Heh, well since there hasn’t been a good stake burning in a while, that reminds me of some others I can think of.
We don’t need a whole lot of things that the government provides. Society would still be able to survive without the FDA, for instance. But we allow the government to regulate the drugs we use, the food we eat, and the biomedical devices we insert inside our bodies. Drawing the “oh my god no!” line at reproductive rights seems a bit arbitrary, is what I’m saying.
Has the idea of restricting reproductive rights ever been practiced based on public health, disease-prevention principles (and NOT ideology), in a society governed by democratic laws and protections?
Lest anyone be confused, I’m not advocating that the government dictate who breeds and who doesn’t or anything close to that. I just find the arguments often offered against any kind of government intervention rather weak and knee jerky. Appeals to the slippery slope argument leave me unconvinced.
Good responses.
As I said in the OP, I can see both sides of the debate, though I do think some of the points being raised verge on the paranoid.
My major problem with it all is that we will never be able to understand just how wonderfully complex and unpredictable our genes are. By eliminating some “bad” alleles, we may indirectly eliminate “good” ones (see linkage disequilibrium). Also, gene combinations can amoleriate the impact of bad alleles. For instance, we occassionally hear about people with Down’s Syndrome who graduate from college. There’s also no doubt that environment plays a big role. We probably all carry a suite of mutant alleles, most of which are harmless only because we haven’t encountered the right trigger yet.
But I’m having a hard time not equating genetic screening with a kind of basic preventative medicine. With rising health costs, all of us are going to start thinking about ways to maintain good health–whether that be watching our diets, increasing our activity levels, or getting regular check-ups. If we get universal health care (and I hope we do), then the government will have even more motivation to get us healthier. And I don’t think there’s anything inherently wrong with this. Health problems are societal problems. They affect every facet of our system, from education to the economy.
I don’t think the government should punish people if they knowingly pass on bad traits, but I don’t have a problem with it rewarding those who decide to be conscientious.
I initially said ‘yes,’ but maybe you would consider this ideological instead of for public health reasons.
Here is the Supreme Court ruling Buck v. Bell (1927), which upheld the sterilization of the mentally retarded. Quoting from the verdict, which I think was 8-1 in favor:
Well fortunately for you, the US government has no reason to make genetic screening mandatory. You aren’t covered by a nationalized health care system increasingly burdened by surviving handicapped progeny. But I expect, sooner or later, when the technology is available That insurance companies will require a genetic screen test prior to granting coverage .
There are many folks here that know the science better than I do, and can discuss the certainty of genetic events occurring far better than I. But I find the assumption that certain genetic issues are always a burden in every instance a bit troubling.
Disability is an open-access, anyone-can-enter-at-any-time status. One accident or illness can place you there temporarily or permanently. In our lifetimes we’ve seen innovation in any number of fields treating the effects and causes of disease and disability. And knowing some people who have family members with Down’s, or other similar disorders, the initial “what a tragedy has befallen us” shock often transforms over time to “what a blessing it has been for us to have this person in our life.” Not always, and not every moment, but I think the diversity of human experiences, of love, of empathy, the strength of will, and so forth makes it impossible to determine that the person coming into the world will not overcome their physical/mental limitations - or even inspire those of us fortunate enough not to have those challenges.
I certainly think people need to determine for themselves what’s best. A family that’s had a history of a genetically-passed down disorder that makes life hellish might want to get genetic counseling, and that’s fine. But I agree that government is the probably the worst entity to decide what’s acceptable as far as life and what isn’t. And perhaps it is a shrill overreaction, but it’s not inconceivable that minority persons - in the political sense - will suffer greatly while the majority fashions policy that favors their interests.
Think about an organization like Special Olympics - would the attention and funding for this organization exist unless wealthy, well-connected people like the Kennedys had no people with disabilities in their families?
Define “need”. Millions would have died without it. From contaminated food, poisoning from bad drugs, epidemics due to vaccines and antibiotics not working, people dying due to being too terrified of doctors to seek help, riots and terrorism from people who’d take the law into their own hands when the government refused to help. We’d be far worse off, and might well not survive, depending of the plagues involved.
It’s not arbitrary; it’s based on what’s happened historically.
Yes, here. That’s what led to so many thousands being sterilized.
It’s not a slippery slope; it’s a cliff. Every time it’s been tried, it’s gone right to the abuses, as far as I’ve ever heard.
It occurs to me every time this is brought up that those who advocate for government control of reproduction never really imagine that the government might decide that THEY (or their sister or brother or partner or cousin,etc) might end up being denied that privilege. Are you really content to be told by some bureaucrat behind a desk at some theoretical DRP (Department of Reproductive Permissions) that “You aren’t allowed to have a baby”? Are you really content for your sister to be told that?
I saw a thing on T.V. about a couple who had produced three children with Cystic Fibrosis,poor little sods,and the mother was pregnant again.
I got the impression that they were going to keep on pumping out babies until they got one without C.F.
It struck me that the parents were arrogant and selfish,more interested in perpetuating their own brand of immortality then worrying about those kids having to endure such an unpleasant condition for,I assume the rest of their lives.
Yes.
If eliminating Homeless children, Kids who go from family to family, facility to facility, mental, physical, and sexual abuse, abject poverty, and genetic diseases means a few eggs get cracked along the way; I’m all for it.
Those who want children who cannot meet a genetic screen can always adopt, or enrich the lives of a child as a mentor.
Keep in mind I’m still playing Devil’s Advocate.
Few people stop to consider the fairness of a whole lot of things until it is they who are being held subject to the rule or law. Take, for instance, the guy with multi-drug resistant TB last year. I’m sure prior to his diagnosis, he would have joined many others in saying that anyone with that kind of TB strain should be quarantined, for the good of public health. But when he actually became Public Health Enemy Number 1, he freakin’ flew all over the world in a panic. And the poor guy was eviscerated by a lot of unsympathetic people who felt as if he endangered others with his rash, self-absorbed decision.
Is it a good idea to base public policy on the idea that none of us, as individuals, would welcome the government’s intrusion into our lives like this? Is this concern considered valid in any realm other than reproduction?
Yes, I do consider that ideological; the reference to crime reduction is a major tipoff. I see a difference between diseases/ syndromes that clearly been shown to have a genetic basis and are known to cause a great deal of suffering to the individual, and conditions only vaguely ascribed genetics which haven’t been shown to cause negative health outcomes.
You are truly ignorant of history, aren’t you?
Are you even aware of who said “a few eggs must be broken” historically, and in much the same context as you are using it - the quest for a utopian or near-utopian society?
I’ll be back in a while. This is an open-book test, but even so I half expect you not to have the answer. 
Enough. I’ve made my motivations for my position quite clear, It should be obvious by this point that I don’t consider the historical abuse of power a good enough reason to abandon a reasonable partial solution to many global issues. I believe that if we could find the fortitude to abandon our selfishness for a few years, that we could get a decent control on a lot of problems. The fact that you seem unable to allow the past to be the past is the type of mindset that is holding everyone back. There are few people alive today who were involved in the holocaust, and within ten to fifteen years they will most likely all be dead. There are plenty of lessons to be learned from that terrible regime, but if we do not allow it to DIE then we will never be able to move on properly. The Merit of an idea should be judged on it’s own, not conflated with a misapplication.
Lenin, btw, commenting on the Jacobians in the French Revolution.
If you think the Holocaust is going to be forgotten, ever, you’re sadly mistaken. There is no memory of any people on this earth longer than the memory of the Jewish people. As long as there are Jews, the Holocaust will be remembered.
And I start to get nervous, as a gay man, when people start talking about things like eugenics as a “misapplication” of a good idea.
That’s sort of funny, because your comments about eugenics remind me of the way people say Communism is a good idea that’s just been misapplied. You know, “in theory…”
It is a good idea, In theory. It’s just impractical and contrary to human nature, making it a poor form of government.
I didn’t say forgotten, I said let it die. It means putting it behind us, taking the lessons learned and applying them, without inculcating guilt. It means being big enough to sweep aside the bad stuff, and evaluate the good on it’s own merit outside of historical context.
I thin we need a better term than Eugenics here. That word is so racially loaded that it is hindering the entire discussion. Screening for genetic diseases like down syndrome and hemophilia is a far cry from screening gay gametes. It is a hell of long way from supporting racism, or ethnic cleansing. I’m talking about things that effect humans, regardless of race, religion, or culture. What’s wrong with putting a stop to unwanted accidental pregnancies? What’s wrong with wanting to create a sustainable, stable population in poverty-ridden countries? Nothing, except human selfishness to preserve some amorphous freedom to procreate regardless of their ability to care for the offspring. Yes, it won’t prevent that young girl in Burundi from getting raped, but it would prevent her from conceiving, and being forced to abandon any hope of education or a better life for having to care for her unwanted children. It would give people a chance to become stable and independent before they CHOOSE to have children. It would mean that each child was a true choice made hopefully with love and responsibility, rather than the product of ignorance about their own bodies.
Pardon me for caring,
Acid.
Eugenics by another name is still eugenics. And if you read about it, its proponents by and large were progressive sorts like you who really wanted to help people.