e8c25b/32.png) [@Argent\_Towers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Argent_Towers)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2008, 11:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-people-with-bad-genes-be-legally-restricted-from-mating/444404/104 "2008-04-10T11:16:23Z")
[QUOTE=appleciders] Extreme shortness? (maybe under 4’0 for women, 4’6" for men?) How about moderate shortness? (say, 4’6" and 5’0"?) [/QUOTE] We need some short people around, mostly to be jockeys or fly very small experimental aircraft. It would be very foolish to remove these people from the gene pool. ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2008, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-people-with-bad-genes-be-legally-restricted-from-mating/444404/105 "2008-04-10T14:53:24Z")
[QUOTE=monstro] I don’t like being equated with Hitler just for believing this. [/QUOTE] Yes you do. Quit lying! ::waits for the warning from **tomndebb** :: ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2008, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-people-with-bad-genes-be-legally-restricted-from-mating/444404/106 "2008-04-10T15:19:05Z")
[QUOTE=monstro] I don’t trust the government. Hell, I trust no institution. But I do like consistency. …I don’t like being equated with Hitler just for believing this. [/QUOTE] Fair enough. But I think you’re putting way too much stock in consistency. That’s nice in a pudding - it has little place in policy or law, which I believe should draw distinctions. “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.” - Emerson ---
**Author:** ![Eben](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/a8b319/32.png) [@Eben](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eben)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2008, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-people-with-bad-genes-be-legally-restricted-from-mating/444404/107 "2008-04-10T16:08:19Z")
Name one person (well two, one male and one female) with nothing but “good” genes. Given that such people exist, noone will pass the test and all people must be kept from breeding. So really the proposal from the OP should be the choice between letting people randomaly breed and complete extinction of the species. Let’s argue those positions instead of the gray area between! -Eben ---
**Author:** ![Anne\_Neville](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Anne\_Neville](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Anne_Neville)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2008, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-people-with-bad-genes-be-legally-restricted-from-mating/444404/108 "2008-04-10T16:21:08Z")
For anyone who thinks Third World governments would enforce this kind of thing fairly and impartially, I’ve got a lovely selection of bridges with views of downtown Pittsburgh available. Could you really see someone like Robert Mugabe applying a eugenics policy fairly and impartially to improve the genetic health of Zimbabweans? I can’t. Many Third World countries are well known for having problems with government corruption, and I can’t see how giving the government more power is going to help with that. At best, you’d have people paying bribes to be allowed to have children regardless of their genetic health. I understand something like this goes on in China with the one-child policy. At worst, you’d have the policy applied to get rid of a racial, ethnic, or religious group (I could easily see someone like Mugabe doing this to get rid of white people in Zimbabwe). > [@Acid Lamp](#): > > Screening for genetic diseases like down syndrome You _can’t_ screen genetically for Down syndrome. It’s not inherited (with rare exceptions). It’s the result of a mutation. There aren’t carriers for Down syndrome like there are for hemophilia. The only way you can screen for the vast majority of cases of Down syndrome is during pregnancy. A lot of the causes of mental retardation that you listed aren’t genetic, either. Fetal alcohol syndrome, malnutrition, and iodine deficiency obviously aren’t. > [@monstro](#): > > If we’re going to support preventative medicine I support preventive medicine. What I don’t support is _forcing_ someone to undergo a medical procedure against their will, with the exception of contagious diseases (and even then, we should limit what we force them to do as much as possible- if forcing them to live in quarantine would be enough to protect everyone else, that’s all we should do, not force them to take antibiotics or whatever as well). That applies whether the medical procedure is preventive or intended to treat a disease. Make screening available and affordable for genetic conditions. Don’t let insurance companies discriminate based on it (that prevents a lot of people from getting genetic screenings now). Rely on the fact that the overwhelming majority of parents don’t _want_ to have a child with a genetic disease. You hear about the exceptions, like the woman who was having kid after kid until she got one without CF, but that’s because they’re unusual, not because that sort of thing is common. ---
**Author:** ![Annie-Xmas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecc23a/32.png) [@Annie-Xmas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Annie-Xmas)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2008, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-people-with-bad-genes-be-legally-restricted-from-mating/444404/109 "2008-04-10T16:53:31Z")
Which genetic traits are we going to declare bad? When Johnny Winter was born an albino to two people with no history of albinism in either family, should they have been restricted from having another child? Then Edgar Winter wouldn’t have been born, and the world would have missed out on some good music. If Lon Cheney’s deaf parents had been legally restricted from mating, the world would have lost a talented actor. The ONLY people who should decided whether they should mate or not are the people directly involved. They should also have the legal option to abort an handicapped child. The ONLY time the gummit should interfer is in cases of child neglect or abuse. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2008, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-people-with-bad-genes-be-legally-restricted-from-mating/444404/110 "2008-04-10T18:06:36Z")
[QUOTE=monstro] There’s no guanrantee against any policy escalating to oppression. [/QUOTE] No, but some government policies are much more likely to do so than others. ---
**Author:** ![mlees](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@mlees](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mlees)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2008, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-people-with-bad-genes-be-legally-restricted-from-mating/444404/111 "2008-04-10T18:28:01Z")
> [@Acid Lamp](#): > > Penalty? That assumes a transgression and fault. What you have is a mistake of nature, a defective or damaged embryo that will have a severely limited experience, and be a burden upon the parents and society. Why anyone would choose to deliberately produce such an offspring is beyond me. One of the keystone arguments in pro-choice abortion is that “It’s our bodies, and we have a right (to procreate or not) to decide for ourselves what we’re going to do with it. The government has no right to make an arbitrary decision for me, and should stay out of the bedroom.” Should this not apply to everyone? Having (or NOT having) children should be entirely up to the choice of the individual parents. IMO, noone should have to get a permit from the government to do this. I don’t mind the government providing _information_ to couples who are concerned about the genetic consequences of a pairing, but the final decision should not rest with anyone other than that couple. That’s the definition of “freedom”, and “pursuit of happiness”. > [@Acid Lamp](#): > > You are right, our current model is far superior, where people can have as many kids as they like, regardless of their ability to care for them. It’s better for governments to pass out wellfare, and international agencies to provide relief, rather than countries controlling their populations and resources. Can’t you see how this penalises the poor? Only the rich elite should be allowed to have babies? > [@you with the face](#): > > To the last issue, I think monstro made a good point earlier that I’ll reiterate. Why does it seem like we are quick to assume the government will suddenly go all Nazi Aryan nation on us if they are allowed to restrict our reproductive habits? Checks and balances presumable would still apply. They wouldn’t have carte blanche to do whatever they’d want, and any restrictions imposed would still have to be vetted and ratified and all that constitutional jazz. With all the wailing and gnashing of teeth about how BushCo. conducts warrantless wiretaps, imprisonment without trials, and so on, I’m surprised you say this. > [@Acid Lamp](#): > > It’s not my fault that the third world is made up primarily of non Caucasian racial groups that have been taken advantage of in the past by imperialist Caucasians. right. It’s their fault for being poor, and born in the wrong place and time. \>\< > [@Acid Lamp](#): > > My proposal has nothing to do with race, ethnic group, culture or any other criteria than genetic diseases, and unwanted pregnancies. Those areas have terrible problems, many of which could be addressed if they got their populations under control. While you may harbor no racist agenda, your proposal still carries the same effect. ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2008, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-people-with-bad-genes-be-legally-restricted-from-mating/444404/112 "2008-04-10T18:38:43Z")
> [@mless](#): > > With all the wailing and gnashing of teeth about how BushCo. conducts warrantless wiretaps, imprisonment without trials, and so on, I’m surprised you say this. Imprisonment without trials and warrantless wiretaps are decried specifically _because_ they bypass our checks and balances system. So if I was arguing the executive branch should be able to conduct its reproductive interventions in the absence of judicial and congressional oversight, then maybe you’d have a valid reason for being surprised. ---
**Author:** ![mlees](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@mlees](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mlees)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2008, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-people-with-bad-genes-be-legally-restricted-from-mating/444404/113 "2008-04-10T19:21:27Z")
[QUOTE=you with the face] Imprisonment without trials and warrantless wiretaps are decried specifically _because_ they bypass our checks and balances system. So if I was arguing the executive branch should be able to conduct its reproductive interventions in the absence of judicial and congressional oversight, then maybe you’d have a valid reason for being surprised. [/QUOTE] That’s **mlees** , not **mless**. 😉 My point is that even _with_ the checks and balances real or implied in the US’s current government, transgressions can/may still occur. Your assurances that the checks and balances we have will prevent inequities in a government controlled pregnancy permit program do not work for me. IIRC, variants of the Jim Crow laws prevented folks (mainly blacks) who could not read and write from voting. Apparently, complex societal decisions should not be left in the hands of someone unable to even read about them, right? ---
**Author:** ![Kyrie\_Eleison](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kyrie_eleison/32/7682_2.png) [@Kyrie\_Eleison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kyrie_Eleison)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2008, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-people-with-bad-genes-be-legally-restricted-from-mating/444404/114 "2008-04-10T20:23:33Z")
It’s apparent that many are concerned about the ethical and practical problems of implementing the proposed scheme, and others, less so. But few objections have been raised to the underlying principle though. Put aside ethical and practical considerations for a moment. Is the idea even a fundamentally good one? We’re essentially talking about a selective breeding program for humans, which necessarily means reducing human genetic variation. The same genetic mutation that causes sickle cell anemia confers protection against malaria. Do any other genetic diseases also confer benefits under some circumstances? I’d hate to discover a little too late that we’d bred out of the population the gene that once provided some with immunity to the next plague because it also caused excessive sneezing. Do we really want government, even a benign and well-intentioned government, to manage human evolution? ---
**Author:** ![Eben](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/a8b319/32.png) [@Eben](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eben)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2008, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-people-with-bad-genes-be-legally-restricted-from-mating/444404/115 "2008-04-10T21:17:18Z")
[QUOTE=Kyrie Eleison] It’s apparent that many are concerned about the ethical and practical problems of implementing the proposed scheme, and others, less so. But few objections have been raised to the underlying principle though. Put aside ethical and practical considerations for a moment. Is the idea even a fundamentally good one? [/QUOTE] I refer you back to my previous [post](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=9674028&postcount=107). Unless there is a pair of people (well really a sizeable breeding population) completely free from any genetic defects (by whatever standard we decide constitutes a defect) then the program is impossible. -Eben ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2008, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-people-with-bad-genes-be-legally-restricted-from-mating/444404/116 "2008-04-10T21:17:55Z")
[QUOTE=mlees] That’s **mlees** , not **mless**. 😉 My point is that even _with_ the checks and balances real or implied in the US’s current government, transgressions can/may still occur. [/quote] Of course. But the thing that’s frustrating in this debate is that the mere potentiality that transgressions can/may occur is being portrayed as rock solid proof that the government has no place controlling who may and who may not reproduce. And when I assert that this fallibility applies to _everything_ the government does, that point seems to be ignored or dismissed for no good reason. I mean, our government actually _kills_ people, either through capital punishment or through military force. Now personally, I’d much rather the government make a screw-up that leaves me sterilized than have it wrongfully kill me, but that’s not even the point. The point is that the slippery slope argument, as compelling as it may seem from a emotional standpoint, doesn’t really work intellectually. > [@](#): > > Your assurances that the checks and balances we have will prevent inequities in a government controlled pregnancy permit program do not work for me. I’d be a naive fool if I assured any such thing. Slavery, hello? > [@](#): > > IIRC, variants of the Jim Crow laws prevented folks (mainly blacks) who could not read and write from voting. Apparently, complex societal decisions should not be left in the hands of someone unable to even read about them, right? Yeah, bad laws get passed all the time. That’s been happening since laws were created. So what do we do? Stop making laws? That essentially seems to be where your argument takes us. I’d also like to point out that government already controls who may and who may not reproduce (incest is a crime in the US). So we are already slip sliding away on that slippery slope, yall. I’m just sayin’. ---
**Author:** ![mlees](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@mlees](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mlees)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2008, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-people-with-bad-genes-be-legally-restricted-from-mating/444404/117 "2008-04-10T21:59:09Z")
[QUOTE=you with the face] Of course. But the thing that’s frustrating in this debate is that the mere potentiality that transgressions can/may occur is being portrayed as rock solid proof that the government has no place controlling who may and who may not reproduce. [/quote] Isn’t “reproductive rights” part of the pro-choice argument in the abortion debates? Isn’t the argument that the government has no place telling a woman what she may do with her body? > [@you with the face](#): > > And when I assert that this fallibility applies to _everything_ the government does, that point seems to be ignored or dismissed for no good reason. That is the whole point behind the “slippery slope” arguments in the first place. The government is not perfect… otherwise, why would we need a Bill Of Rights? Please consider: The right to pro-create is pretty fundamental (you might say it’s even instinctive) to a lot of people. Any law that touches on this is going to hit pretty close to home with those people, in a profound manner. It will do so much more than something that is _not_ instinctual, like say, the government regulating the use of automobiles. This is why you see the passion with which you see people defending their “right” to have children (or NOT have them), free from government intrusion. It _is_ an intrusion if: 1. The government forces sterilization of people with “unhealthy/undesirable” genes; 2. The government mandates birth control usage; or 1. The government requires it’s citizens to seek permission to have babies via some permit, or pass a mandated medical test, or, in the case of mandated birth control, via reversal of the birth control measures. ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2008, 1:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-people-with-bad-genes-be-legally-restricted-from-mating/444404/118 "2008-04-11T13:14:22Z")
[QUOTE=mlees] Isn’t “reproductive rights” part of the pro-choice argument in the abortion debates? Isn’t the argument that the government has no place telling a woman what she may do with her body? [/quote] Only the last of these two questions is really relevant when it comes to the legalization of abortion. “Reproductive rights” is not because if it was, then men would be able to inflict an abortion on a woman without penalty. Even still, outlawing abortion is not necessarily comparable to government restrictions on reproduction (which already exist!). Assuming that any interventions must take the form of sterilization is like assuming any interventions to stop people from smoking must take the form of executing smokers. That’s paranoia. > [@](#): > > That is the whole point behind the “slippery slope” arguments in the first place. The government is not perfect… otherwise, why would we need a Bill Of Rights? So why not abandon the government concept altogether? This is the fatal flaw of your argument. > [@](#): > > Please consider: The right to pro-create is pretty fundamental (you might say it’s even instinctive) to a lot of people. Any law that touches on this is going to hit pretty close to home with those people, in a profound manner. Which gets us to the crux here: this debate is influenced by emotion and not necessarily reason. The “right” to procreate is treated as a given that is not to be questioned without inciting a battle, while other “rights” (e.g. life) are allowed to be suspended under certain circumstances. > [@](#): > > This is why you see the passion with which you see people defending their “right” to have children (or NOT have them), free from government intrusion. It _is_ an intrusion if: I agree that these all are intrusions. Just because something is an intrusion doesn’t make it wrong, though. And simply asserting that it’s wrong doesn’t make it wrong, either. ---
**Author:** ![mlees](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@mlees](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mlees)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2008, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-people-with-bad-genes-be-legally-restricted-from-mating/444404/119 "2008-04-11T14:22:57Z")
[QUOTE=you with the face] Only the last of these two questions is really relevant when it comes to the legalization of abortion. “Reproductive rights” is not because if it was, then men would be able to inflict an abortion on a woman without penalty. [/quote] You are changing the meaning of the term to be different from that which I know it. (I have never heard it used in regards to the fathers.) I will not debate this, because I did not assert it. > [@you with the face](#): > > Even still, outlawing abortion is not necessarily comparable to government restrictions on reproduction (which already exist!). Assuming that any interventions must take the form of sterilization is like assuming any interventions to stop people from smoking must take the form of executing smokers. That’s paranoia. From the OP himself: > [@monstro](#): > > We may get savvy enough so that we can select gametes with the smallest number of these genes (or do more sophisticated manipulations), but at the very least one day we will be able to profile ourselves and find out, from a list of the top 10 most common genetic conditions, which ones we carry. Should this be the case, will the state feel compelled to get involved in this process (i.e., requiring a profile to get a marriage certificate)? and > [@monstro](#): > > Do you think the government should look the other way if an alcoholic mother produces one child after another with fetal alcohol syndrome? What about a crack or meth-addicted mother, or one who has children knowing that she has HIV? If these children are going to be burdens of the state, either through foster care or Medicare, then doesn’t the state have an obligation to the tax payer to see to it that their numbers are as small as possible? If you say yes, then why shouldn’t we be held accountable in a similar fashion for the genetic time bombs we knowingly carry? The OP himself seems to be arguing for defacto mandated birth control. As I believe was said before (by me or others), the only way for the government to prevent these economic/societal burdens from happening in a proactive way is with mandated birth control (which must take the form of tamperproof devices or operations, so that people can’t “forget” to wear their condom), permits/licences for permission to bear children, and jail or fines for folks who violate the statute (regardless whether or not the actual child from an unlicenced union is healthy). > [@you with the face](#): > > So why not abandon the government concept altogether? This is the fatal flaw of your argument. Because we _do_ trust our government to some extent. If enough people had zero faith in the current government, it would fail and fall just from lack of cooperation from the citizens. Our faith in the U.S. government is greater than zero, but it is not limitless. You seem to be saying that our faith in government _must_ be limitless, or it must be zero, with no room for the middle ground. > [@you with the face](#): > > Which gets us to the crux here: this debate is influenced by emotion and not necessarily reason. The “right” to procreate is treated as a given that is not to be questioned without inciting a battle, while other “rights” (e.g. life) are allowed to be suspended under certain circumstances. So? People have used emotion for decision making all the time, and most people muddle along just fine. emotions are part of the human pysche. To ignore them, or to try to mandate them away, is a mistake, IMO. For example, we have laws for the humane treatment of our animal possesions. (Pets, farm animals, etc.) why have laws that may jail someone who decides to allow their pet cat to starve? We do so because we choose to be a compassionate society, which is entirely emotion based. > [@you with the face](#): > > I agree that these all are intrusions. Just because something is an intrusion doesn’t make it wrong, though. And simply asserting that it’s wrong doesn’t make it wrong, either. Simply _asserting_ it’s right doesn’t make it so either. The arguments, up to this point, in favor of government approved pro-creation have solely been based on the economic considerations to society. While those economic burdens exist, they are ones that society has chosen to take on, because this society wishes to be a compassionate one. If you wish to reverse the current setup (and convince people to give up a “right” they feel they enjoy now), you must put forth argument(s) that is/are stronger _as perceived by the people_ of whom you are asking to change their lifestyle and let go of valued, or charished, "freedoms. So far, the “economic burden” argument does not overpower the desire to be a compassionate society, and our desires to have freedom with our reproductive activities. ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2008, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-people-with-bad-genes-be-legally-restricted-from-mating/444404/120 "2008-04-11T15:22:29Z")
[QUOTE=mlees] From the OP himself: [/quote] Right, she ( **monstro** is female) has recognized that government intervention could take multiple forms. Sterilization is the ultimate extreme. There’s no need for the debate to be fixated on that end of the spectrum without conceding the possible role of other measures. > [@](#): > > The OP himself seems to be arguing for defacto mandated birth control. As I believe was said before (by me or others), the only way for the government to prevent these economic/societal burdens from happening in a proactive way is with mandated birth control (which must take the form of tamperproof devices or operations, so that people can’t “forget” to wear their condom), permits/licences for permission to bear children, and jail or fines for folks who violate the statute (regardless whether or not the actual child from an unlicenced union is healthy). Two of these three things doesn’t involve sterilization, which is my point. You also neglect an a four option here: making free reproduction the normal default _only_ to be suspended in situations where it’s recognized (through a couple’s blood test at marriage or whatever) that there’s a high risk of producing a child with a genetic disease that the government considers a no-no. And in such a case, there may not even be a need to sterilize anyone or lock anyone up. Just require the couple to be counseled or undergo gamete screening or some in vitro shit like that. > [@](#): > > You seem to be saying that our faith in government _must_ be limitless, or it must be zero, with no room for the middle ground. Actually, I’m all about looking at the middle ground. The “it’s eugenics therefore it’s bad” argument rests on the belief that with respect to government and reproductive rights, anything less than free, untethered procreation is completely unacceptable. Black and white, in other words. > [@](#): > > Simply _asserting_ it’s right doesn’t make it so either. The arguments, up to this point, in favor of government approved pro-creation have solely been based on the economic considerations to society. While those economic burdens exist, they are ones that society has chosen to take on, because this society wishes to be a compassionate one. I’m not asserting that the government should take up the mantle of this “cause”. But one can be against the idea in principle (as I am) and still find the anti-arguments lacking in consistency and reason (as I do). Which is why I’ve been the Devils Advocate in this discussion. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-people-with-bad-genes-be-legally-restricted-from-mating/444404.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-people-with-bad-genes-be-legally-restricted-from-mating/444404.md?page=7)