k2dave, “strengthening the human race” would surely include having people who are more likely to be fit and well into their mid-sixties at least.
if people have children in their 40s, and it’s not unheard of, they’d want to be AT LEAST 60 to “raise” them properly.
your definition of a genetically “strong” person and mine probably differ dramatically.
BTW, there are good evolutionary reasons why some recessive genetic problems are still with us.
thalassaemia, G6PD, sickle-cell, and possibly even CF have some benefits to the carrier.
have you considered that your policy will be racist?
thalassaemia, SC, G6PD are commonest amongst african and mediterranean peoples.
G6PD is also very common in people of native american descent.
CF and spina bifida are commonest amongst celtic peoples.
several diseases are commonest in ashkenazi jews, especially lysosomal diseases, and diseases of protein metabolism.
are you liking what you’re reading?
you also discount all achievements made by people with disabilities and illnesses.
what about Stephen Hawking?
Sigmund Freud had cancer for the last 20 years of his life.
Van Gogh was bipolar, again, strong genetic link.
you also discount the fact that CARING for someone who is ill benefits the carer too.
it allows us to be compassionate, empathetic and above all HUMAN.
still liking what you’re reading?
k2dave, next time you are ill, i suggest you test the strength of your own genes.
refuse ALL MEDICAL TREATMENT, including analgaesics.
sign out of hospital AMA.
be comforted knowing you have done your part to strengthen human kind.
and this is as civil as i can be to eugenicists, so i apologise for the offence i hope you are taking.
kellym was born a seemingly normal XY individual, but she realized at some point that she was a woman. Having tried and failed to deny it, she finally began 2 years ago living fully as a woman. She takes hormones,which have done amazing and wonderful things to her. With luck and good health insurance she should be able to get SRS in the next year.
She is my lover, and managed, somehow, to impregnate me about 14 weeks ago. She doesn’t much care for guys as lovers and cares less so the longer she lives as a woman. She gets along fine with men though, which makes sharing the bed with me and hubby much easier. Hubby is delighted at my pregnancy and plans to be a stay at home dad. He has wanted children the entirety of our 13 year so far marriage, but cannot father them himself. We keep trying though! kellym and I both plan to nurse.
I doubt there is any place in the country we would be licensed as parents.
k2dave, nearsightedness is definitely genetic. Being nearsighted will probably not prevent mating. But since it is inherited, and is definitely anti-survival (absent the use of corrective lenses), your quest to improve the species by selective sterilization would definitely be served by sterilizing all nearsighted people, so that they do not pass on their defective genes to future generations. Just think, a few billion sterilizations and you can put Lenscrafters out of business completely!
That’s thalassemia btw. I have it, and my doctors often double take when I tell them that as I do not look mediteranean in the slightest. (Great Great Great Grandma was Spanish) If it was agreed that people with such a disease should be aborted… well I’m would’ve never come about. Nor would my brother, or my father.
As to the OP well, I don’t know how I feel about parental licensing. I have seen many things that could validate the use of it. But there is the flip side where how far would we be willing to go, if we did implement it. Would we abort those children? Would we tear them from their parents? What if after being granted a license, circumstances change and they no longer meet the requirements? Will we then tear the kids away from the only home they know because they will be so-called ‘bad parents’ by those standards?
It’s a tough decision to make and overall, weighing the good and the bad I’d have to say no. We should not have parental licensing.
[sub]It appears like a lot of people have gone off on a tangent about abortion rather than staying with the OP[/sub]
obsidian flutterby, it’s thalassaemia on this side of the pond.
like haemorrhage, anaemia, leukaemia and so on.
and just to state, i think abusive or neglectful people should have any children removed from their care, and although i’m not totally happy with children’s services at the moment (too much beaurocracy, too many mistakes) i think the current system of actually needing proof of abuse is probably the best one.
otherwise it all gets a bit monority report/1982 ish.
Certain genetic diseases - cystic fibrosis, Tay Sachs, sickle cell, thallessemia, others - result from having two copies of a particular variation of a gene. And it’s awful darn tempting to say that if we just got rid of that variant everywhere the human race would be stronger.
It wouldn’t.
Because carrying just one copy of that variant, and having your other half of the pair be different, actually makes you MORE “fit” from a survival standpoint than if you have entirely “normal” genes. Cystic fibrosis carriers are more resistant to cholera and diarrhea diseases than non-carriers, which probably used to be a major problen in the British Isles and still kills people today in various parts of the world. Tay Sachs carriers are more resistant to tuberculosis, which used to be a major killer in cities. Sickle cell and thallessemia carriers are more resistant to maleria, and less likely to die of it if they do get it.
So someone who is a hypothetical carrier of cystic fibrosis, Tay Sachs, and sickle cell should be one heck of a healthy human being. The problem is what happens to their kids. If they marry someone who isn’t a carrier of any of the above, the kids will be normal or “superfit”, in any case, healthy. If they marry another carrier… well, 1/4 of their kids will die. 1/4 will be “normal”. But 1/2 will also be “superfit”. On average, of course. But that’s why these diseases persist - gruesome as it sounds, half the population benefits from the genes.
Given that something like malaria still kills millions every year, would it in fact be ethical to elminate the sickle cell and thallessemia genes? Better if people knew what was in their genes and used some reason when reproducing – but sex has little rational about it.
In societies where arranged marriages are still practiced people do make use of this knowledge to avoid pairing up carriers of certain defects. But that requires a society where arranged marriage exist - which is not mainstream West.
Then we have the multi-factorial problems. Is nearsightedness genetic? Not entirely - environment plays a major role, too. Wherever literacy rises so does myopia. This can occur very fast, where parents might have 20/20 vision and all their children require glasses. But literacy has its compensations, too.
How about skin color? In Scandanavia a light skin helps prevent rickets and a dark skin contributes to it - so is a dark skin a defect? Turn it around - in the tropics a dark skin provides protection from the sun, a light one is more likely to get skin cancer - so is a light skin a defect? How do you define “defect” or “fit”? Frequently, it depends on the environment.
Let’s really climb out on a limb - allergies are a terrible and growing health burdern. But what if these folks are more resistant to cancer than non-allergics? Then, in a polluted environment it might be an advantage to have allergic tendencies if it protects you from the effects of carcinogenic chemicals in the environment. Are allergies then good or bad? Depends on where you live…
In a high-tech society literacy may be more important to survival than having perfect, uncorrected vision - and the technology allows compensation for the vision problems with glasses, contacts, and so forth. Dark-skinned children who live close to the poles are given dietary supplements to make up for the vitamin D their skins won’t produce in sufficient quantities, and in the tropics the lightskinned can either cover up or use sunblock to aid their skin’s inadequate UV filtering. Because what counts is not how well you would have survived 100 or 1000 years ago but how well you survive right now, in this world and this environment. A dark-skinned myope in Sweden might be horribly unfit in the year 1200 AD, but might be extremely fit in the terms of the early 21st Century
Truth is, we really do need diversity as a species.
There probably ARE genes we could do away with and never miss… but I’m not convinced we really know which those are yet.
Re: mandatory sterilization for people saved by medical science who would never be able to reproduce w/o it.
Just because I say I am considering it does not mean I fully support it (or even partly support it) - just I am not dismissing it either. For the last few posts I took the side of fully supporting it - that doesn’t mean I actually support the policy just that I am open minded to it. Also when I say sterilization I am taking about vasectomies and tube tying not castration (or the corresponding in women)
Thanks for the history lee It helps put things into context. Under what I am proposing kellym would not be sterilized by this program (well not from what I have heard so far). Obviously if kellym goes through SRS then she will be sterile but not by my method. Also you most likely know this but sex is influenced by XX or Xy but actually determined by hormone levels during development. You could have a XX male or a XY female. Has kellym been checked for XY or is it just because kellym was born male?
Now with that out of the way. I want to address some points brought up (again on the side of full support).
Remember that some genetic traits such as SC have advantages in wide portions of the world. IIRC there are 2 types of SC ‘persons’ one has only one SC gene and the other has 2. The single SC gene can live a normal live w/o med science while the 2 (again IIRC) die before they can reproduce w/o med sci.
As you stated above about me refusing treatment next time I’m in a hosp. - well except for when I was born and for non-medical reasons (except visiting) I was never in such a position.
My point about killing off everyone over 60 yrs old was following the logic of irishgirl and something I don’t support.
What I am saying will not kill or abort anyone. Disabled people will still live normal productive lives and still can get married, have sex and children if they care to (thought adoption).
As for the racist argument - it would (and has even here) unfortunately raise it’s ugly head (again where it doesn’t belong). There have already been unfounded reports of sterilization of black men when they go to the hospital to get a thorn removed from their big toe so it would be a really really tough sell.
The biggest problem I would see is who would decide what qualifies - some are obvious but many could be borderline cases. The biggest problem I see in continuing what we are doing is that we will need med. sci. to have children at all one day. I guess it’s not that bad - with cloning, men are no longer going to be needed anyway.
Now with that out of the way. I want to address some points brought up (again on the side of full support).
Please remember that some genetic traits such as SC have advantages in wide portions of the world. IIRC there are 2 types of SC ‘persons’ one has only one SC gene and the other has 2. The single SC gene can live a normal live w/o med science while the 2 (again IIRC) die before they can reproduce w/o med sci.
As you stated above about me refusing treatment next time I’m in a hosp. - well except for when I was born and for non-medical reasons (except visiting) I was never in such a position.
My point about killing off everyone over 60 yrs old was following the logic of irishgirl and something I don’t support.
What I am saying will not kill or abort anyone. Disabled people will still live normal productive lives and still can get married, have sex and children if they care to (thought adoption).
As for the rasist arugment - it would (and has even here) unfortunatly raise it’s ugly head (again where it doesn’t belong). There have already been unfounded reports of sterilization of black men when they go to the hospital to get a thorn removed from their big toe so it would be a really really tough sell.
fair enough, but you see my point was that sterilising all of those hypertensive people was that it makes economic “sense” but would be ridiculous, it was an example of sarcasm.
maybe i whooshed you?
anyway, i’m still against mandatory sterilisation, because if we have the knowledge and expertise to treat the symtoms of a genetic illness or disability we should do so.
and sterilisation of certain groups of people (however those groups are defined) still places a lesser value on their lives by implication. what it effectively does is say to them that :
“yup, you’re great, we like you, but we’re sorry you were born, and are going to do our utmost to prevent anyone else like you being born. nothing personal you understand, it’s for the good of the human race.”
i understand you’re taking a stand for the purposes of playing devil’s advocate, so i’m hoping you won’t be too offended by anything i’ve said.
but i do think you need to read up on your genetics, reproductive technologies and general medical knowledge.
oh, and SC homozygotes are quite capable of having children. the children have a 50% chance of being carriers, and, unless their partner is an SC carrier NO CHANCE of being born with SC disease. so sterilisation wouldn’t be an issue, more a case of deciding who breeds with who.
and that IS eugenics. and wrong, however you slice it.
IMHO, though the thought of keeping this a simple poll was noble, it is obvious that, due to the subject matter, it’s going to be damn near impossible. I’m moving this to Great Debates.
k2dave, I have male offspring, so either I’m XY or something really really weird happened on the way to the genital store, twice in a row. I’ve never heard of a masculinized XX individual being able to create viable sperm, let along viable sperm bearing a Y chromosome.
Yes, that’s true - an XX male would NOT be able to father male children. In fact, I’m pretty sure such a person would not be able to father any biological children at all. Likewise, the XY female is also sterile
If **KellyM{/b] has bio-children, then KellyM is probably, on a physical level, a completely normal male (well, at least before hormone treatments and so forth…) Of course, I don’t expect I have to explain to a transsexual the difference between physical and psychic gender.
Most people are opposed to parental licensing (and I share this opinion), but :
When people want to adopt children, they go through an ordeal (well…at least here…I’m making the assumption it’s the same in other western countries) in order to assess whether or not they’re deemed to be able to adopt a child. I would suspect that though some people (in particular those who are in the process of adopting children) would say that the whole thing is somewhat exagerated (at least as long as they don’t hear on TV that someon has been allowed to adopt and later abused the children or somesuch), most would agree that some controls are necessary before allowing someone to adopt children.
So, isn’t it contradictory? Does it make sense to say that the governement has no business deciding whether or not you should be able to have biological children, but every right to prevent you from adopting a child? An argument could be make that the adoptive child is already living, hence has the right to be protected from potentially irresponsible/criminal/whatever parents, but won’t the biological child be eventually in the same situation?
the point about the parental licensing is that people have to be actively prevented from having children.
that means forced abortions or sterilisations, which is an infringement of their basic human right to bodily integrity and makes a nonsense of the medical ethic of informed consent.
as it is, you have to prove you’ll be a good parent before you can adopt a child, but it has to be proved that you are a poor parent before your child can be removed from your care.
and as it is, if you THEN prove that you have become a better parent your child may be returned to your care. if you permanently sterilise people it removes this possibility of redemptive change.
as it is you cannot imprison someone if they “might” commit a crime. only if you have proof that
a) they plan to commit the crime
or
b) they have commited it.
sterilisation for some groups of society based on presumptions of how they will raise a child, rather than their actual child-rearing skills, is thus demonstrably injust.
kellym male offspring cinches the XY (as you know). I don’t think XX male or XY female is always sterile though.
As for
Part of the problem is a supply and demand issue. If more people adopted out (as opposed to aborted) there woud be many more babies available and the level to which the gov’t looked up your @$$ would go down a lot.
That would be news to me. Care to substantiate this claim with facts? I’m not aware of any instance of a feminized male or a masculinized female (in both cases referring to true intersexuals, not transsexuals) being fertile.
The scariest part of this thread it that there are people who really believe the government is capable of making this decision. shakes his head in complete disbelief It is unreal to me the power some people think the government should have.
No, parent licensing is so far over the line of the role of government I can’t even begin to fathom life in that environment. Bad idea. Really bad.
Not only is this bad because of the inherent bias and mistakes which will be introduced, but bad because this is not where I want my government.
People also seem to think the world’s resources will be used on the poor who have very large families. But think about the resources Bill Gates’ kids must consume. Think of the amount of food and oil and other resources used in sustaining his family. His multiple houses, limousines, planes, food, clothing, heat for his homes all over the world, etc. Surely the resources spent on his family far outdistance just about even any middle class family twice as large. Think of all the families with their SUVs and think about how many ‘resources’ go into supporting them. As Sally Struthers points out, we can feed/clothe/house the poor for just a few dollars a day. Think 80/20 here folks.