Suikoden Uncouth and Irrational Kriegspiel Objective Xperience

Suikox Home | The Speculation Shelter | Tablet of Stars | Suikoden Timeline | Suikoden Geography |Legacies


  [ View Profile | Edit Profile | Nation System | Members | Groups | Search | Register | Check PMs | Log in | FAQ ]

Inheritable genetic diseases
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic     Forum Index -> Community Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  

Should people who carry genetic diseases be allowed to have children?
Yes
73%
 73%  [ 14 ]
No
26%
 26%  [ 5 ]
Total Votes : 19

Author Message
Celes Tilly

Buttery Lungs


Joined: 29 Mar 2004
Post Count: 6774
Location: Hell
290293 Potch
666 Soldiers
0 Nation Points

PostPosted: Sun Feb 05, 2006 8:05 pm    Post subject: Inheritable genetic diseases Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

There are certain diseases out there (such as cystic fibrosis, for example) that are inheritable. In the case of CF, most people die pretty young, and it's a horrible way to die. Basically, mucus builds up in your lungs and you choke to death. There's currently no cure for it, as far as I know.

There are a lot of diseases like this; they're carried genetically (in your DNA) and have a good chance of being passed onto your children.

Should these people be allowed to have children?

Discuss.
_________________
"Oh my god--"
"God? God is love. I don't love you."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Arcana

The Engineers


Joined: 25 Jan 2005
Post Count: 2035
Location: Lion's Maw
190546 Potch
200 Soldiers
0 Nation Points

PostPosted: Sun Feb 05, 2006 8:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

How would you ever enforce such a policy in today's society?
_________________
Woo, 2000 posts as of Tuesday, 2007 August 28.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
Camus the Noble

Les Renés


Joined: 24 Sep 2005
Post Count: 1881
Location: Vinay Del Zexay
1056014 Potch
224 Soldiers
0 Nation Points

PostPosted: Sun Feb 05, 2006 8:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

Well, it really depends on the disease, I guess. There are some inheritable diseases that can be treated and even cured. However, some, such as cystic fibrosis, are really too much of a burden to pass on to someone else. It would be somewhat cruel. So, using cystic fibrosis as the example, I'm voting "no," but it really does depend on the disease.

But as Arcana said, there is the issue of enforceability. I suppose you could simply make everyone with such a disease infertile, but that seems unnecessarily dictatorial...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Spell Breaker

The Long Patrol


Joined: 10 Jan 2005
Post Count: 499
Location: Vinay Del Zexay
162411 Potch
122 Soldiers
0 Nation Points

PostPosted: Sun Feb 05, 2006 9:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

Well I don't know anything about Cystic Fibrosis, but I did learn a bit about Sickle Cell Anemia because one of my mom's friends has it and the boss at my former job has it. Not a fatal disease or even as bad as cystic fibrosis, but they have their days where they can't function well. In both cases they had to decide whether or not they wanted to have kids or not. Luckily their kids have neither the disease or the trait.
Back on to the topic, say we go ahead sterilize that section of society which pass on such diseases; what do we do about 'healthy' people who show no signs or traits but still have the possibility of having kids with such diseases. Then what? Where do we draw the line and who is going have that responsibility? And how do we deal with people who say it's none of 'our' business?
I can't say yes or no to the question, but only bring up a few things to think about.
_________________
One day I realized that sadness is just another word for not enough coffee.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
Solitude

Fallen Angels


Joined: 09 Jul 2004
Post Count: 2881
Location: Blight's Bay
495 Potch
125 Soldiers
0 Nation Points

PostPosted: Sun Feb 05, 2006 10:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

Hrmm... I guess this is a question of ones morales. Who decideds weather a person should live or die? In any case, if society did not allow such people to have children I suppose the disease would die out and become extinct in time. Unless there was another means to contract the disease (which there has to be because how did it come about it the first place) once all the people that carry it die then the people of this world would never have to worry about it again. However that is quite a cruel thing to do and I don't agree with it what so ever.

What I do believe is that the only thing a person lives for is to find happiness. To me being happy is really the only purpose in life. So if having children will make these people who have the disease happy then I say by all means, have children. Then there arises the debate of happiness at anothers expense. Sure having children would make these people happy, but being born into a world where their destiny is only to die, how can these children ever lead a happy life? I guess you could always argue that the disease may have a chance of not being passed down, like the case in which happened that Spell Breaker mentioned. I guess they could find comfort in the knowledge that they weren't alone in this world. Though the children may suffer, I believe that they too should be born. I believe that they should at least have the chance at life. To say that they shouldn't be born because they would just suffer is the same as sentencing them to death before they even had a shot at life. These children should have the chance to have children of their own some day. So I vote yes, these people should be allowed to have children. Even if they suffer, I'm sure they can still find happiness somewhere.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Arcana

The Engineers


Joined: 25 Jan 2005
Post Count: 2035
Location: Lion's Maw
190546 Potch
200 Soldiers
0 Nation Points

PostPosted: Sun Feb 05, 2006 10:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

It is a question of morals, but I personally view it as a bit of a loaded question. Denying a person who has some genetically-inheritable disease the right to have children is like saying that obsese people cannot procreate. It won't fly in today's society because it is a rule that takes away people's rights.

In addition, it is not guaranteed that offspring of a person with a genetically-inherited disease will have the disease, just as it's not guaranteed that the offspring of an overweight person will indeed be overweight as well.
_________________
Woo, 2000 posts as of Tuesday, 2007 August 28.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
Camus the Noble

Les Renés


Joined: 24 Sep 2005
Post Count: 1881
Location: Vinay Del Zexay
1056014 Potch
224 Soldiers
0 Nation Points

PostPosted: Sun Feb 05, 2006 10:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

Solitude wrote:
What I do believe is that the only thing a person lives for is to find happiness. To me being happy is really the only purpose in life. So if having children will make these people who have the disease happy then I say by all means, have children. Then there arises the debate of happiness at anothers expense.


In my opinion, it would be more prudent to adopt children, rather than run the risk of having a child sentenced to die from birth.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Pierrot Le Fou

Rain Dogs


Joined: 17 Nov 2005
Post Count: 956
Location: Collanbal
37957 Potch
0 Soldiers
196054 Nation Points

PostPosted: Sun Feb 05, 2006 11:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

Camus the Noble wrote:
Quote:
In my opinion, it would be more prudent to adopt children, rather than run the risk of having a child sentenced to die from birth.


With all due respect, though I agree with you that people should adopt in this situation I don't think denying a couple to a child is okay at all. Trying to wipe out these diseases by cutting off the bloodlines that carry them is similar to Hitler's plan of the perfect race don't you think? Where would you draw the line? What about mental illness, or something as minor as a third nipple you see what I'm saying?

You have to play the cards you're delt as they say.

Other than that Solitude hit the nail on the head, everybody deserves a shot at happiness.
_________________
A not unblack dog was chasing a not unsmall rabbit across a not ungreen field.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger
Celes Tilly

Buttery Lungs


Joined: 29 Mar 2004
Post Count: 6774
Location: Hell
290293 Potch
666 Soldiers
0 Nation Points

PostPosted: Sun Feb 05, 2006 11:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

Arcana:

The question wasn't one of how it would be enforced. It's about whether it should be done or not.

Pierrot_Le_Fou:

I don't think it's similar to Hitler at all, as this isn't a question of a perfect race, and it's not about mass murder.

As for drawing the line, this topic is only about being born with a genetic disease that will kill you, so that point is moot.

How can it be called 'happiness' to have a child and then watch that child die? And yes, I am aware that it wouldn't happen for sure that the child would have a disease, but this is hypothetical.

But I'm getting off track. If it were possible to detect when someone will pass on a defective gene, should that person be allowed to have children who will be born with a genetic disease? That is the matter at hand.

Good arguments, guys. This is very interesting. Please, if you do vote, don't be afraid to state why you voted the way you did.
_________________
"Oh my god--"
"God? God is love. I don't love you."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tonberry

The Tonberry Eggsperience


Joined: 09 Mar 2005
Post Count: 18319
Location: Budehuc Castle
1819401 Potch
0 Soldiers
0 Nation Points

PostPosted: Sun Feb 05, 2006 11:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

I will say that it depends on the gene itself, but if it will kill the baby or harm it to the point where it has more agony than happiness, then the person should not have a baby. Adoption is perfectly fine. Besides, an adoption will save the planet of bringing an unneccessary baby into the world we have with too many people in it.

You may argue: "But it's a person's right to have a baby!" I disagree. People do not have a right to indirectly cause a death or ruin someone's life. Adoption is possible, so adoption is the correct alternative.

You could say I'm a little biased because I do not plan on having a baby of my own. I plan to adopt. I've never seen a reason to do anything different.

And I voted no, because I was assuming we meant a disease under the conditions I stated above.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Masaya

Flying Fusillades


Joined: 06 Jun 2004
Post Count: 7917
Location: Mar-Uruk
222963 Potch
75 Soldiers
3635 Nation Points

PostPosted: Mon Feb 06, 2006 12:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

Yeah ofcoarse they are..I"m actually a little suprised there is really any argument about this. To be honest, the possibility to actually stop people with genetic issues to not have sex would be extreamly tough. Also...just people they have that gene in them doesn't mean they are actually 100% going to pass that gene along..or atleast most of them are ressesive in the first place. How do you know if the child is going to have or pick up the problem in the first place. Really we should spend more time talking about idiots who drink, smoke and take other harmfull drugs durring pregnency that cause 10 times more issues for infants that will affect them their entire life.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Pierrot Le Fou

Rain Dogs


Joined: 17 Nov 2005
Post Count: 956
Location: Collanbal
37957 Potch
0 Soldiers
196054 Nation Points

PostPosted: Mon Feb 06, 2006 12:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

Celes Tilly wrote:

Quote:
I don't think it's similar to Hitler at all, as this isn't a question of a perfect race, and it's not about mass murder.


You're right, that may have been a little extreme but somebody had to say it. Thanks for clarifying that you are strictly talking about fatal diseases, hear me out though..

Celes Tilly also wrote:
Quote:
As for drawing the line, this topic is only about being born with a genetic disease that will kill you, so that point is moot.


Okay, back to mental illness. A person who suffers from an extreme mental illness like schizophrenia or manic depression will more than likely have a hard life and may even become sucidal. So that could potentially be a fatal disease yea?
_________________
A not unblack dog was chasing a not unsmall rabbit across a not ungreen field.


Last edited by Pierrot Le Fou on Mon Feb 06, 2006 12:51 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger
Tonberry

The Tonberry Eggsperience


Joined: 09 Mar 2005
Post Count: 18319
Location: Budehuc Castle
1819401 Potch
0 Soldiers
0 Nation Points

PostPosted: Mon Feb 06, 2006 12:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

In some cases it would. In some cases it wouldn't. It can really go either way, so you can't really lump it strictly into either of the catagories. The disease itself isn't fatal, but the side effects might cause a death. That much is true.

And no, it is nothing like Hitler. The goal may be similar, but this way more moral. This isn't genocide. Nobody is being killed here. Preventing births is not killing (I'm not talking about abortion here).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Jorge Prima

La Raza de Héroes y Protectores de Osito


Joined: 30 Oct 2005
Post Count: 3919
Location: Avec Monsieur Angelus
938390 Potch
1120 Soldiers
0 Nation Points

PostPosted: Mon Feb 06, 2006 12:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

Well if they decide they want to have a childern it there choice. Even if the kid doesn't have the disease they can become carriers. There's a rare form of Alzhiemrs where you can only get if form your parents. If you don't have to disease you can become a carrier and pass down to later generations. It really sad actually....
_________________

J et J

Angelus on Aftershave wrote:
But it stings SO GOOD.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
Arcana

The Engineers


Joined: 25 Jan 2005
Post Count: 2035
Location: Lion's Maw
190546 Potch
200 Soldiers
0 Nation Points

PostPosted: Mon Feb 06, 2006 1:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

So I guess everyone with AIDS should never have children, then?

Celes, I brought up the issue of enforcement because, as fun as it is to discuss and argue about hypothetical situations, the fact remains that nothing can be done with the discussion unless you bring it back to a base of reality -- hence, the enforcement. That's at least as important as the decision to deny a group their rights to begin with. More than likely, people who have genetic diseases or other diseases that are passed by birth are not going to be in favour of this "law", and would rebel against it.
_________________
Woo, 2000 posts as of Tuesday, 2007 August 28.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic     Forum Index -> Community Forum All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
Page 1 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
suikox.com by: Vextor


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
  Username:    Password:      Remember me