Should people with "bad" genes be legally restricted from mating?

[mlees]

@you with the face

Right, she (monstro is female)

oops. Thanks for the heads up. Sorry, monstro!

@you with the face

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.

That doesn’t sound like a new fourth option to me. (As in, different from my option number 3.)

You must get permission (by submitting your blood test as proof that you don’t have the genetic markers) to have a child, right? (This fits option 3.)

If the blood test shows a certain percentage chance of a birth defect, permision is denied to have the child, correct? (This leads to option 2.)

If the chance of passing on a birth defect equals 100%, then this leads to option 1, does it not?

I do not suspect, at this time, that the government would force an abortion in this case. The government may just levy fines.

So the rich can ignore the law, the poor get screwed.

What if the fines were not found to be a deterent? Isn’t it possible that jail time be substituted for fines (or for repeat offenders)?

@you with the face

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.

What if the embryo was found to carry markers that indicated that the child (who was not “approved” through the mandated blood screening beforehand) would be severely handicapped?

Remember: The purpose of the law (as stated by the OP) is to prevent an undue financial burden upon society that such a child may bring with it.

Without some “carrot and stick” approach, folks would effectively ignore the law, roll the dice, and have the baby.

@you with the face

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.

I think the middle ground would be to provide the tests to those who want them, and leave the choice to the prospective parents.

@you with the face

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.

You think it’s unreasonable to fear the “unintended consequences” of granting the government the power of deciding who gets to have kids, and who doesn’t?

[you_with_the_face]

@mlees

You think it’s unreasonable to fear the “unintended consequences” of granting the government the power of deciding who gets to have kids, and who doesn’t?

Not when the fear is posed in the form of sloppy slippery slope arguments, paranoia, and emotional appeals about the sanctity of reproduction. The idea that the government, with this power, could somehow leap frog into fascist Brave New World territory is not persuasive to me. This even though I’m well aware that the government is less than perfect.

What if the fines were not found to be a deterent? Isn’t it possible that jail time be substituted for fines (or for repeat offenders)?

These are good logistical questions that relate to how restrictions could be implemented and enforced, and are actually the type of arguments against the idea that resonate with me. I think the costs of carrying out restrictions would greatly outweigh the benefits, and that’s the main reason why I’d be against it. If there was a simple, cheap, and enforceable way of keeping couples who have a 50% chance of having children with horrible diseases, I’d probably be for the government imparting at least some influence to prevent this from happening.

Does anyone know what happens to sibling couples who have children together? Are they fined or jailed? Just curious to know what extent consensual incest is persecuted in the US.

[Lust4Life]

@monstro

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.

Very good post and I totally agree with every point that you’ve made.

[Anomalous_Reading]

I’ve got a simple answer. Other than my previously stated slippery slope point - the government can stay the [ahem] HECK out of my bedroom. Consenting adults and all of that. The gov’t has no business, imo, tending to who I have sex with - and when.

Let me follow on by saying ewwww to incest. But I stand by my principle.

[Lust4Life]

@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.

Oh Purleeeeeese!

And there was no guarentee that when England brought in a professional police force for the first time in its history that it wouldn’t become an instrument of political oppression,which is what many English people thought might happen at the time.

The "Fill space here "doesn’t guarrante etc.etc. has got to be one of the silliest arguments going,if we bring in an anti littering law it doesn’t guuarrantee that we wont bring in laws to send Jews en masse to the gas chambers,it doesn’t guarentee that my local football team will win next week.

Give me a breakfor gods sake.

Of course it would be a much better idea to let people have children willy nilly,alcoholics,drug dependants,morons ,idiots,aids infected parents ,after all theres no guarantee that we wouldn’t …

[Anomalous_Reading]

Ok… how would one ensure that licenses to mate be given?

It seems a lot easier to restrain police than people. Especially where sex is involved.

Heck, can you imagine a “I don’t remember his name”? How would that work???

[monstro]

@mlees

The OP himself seems to be arguing for defacto mandated birth control.

Actually, no I don’t. But just because I’m not arguing this position doesn’t mean that I think it’s a bad idea across the board. There seems to be a undercurrent of black and white morality when it comes to any discussion about genes and reproduction. It’s unfortunate.

If we were going to have a policy, I think one based on incentive would be better than one on punishment. I see nothing wrong with the government (or another institution) providing free genetic counseling for prospective parents. Perhaps to act as a safeguard, genetic screening would be limited to the top ten most lethal and debilitating genetic diseases. If the profile comes up clean for those, then the couple can go home happy. If there is a problem found, then the consultation can continue onto discussions of gamate selection or something else. Or the couple can go home and have as many babies as they want. But at least they know what risks they are in store for. I’m pretty sure most conscientious parents would appreciate that knowledge.

Yes, this would open some floodgates. Private insurers might use genetic profiles to deny coverage to people (and in that case, laws can be passed to stop this from happening), or they might charge higher premiums on people who turn up “positive” for something (an argument for universal health coverage). You might see couples sueing genetic counselors for mistakes. You might also see increases in abortions and abuses of gamete selection. But I believe these kinds of things are going to happen anyway, whether the government is involved or not. They are scary to us now, but for our children and grandchildren, it will just be how things work.

[MrDibble]

@Lust4Life

And there was no guarentee that when England brought in a professional police force for the first time in its history that it wouldn’t become an instrument of political oppression,which is what many English people thought might happen at the time.

And it hasn’t? Spoken like someone who’s never been on the wrong side of a truncheon charge.

[monstro]

@MrDibble

And it hasn’t? Spoken like someone who’s never been on the wrong side of a truncheon charge.

I think Lust4Life’s point is that no one seriously advocates disbanding police forces, even though they can (and have been) used as oppressive tools. Just because something can be misused is not enough reason to condemn it.

I don’t know how I feel about Lust4Life and me agreeing with each other. The four horsemen can’t be that far behind.

[Acid_Lamp]

@monstro

If we were going to have a policy, I think one based on incentive would be better than one on punishment. I see nothing wrong with the government (or another institution) providing free genetic counseling for prospective parents. Perhaps to act as a safeguard, genetic screening would be limited to the top ten most lethal and debilitating genetic diseases. If the profile comes up clean for those, then the couple can go home happy. If there is a problem found, then the consultation can continue onto discussions of gamate selection or something else. Or the couple can go home and have as many babies as they want. But at least they know what risks they are in store for. I’m pretty sure most conscientious parents would appreciate that knowledge.

It would be easiest to implement an incentive only program, with the ability to take advantage of as many tiers as they choose.

For example: Let’s say that those parents who choose to undergo screening, and have their child undergo the reversible sterilization would be eligible for a special incentive. They can claim an additional tax credit which is placed in a govt. managed 401 k type account, which the govt. will chip into up to a certain amount per year. The account is maintained until the age of majority. At that point the young person may use it for college or trade school or as a down on a first time home buyer’s program. The account will continue until the holder chooses to undergo reversal or utilizes the funds for an approved purpose. Those who choose to keep it going and remain on the birth control program can claim the same credit and place in into their own accounts until the age of 30. They can then either use the funds for an approved purpose (home buying, auto purchase, etc) or move it into an IRA. The idea is to provide the best possible start to life for each person in return for the assurance to the govt. that it will not have to care for an unwanted, or disabled child.

Those who choose not to undergo screening or the birth control program will not be eligible for the incentives.

[Lust4Life]

@MrDibble

And it hasn’t? Spoken like someone who’s never been on the wrong side of a truncheon charge.

You’re wrong I’m afraid,I have been.

Are you saying that every country that has a police force is a Police State then?

Then that would make every single country in the world one.

Or are you arguing that the average citizen in every country would be better off if all Law enforcement agencies were disbanded?

monstro I’ll do my best to protect your good name by not telling anybody that I agreed with you publicly

i

[MrDibble]

@Lust4Life

You’re wrong I’m afraid,I have been.

Then why you posted what you did, I don’t know. Clearly you were making a political expression, and were prevented by the police (I assume this wasn’t soccer hooliganism you were engaged in).

@Lust4Life

Are you saying that every country that has a police force is a Police State then?

No. Are you saying you said “solely an instrument of political oppression”? Because you didn’t, and I was only replying to what you wrote…

@Lust4Life

Then that would make every single country in the world one.

Good thing I never said that, then.

@Lust4Life

Or are you arguing that the average citizen in every country would be better off if all Law enforcement agencies were disbanded?

No. How you got that reading from my reply, combined with your initial statement, I don’t know. I got a lot of respect for the police. But they do do as their masters direct, and sometimes, that includes stifling dissent (even peaceful dissent).

[Paladud]

No. Simply stop subsidies directed specifically to those afflicted the “bad” genes (entirely, or where the cost of such subsidies exceeds the resulting positive externalities).