"But it is absolutely crazy to let sick people with defective genes reproduce."
Why? We've proven we can continue to live with them reproducing. If we couldn't they would have died off.
"But it's just a modern day freakshow really."
Are "freaks" not entitled to the same freedoms as non-"freaks"?
"How is that doing any good for our species?"
Why should we have any entitlement to the betterment of the species?
"And it doesn't matter, because they already exist. And if they get sick then no reproduction for them either."
They exist, but they don't have to reproduce. Giving an adopted kid a functional life could be pushing bad genetics almost if not more so than raising your own kid.
"My ideas are very simple. If you were suppose to die young by natural causes such as heart defects, cancer, be a responsible person and not reproduce your own children."
In my own little perfect society in my head they'd take that stance to a lesser degree. There's really too many things that would kill ordinary people though. Like there are plenty of productive and successful people that were allowed to be alive due to modern technology and you have to understand that eventually things like cancer and diabetes will become curable.
Hell, I wouldn't worry about our gene pool being fucked. I'm sure in the next couple decades you'll be able to choose and pick what features your kids will have along with being disease free.
As a side note there is a movie out there that relates to your whole concept. It's placed in the future where every person is given godlike genes and arent prone to any terminal illness, those who arent born with their DNA mapped out are stereotyped and considered 2nd class citizens. Forgot the name of it though.
Yes, evolution is the reason why we are at the point we are.
But it is absolutely crazy to let sick people with defective genes reproduce.
We have gotten into the mindset this is "cool" and science is "good". But it's just a modern day freakshow really. oh cool. let's let someone reproduce who got cancer at the age of 5. Makes a lot of sense. Let's have this person who has the ovaries covered in cysts reproduce, we'll just get them treatment and some other crap.
How is that doing any good for our species?
Because adopted kids don't risk having shoddy genetics?
Not at all. Everyone is at risk for having crappy genetics. And it doesn't matter, because they already exist. And if they get sick then no reproduction for them either.
I know that a lot of women of reproductive age want to push around their own flesh and blood in a carriage but science has become morbid
Cancer isn't FATAL if the person survives it and gets to have kids, dumber. The person gets cured and that's it, as opposed to people with autism and your sort of issues who have little hope of getting cured. From my point of view your genes are more defective. How would you feel is some self righteous bastards decided you're unfit to "breed" and forced you to abort that little shit because it would "pollute our genepool"?
Cancer is not suppose to be cured and besides you still have the genes, the hardware is still the same. These people have been subject to elimination for an evolutionary reason. If it wasn't for modern medicine they would die. And then modern medicines fixes them so they can reproduce and litter the gene pool with their defects. And then God forbid the child of the cancer patient gets cancer. And then modern medicine fixes it again. It's just placing a big bandaid over the issue.
My ideas are very simple. If you were suppose to die young by natural causes such as heart defects, cancer, be a responsible person and not reproduce your own children. It's super simple stuff. Because chances are your shit is genetic. Go adopt or something
LOL oh I'm sorry, I didn't know all types of cancer all the sudden had a 100% survival rate.
"Because they were selected out for a reason."
What reason is that? Couldn't you just as easily say they are now surviving for an equally valid reason?
"When it comes to reproduction, no. I don't believe people with chronic, fatal without modern medicine diseases should reproduce."
They may very well find more permanent cures for their afflictions over the years, so I don't see why it's so bad beyond the short term.
"I also don't believe in any assisted fertility treatment to people who could not naturally get pregnant on their own."
Even if the reason wasn't genetic?
"I don't expect people to naturally be responsible."
I'd argue "being responsible" is unnatural. We as a species have the urge to procreate failed genes for a natural reason.
"Stupid people who were throwing up in a toilet fighting for their lives at the age of 11 wanna risk doing that to their children when they should realize they were not suppose to live."
According to who, nature? You're making Natural Selection pre-human hand sound like something "holy". If they were not supposed to live, why do you figure they are anyway? If they weren't supposed to live, they wouldn't be, right?
Do you think we ought to not have dogs anymore too, since dogs are as they are from human tampering?
"Plenty of adopted children come from physically healthy parents."
But not all of them. My mother was adopted for example, and lets just say... she's not exactly the healthiest mind out there.
thesugargirl: "what if the person gets cancer when they're 80? should they murder their spawn before they croak?"
Pink01: "And again...I do not mind if a person gets cancer at a reasonable age post normal reproduction age (which I believe to be about 30 +/- 5.)"
by Pink01
Cancer is not suppose to be cured
What the fuck?? Did you actually type that?
You talk of natural selection, but that's not just about the genes woman. It's also about the environment. Like those people with a genetic blood disease who survive better in some parts of the world because the disease offers them protection against malaria. You keep saying genes this and genes that, but if the environment is able to support the individuals and make them reproduce what's your issue with it? And how is that not following the natural selection rules?
by Turncoat"Because they were selected out for a reason."
What reason is that? Couldn't you just as easily say they are now surviving for an equally valid reason?
"Stupid people who were throwing up in a toilet fighting for their lives at the age of 11 wanna risk doing that to their children when they should realize they were not suppose to live."
According to who, nature? You're making Natural Selection pre-human hand sound like something "holy". If they were not supposed to live, why do you figure they are anyway? If they weren't supposed to live, they wouldn't be, right?
Exactly what I said in the beginning. "This is not supposed to happen", "there's a reason for that". She sounds like a fucking religious nutter...
Why? We've proven we can continue to live with them reproducing. If we couldn't they would have died off.
Because they were selected out for a reason.
Are "freaks" not entitled to the same freedoms as non-"freaks"?
When it comes to reproduction, no. I don't believe people with chronic, fatal without modern medicine diseases should reproduce. I also don't believe in any assisted fertility treatment to people who could not naturally get pregnant on their own.
Why should we have any entitlement to the betterment of the species?
I don't expect people to naturally be responsible. Stupid people who were throwing up in a toilet fighting for their lives at the age of 11 wanna risk doing that to their children when they should realize they were not suppose to live.
They exist, but they don't have to reproduce. Giving an adopted kid a functional life could be pushing bad genetics almost if not more so than raising your own kid.
Plenty of adopted children come from physically healthy parents.