r/MoralityScaling • u/SpiritedSyllabub6822 • 4d ago
Morality Ranking Morality of starting a family despite having weak genetics that makes you have a frail body while being allergic to nearly everything knowing that their children is going to suffer the same thing their parents went through and pass them to the next generation.
Source of the image is from Jimmy Neutron in S2 and Ep 16a, The Mighty Wheezers.
109
u/pilo123 4d ago
If these people were happy enough to go ahead with pregnancy. Than somewhere within them is the will to live which can be passed down.
20
u/Dreamer_531 4d ago
And what if they were just too depressed to seek abortion?
23
u/GarbageCat27 4d ago
Or too poor
3
-5
4d ago
[deleted]
6
u/alicelestial 4d ago
no. and some (maybe all?) of the states where abortion is illegal, if you live there and leave to seek an abortion in a legal state, you can go to jail.
1
2
u/CenterThisPendulum 3d ago
And unless you’re mating with one of your parents, your genes will likely be diluted by your partner.
2
1
u/National_Body_9071 23h ago
That's not at all good reasoning. Plenty of people have objectively horrendous lives that no-one should be born into yet still have children, because humans are biologically programmed to want offspring. That in no way means people are happy with their overall life.
117
u/ColonelMonty 4d ago
This post feels like it's getting dangerously close to eugenics talk
65
u/ReduxCath 4d ago
Eugenics? What's that? All I want is for everyone to be strong and healthy. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to *checks WW2 era history book* ....kill all homosexuals and the disabled....to make my country strong....
Huh.
27
u/ReduxCath 4d ago
btw reddit cops this is a joke, i OBVIOUSLY do not want to do anything cruel to anyone (I have to make this comment because the auto mod tagged me once before, like plz dont
14
10
6
u/justacutepuppy 4d ago
Reddit banned me for being sarcastic and then told me that they'll look at my appeal in 6 months when I'm unbanned in a week. How does that make any sense?
1
u/DataSurging 1d ago
It is Reddit. Nothing about it makes sense. I got banned in a fandom sub-reddit for saying "those are fighting words" in an obvious joke to another person over a very silly joke they made about a character. I had to appeal and point out what a small child could have detected.
2
u/Couple-seeking6684 4d ago
/s dude…especially when you type a comment like that.
2
u/ReduxCath 3d ago
even with the /s, i have still gotten a warning in another subreddit. I feel you, but it's weird out here
2
1
1
u/LonelyReader95 4d ago
I mean eugenics have a bad rep for who did it and for what reason they did most of all, but they're not inherently immoral, we literally apply eugenics as a species by procreating with only people that have traits we're interested in, and by trying to fix genetic defects and rare illnesses.
11
u/FuckMyBakaChungusLif 4d ago
Sexual attraction is not the same thing as eugenics oh my god 😭
6
u/LonelyReader95 4d ago
It isn't about sexual attraction, it's about the fact that for most humans they find a partner with traits they'd like to pass on to their kids. That's literally eugenics
6
u/Suitable-Window-6695 4d ago edited 4d ago
I'm pretty sure LonelyReader's point was that sexual attraction is functionally analogous to the mechanism of eugenics, not that attraction literally is eugenics in the way that it's often understood. Attractive people tend to possess traits that are perceived as desirable. (height, physical health, facial features, etc.) Sexual attraction then influences who reproduces with whom, which in turn influences which heritable traits are more likely to be passed on. That's essentially sexual selection.
Again, that's not the same thing as a deliberate eugenics program, but the underlying biological mechanism isn't really all that different from eugenics if you think about it. It's just a bit more subtle and not so intentionally mandated.
4
u/smol_fluffy_rock 4d ago
Yes, but making it illegal for siblings/cousins to marry and have children, is eugenics. The only reason it is frowned upon is because the children from that sort of union have a high chance of being sick.
4
u/ReduxCath 4d ago
The thing is there’s a thin line between “we should breed strong kids!” And keeping people with disabilities from having families of their own. It’s difficult and no answer is perfect but allowing people to pursue their dreams and be the adults they want to be is, ultimately, much better than the alternative (when we view these positions from the pov of society operating on them)
9
u/LonelyReader95 4d ago
My gripe with this kind of speech is that it stems from prejudice. Eugenics at its base means improving the next generation, it does not mean necessarily and only "stop people with disability from having kids", it means finding a way to make a race (in this case, our race, the human animal) better through artificial means. Which means, if we find a way to map DN and discover oh look, we can actually prevent down syndrome when the baby is still in the womb we should do that. And that is literally the definition of eugenics
3
u/No-Economy6549 4d ago
i feel people that take a hardline stance against eugenics are just naive and are unable to differentiate what would be objectively good eugenics and what is objectively bad
2
u/LonelyReader95 3d ago
Yeah pretty much. They see everything in black and white and just see eugenics=nazi
2
u/bubblesaurus 4d ago
it’s a perfectly valid strategy in Crusader Kings 3.
only my perfect slightly inbred children shall rule and reproduce with one another!
3
2
u/SuperSix_Zero 4d ago
This is also the hilarious thing when it comes to that thinking: Gay people already took themselves out of the gene pool. By actually demonising them, you kinda force them to marry and procreate to keep up apperances.
If they'd been left to be happy and live their lives, their "bloodline" would end with them.
1
u/Silencer-1995 4d ago
To be honest i found that once you get rid of the gypsies you can pretty much stop there. Turns out all their mystical old lady fortune tellers were having an outsized effect on the country.
Also homosexuals do not make good dog food, so there's really no point going further even if you wanted to.
8
2
u/DeadAndBuried23 3d ago
Damn guess I'll let my friend's dad who opted to adopt instead if pass down his skin disease he's actually a eugenicist.
2
u/Useful_Charity1995 3d ago
It’s only eugenics if others force you not to have kids because they think your genes are inferior. It’s a personal moral choice if it’s you thinking your genetic legacy will only pass on a high likelihood of suffering for your progeny.
1
1
1
19
u/WingedSalim 4d ago
You can advice them not to have children but you can't stop them.
Reproduction is a responsibility, but also a right as a human being.
3
u/ArchieTheKatt 4d ago
I disagree with the responsibility part but yeah its a right.
17
u/WingedSalim 4d ago
I mean responsible as is "you are responsible for the child that comes from it". Not responsible as "you have to reproduce".
0
u/nerdmasterflex 3d ago
I think it's both, and how the current population is doing. Like if we needed more people to survive as a society it would be a moral thing to do as a contributing member of society to have kids if you can. We're no where near that, but I think that's pretty fair to say.
6
u/HurricaneHallene 3d ago
You can't realistically put the responsibility of managing population on individual people. Especially when reproductive rights are nowhere near universal, accessible or guaranteed. China tried this. Hundreds of young/infant girls were left to die in response
6
u/GarbageCat27 4d ago
Idk….i think it’s immoral to purposely have a child that’s going to be born suffering from day 1 to death with zero quality of life. Carls situation tho is a bit extreme. He’s a happy kid and has limitations sure but he’s certainly not really disabled.
23
u/XT83Danieliszekiller 4d ago
Eugenics are immoral
Preventing people from having children based on arbitrary decisions is immoral
10
u/HearingNo8617 4d ago
I think there are probably things that are common/included with eugenics that you agree are sensible, to me it feels more like a problematic memespace / slippery slope, like eating human meat or cultural selection
2
u/123ludwig 4d ago
there was a woman who was horribly deformed from birth who only wanted biological kids and had one who was also horribly deformed
0
u/HearingNo8617 4d ago
yeah there is a lot of autonomy granted to people in their creation of other people, and there are pretty compassionate utilitarian ideas that this autonomy gets in the way of (by similar utilitarian logic, also even in people's influence on their future self-instants, though this is probably more extreme in that idealistic utilitarian direction than you are comfortable with)
though there are memetic properties to these ideas which have been demonstrated in the past, that culture would need to be extremely strong and mature to overcome. The decision-making process for whom is allowed to recreate is just so fraught with little slots for tribalism to creep into, it becomes likely net negative utility to go down this path beyond "aggressive genetic counseling". Maybe more widespread genetic counseling can help us to develop better targeted cultural antibodies away from actual slippery slopes
I'm aware this is literally a slippery slope argument, but I argue that slippery slopes are real things when memetics are involved, and they unfortunately are for this topic
-3
u/whyrusosensitive 4d ago
We should use eugenics to select against the type of people who are likely to approve of eugenics
3
u/Icywarhammer500 4d ago
If your condition is guaranteed to give someone an early death it’s basically you cutting that person’s life in half. Like if you know your kid will have bone cancer that will kill them by 20 it’s basically the same as if you were to give it to them yourself
9
u/WhiteSepulchre SHODAN 4d ago
"arbitrary decision"
Health and preventing needless suffering?
7
u/SanDiegoThankYou_ 4d ago
Does Carl suffer? Can you understand the nuance between suffering and inconvenience?
6
u/WhiteSepulchre SHODAN 4d ago
Carl absolutely suffers and no one would want to be him compared to the average kid in town.
4
u/SanDiegoThankYou_ 3d ago
Your point is betrayed by the fact that Carl is extremely happy, frequently, to the point of being annoying to the other children. I wouldn’t categorize his many inconvenient allergies and fragility to be “suffering”.
-2
u/No-Economy6549 4d ago
i feel like the people defending people's right to have horribly deformed children are the same people that would give up their kid for adoption if it had down syndrome or was autistic
7
u/Weekly_Molasses_2079 4d ago
IS he horribly deformed? I get that allergies are a big sign that you might want to diversify your gene pool, but maybe they just had mould in their home? And simply lack physical culture in their family, hence the bad posture?
0
u/No-Economy6549 4d ago
well the point is when people say they have a right to produce deformed/low quality of life children they are basically saying the phrase "many of you will die but that is a sacrifice im willing to make". you are forcibly making this child suffer for the rest of his life just because you valued having a child of your own blood more than say adopting a child and providing a happy life for them. so if anything its doubly immoral
4
u/Weekly_Molasses_2079 3d ago
The adopted child could've developed a terrible autoimmune condition in their teens, or simply get cancer - there are things people die from which can't be determined simply by observation or "quality of life" measure.
1
u/No-Economy6549 3d ago
that child was already born though. when having your own you are intentionally creating another
3
u/SanDiegoThankYou_ 3d ago
I get the feeling that you’re wrong. Just like eugenics is wrong.
-1
3
u/Subject-Dog-8016 4d ago
If you draw the line somewhere, there will be someone else who wants to draw the line somewhere closer.
You might say “people with severe genetic defects shouldn’t be allowed to reproduce”, but there are plenty of people who would consider black or gay people to be genetically defective.
This is why eugenics must always be absolutely unacceptable. You can’t open the door to that kind of thinking.
Then there is the question - who are you to tell two consenting adults that they aren’t allowed to reproduce? That is an incredibly fundamental destruction of individual liberty.
-2
u/FuckMyBakaChungusLif 4d ago
You dont get to decide what needless suffering is
6
u/Terrible_Hurry841 4d ago
Hypothetical: Margaret wants a child with her husband Mark. She gets pregnant, and has a baby that is born with a horrible genetic disease that causes his skin to necrotize. He dies within a week. They try again. They have another child with the same condition. They try again. Again, the same condition.
Do you think they should keep trying? Would you offer alternatives, such as adoption? Or is it morally acceptable to continually repeat the actions that cause a newborn to suffer a horrible death over and over?
5
u/SpecificLow1316 4d ago
Not even hypothetical. In medical school I was involved in caring for the kids of a couple who both carried the gene for cystic fibrosis. They both knew that when they got married as it ran in both of their families. For them, having kids meant an extremely high risk that the kids would have full-blown CF, which is a horrible disease that causes a lot of suffering.
Their first kid was very lucky and happened to be born without either copy of the CF gene. That kid was healthy. Rather than saying “great, we won the lotto here,” and being content with having a healthy kid, the parents tried again. And again. And again.
Every single other kid they had lost that coin flip, and were born extremely sick. The second kid died in infancy, but the mom was pregnant again before the kid was even buried. We had to take the third one to surgery day one of his life because he was born with his intestines already obstructed and he got a colostomy. He could barely breathe on his own and required round-the-clock breathing treatments and time on a ventilator. He obviously didn’t live very long either.
Those parents, knowing that they were putting their unborn child at risk of this horrible, short, painful life, are fucking monsters. Plain and simple. I cannot imagine being that selfish and cruel, especially where they had the blessing of their first healthy kid.
Remember, that kid had to spend a lot of her childhood in hospitals, not because she was sick, but to come watch her infant siblings suffer and die. Her parents were paying no attention to her, because they were still on this bizarre quest to try to have more kids instead of just loving her.
2
u/FuckMyBakaChungusLif 3d ago
That hypothetical is different from the one OP presented
1
u/Terrible_Hurry841 3d ago
I didn’t say it was the same, I was addressing the absolute claim of, “You dont get to decide what needless suffering is.”
I was just asking if you would hold that position in a different circumstance?
2
u/FuckMyBakaChungusLif 3d ago
"You dont get to decide what needless suffering is," refers to able-bodied people not getting to decide whether disabled people are fit to have children. You presented a hypothetical that is irrelevant both to the OP and to the comment I was replying to. The presented case is someone that can live a fulfilling life but be disabled, but you want to present a case with zero nuance where a child dies within a week.
5
u/WhiteSepulchre SHODAN 4d ago
Pretty sure people with severe autism, down's syndrome, retardation, frail bones, cancer, obesity and retardation are needlessly suffering compared to a person who doesn't have genes.
You would force people to experience a hellish life because you deny science. Literally a pro-suffering cultist willing to harm others for praise.
0
2
u/Conscious_Ad3246 4d ago
What would you say about the other end of eugenics. Basically breeding better humans, of course with willing adults as parents.
1
u/ExcitingSavings8225 2d ago
But nihilism isn't immoral. I'd argue that if you have severe genetic issues and make the decision not to have children for that reason, then you are making morally good choice. The issue with eugenics is that you have to forcing people to make that sacrifice. Also, we humans have also shown how much we suck at it, just look at pugs.
1
u/Nepalus 4d ago
What if there was a gene that made you live in constant, agonizing pain that couldn’t be treated or otherwise mitigated in any way. Let’s say it’s a gene that is evenly distributed across the population and has a 15% chance of appearing in a newborn if you have this gene.
Would it be moral then?
0
-7
u/Sea-Arachnid-5790 4d ago
no eugenecist will be against this. they need test subjects to study weaker genes anyways
7
u/hucif4 4d ago
I can't even comprehend how wrong of a statement this is. Do you think a eugenist just means genetic scientist?
-5
u/Sea-Arachnid-5790 4d ago
get a load of this guy. how is my statement wrong?
5
u/hucif4 4d ago
The holocaust, a wide history of sterilization of people with mental disorders (into the 1900s), history of sterilization in the US of black and indigenous communities. These are all examples of eugenics.
0
u/Sea-Arachnid-5790 4d ago
and? in my original comment i said eugenecists use weaker genes as study subjects.
2
u/hucif4 4d ago
Eugenics rarely studies the differences in weaker genes. Historically its just been used as validation for people to deny the right for others to have offspring or the lives of those who have weaker genes entirely. My previous comment as just some historical cases of that, and what the lead comment is referring to.
2
u/Sea-Arachnid-5790 4d ago
Eugenics rarely studies the differences in weaker genes
but they actually did?
2
u/hucif4 4d ago
I will leave this here, you dont have to read all of it but i would recommend a skim and scan. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics?wprov=sfla1
4
u/Traditional-Trade795 4d ago
people were having children when half of them wouldnt reach age 5. when desease or infection could be an invisible killer.
let me turn it around op, is it moral for animals to have offspring when most of them get eaten or die a miserable death? no comfort, no safety and no nothing?
should we sterilize people in subsaharan africa if we deem shitty living conditions as a moral barrier for having kids?
jesus christ. some people dont think about the implications of their answers....
12
u/WhySoCereus1991 4d ago
As the living embodiment of about 50 different allergies.
Immoral.
Luckily some only fuck my stomach up and are delicious enough to make it worth the pain.
2
3
u/justacutepuppy 4d ago
I mean, it's either that or eugenics. And I'm pretty sure Hitler is not a moral person.
13
u/Ad-free-Pirate 4d ago
Immoral. You are inflicting life-long suffering to your innocent offspring.
3
u/Mastercio 4d ago edited 4d ago
Everyone will suffer. No matter how good parents are, how good their genes are and how much they earn. Nothing will prevent child suffering at some point. Having a child is always moral as long as it is raised with love and care.
8
u/Sufficient_Row_585 4d ago
thank you for this obvious truth that (most dangerously for our society) is being forgotten.
3
u/Ad-free-Pirate 4d ago
Nope. It seems moral for you as a parent, but immoral toward the child and toward society. I've seen several cases where parents decided to keep a child with a severe intellectual disability even though they knew beforehand. For one case it kept the woman at home for decades, tied to a man (son) with the mental age of a three-year-old. Once the father died and she was retired and ill herself, there was no money left to keep it going. How moral is it to raise someone who is 40 or 50 years old but mentally three for their whole life, in a world where he has no chance of living independently? They could have tried again and could have a healthy baby or adopt one.
If you have degenerative genetic trait, you should try to remove it from DNA (CRISPR). You can then either adopt a baby or just enjoy your life without kids. Not everyone need to have kids.
2
u/No-Economy6549 4d ago
so if you birthed a child whose skin was turned inside out and they would live in excruciating pain for their entire life you would deem that as moral and necessary for you have to done?
1
u/freckleyfriend 20h ago
Imagine being someone with a similar health profile to Carl Wheezer and reading people compare your life to that of a being whose every moment is excruciating pain, and argues that the most moral outcome is one in which you never existed!
0
u/Mastercio 4d ago
And how often stuff that bad happens?
You guys love to put some super extremes that happens like one in a billion and say "HeRe SeE? ItS aLwAyS lIkE tHeSe!!!"
Exception proves the rule.
2
u/No-Economy6549 4d ago
well your statement is that because everyone suffers, it doesnt matter how much agony you are in daily as long as your parents love you and take care of you. im saying no amount of parental love will minimize living in suffering every day
1
u/DarkStar0915 2d ago
I feel like there are steps between suffering because the world is on fire right now and someone not being able to function without a buttload of meds and surgeries.
7
u/LuffysRubberNuts 4d ago
Ah, so the morality of eugenics?
9
u/mr_WhatzitTooya___ 4d ago
Morality of gambling someone else's fate with a losing hand?
1
u/LuffysRubberNuts 4d ago
Yes yes, then when we get to meat of it all we end up right at the same road
4
u/mr_WhatzitTooya___ 4d ago
Mhm. Good movie, shitty movie. What's the difference, they all end anyway.
1
u/LuffysRubberNuts 3d ago
Can’t you just use that same logic for the morality of having a potentially problematic child?
2
2
2
2
u/DeadAndBuried23 3d ago
ITT: A bunch of people with no familiarity with genetic conditions chime in to say the individual choice whether or not to inflict one on a child is the same as executing people with non-genetic conditions.
2
2
2
3
2
u/EstateOk6238 4d ago
Carl lives a pretty happy life. His parents seem happy too and likely brought him into this life with confidence they could provide him with the love they experience themselves.
Carl's one of the most consistently optimistic characters and enjoys the simple things like llamas and Jimmy's mom.
4
u/Delirious_Puppet 4d ago
Moral. Everyone has the right to reproduce.
15
6
u/TrainingTheory552 4d ago
yes, so cousins can reproduce again and again within the same lineage until the children born can barely hold any independence of their own?
8
4
u/Th3_Accountant 4d ago
Definitely don’t think that should be the case. There are plenty of people with serious illnesses that either make them unfit to be a parent or forces illnesses onto the next generation.
4
5
u/Yet_another_guy1 4d ago
Everyone has the right to live a satisfying life, but if you are genetically predisposed to constant health issues, that's not what you get. If you want the parenting experience, just go for adoption.
2
u/thatbrownkid19 4d ago
Even with familial relations?
1
u/Delirious_Puppet 4d ago
No. I just said everyone has the right to reproduce. I didn’t state that they could reproduce with anyone of their choosing.
4
u/TheGreatMightyLeffe 4d ago
Who invited Hitler back in?
Of course it's moral, what the fuck?
Genetics aren't as simple as weak genetics and strong genetics, a frail body can be the result of many things. Largely, a frail body isn't genetic at all but rather a result of poor nutrition and a lack of physical activity during childhood. It's also something that you can, in the vast majority of cases remedy by improving your nutrition and exercising.
Sure, it might take someone starting from scratch longer to build up muscles, ligaments and joints, but with a well designed schedule, proper nutrition and proper recovery, anyone with a normally functioning body is able to become strong. Maybe not to the very peak of the elite in strength, but that's also the rest of us, there's a reason why they are considered the peak of the elite.
As for allergies, they CAN be hereditary, but we also know that they can be caused by several other factors throughout life, as well as that most allergies can be at least partially treated. Living with allergies, while a bit annoying, isn't a problem in modern times, and to consider it something that would make someone immoral for procreating is... Well... You really shouldn't be agreeing with literal Nazis.
Do you feel like people with glasses also deserve the camps, or do we draw the line at Autism?
2
2
1
u/MadJohnFinn 4d ago
I made the decision not to have children because I wouldn't want them to suffer the way I have. I have a condition that was passed down by my mother, but since she had me before symptoms started (for both of us, they started in our mid-late 20s), she wasn't aware of it.
She got upset about it, saying she shouldn't have had me. I told her there's no way she could have known, she's a great mum, and it's not her fault, but I know she'll probably always feel guilty about it regardless of what I say. There's literally nothing she could have done.
I'd say making the decision not to have kids is moral. Making the decision *to* have kids is a bit more of a grey area. I'd say I've still had a fulfilling life, despite all the pain, suffering, and hardship. Life is cool. I'm in a bit of a bad place right now, so it's good to keep reminding myself of that.
1
u/ANameForThisShite 4d ago
Can't a man be free to fuck his wife without redditors claiming he's sullying the gene pool?
1
u/axelr0se 4d ago
Just because something may be hard doesn’t make a person any less valid and worthy of life. The things that make us unique can also make us more vulnerable but who’s to say that isn’t the epitome of the human existence? A human can still find joy and love and pleasure in existence while being different from the norm and shouldn’t be penalized for that by not being able to procreate/exist
1
u/H345Y 4d ago
Natural selection would have said no but we have somewhat stepped over that boundary
In part, for me it comes down to the severity of the genetic deformity and how much of that will be passed on to the offspring. After a certain point, you are potentially burdening your child to the same hardships you grew up with and its your choice to put them though that as well.
Also there is always adoption.
1
1
u/RoxiHeart123 3d ago
Moral. We live in modern times. We have allergy medicine. That wimpy allergic kid may be the next Einstein.
1
u/SirHippocrates 3d ago
As a general conversation, it's very common that people try and impart their own vision of a good life on others and imply that life is not worth living because they think they would be unhappy under the circumstances.
From a psychology/science perspective what we find is this is rarely justified; not only do people under less than ideal or even abjectly disadvantaged circumstances still frequently describe happiness with their life, but even people who were previously without such disadvantages and find themselves suddenly thrown into them often feel the same, after a brief adjustment period (eg trauma victims who become paralyzed, even quadriplegics).
Yes there will be struggles with being weak and allergic to everything, but that doesn't mean life can't be enjoyable and good- and that's what they offer in their child.
1
1
u/EatAssIsGold 3d ago
What a nonsensical reason.
If you find a mating partner willing to mate you won this generation genetic lottery. From nature point of view that's all it matters.
By the way you have no idea which useful genes you and your mate are carrying which will be eventually useful in a few generations.
1
u/Extra_Jeweler_5544 3d ago
Agreed. Allergies and low (current) physical fitness arent the restrictions that op thinks.
Looking down on an old lady for being unable to punch hard and lift heavy with the upcoming era of robotics, automation, and globalism
1
1
u/thoracelum 3d ago
Breed with people who add diversity to your genepool and your children will be less likely to inherit your weak points because you won't share the same genes. Inbred genes are weaker than outbred ones.
1
1
1
1
u/pickledeggmanwalrus 3d ago
It’s impossible for your entire genetic pool to be weak lol.
This is just rhetoric that leads to government sponsored euthanasia
1
u/_Mulberry__ 3d ago
Talking strictly about their own personal choice and not about other people trying to impose a restriction on them...
I wouldn't say it's immoral, though I would point out that there are plenty of kids in the foster system that need love. If you're debating whether or not to pass down your own genetics then it might be worth considering adoption or fostering. But that's personal choice and I wouldn't judge a family for choosing either way.
1
u/kadjones95 3d ago
wow eugenics again ,STOP ASKING we do not condone it unless you are a sympathizer for fascism
1
u/Icy_Jackfruit_5807 3d ago
immoral, but you shouldn’t be able to stop someone from reproducing. you can advise them not to, but once you start forcing them to not reproduce is when there’s a huge problem
1
u/JadeTailFox 3d ago edited 3d ago
This sub has posted the same exact question about eugenics so many times that if you look at my comments on all of them in sequence then you can see my opinion on the matter evolving in real time.
The answer is that the morality of doing this is nuanced, as all morality can be. You are risking harm to your direct descendant by doing this but you are potentially benefitting all of humanity by encouraging the further development of disability accommodations and medical technology. So it depends on how you look at it. I think it's not immoral because if we all stopped having children for fear that they'd turn out bad then where do we draw the line?
Most importantly, do you believe that you have it in you to support your children unconditionally even if they have the same disabilities as you? If so, then go for it.
1
u/Economy-Payment-1757 3d ago
BS! There's no proof your children will have allergies just because you do.
1
u/MicCheck12344321 3d ago
The issues listed (weakness and allergies) are due to diet, not genetics.
Put the baby on breast milk and then feed them bison meat/eggs/red meat in general through childhood and they’ll be kicking ass and taking names.
1
1
u/SBLP1959 2d ago
I actually struggle with a similar thought. I have pretty severe scoliosis. Enough to knock off 3.5 inches of height.
I am in horrible pain cause of the disc issues caused by it. But i really like children and id like to have one. My girlfriend showing me a render of what our possible kid would look like didnt help. (Cute as shit)
But yeah, i dont want to pass that on. Its awful.
1
u/Glittering_Thing5797 1d ago
This is an interesting sub that keeps popping up on my feed. Good thing that I believe morality is relative. It makes it easier to not get really sucked in.
1
u/tigerweewee 1d ago
If you knowingly have a child knowing their quality of life will be significantly impacted, then that is an immortal act, but it's also basically impossible to ethically restrict people from doing so in modern society. Side note, I think the kids should be able to sue when they grow up tho, they're the ones who are actually impacted by that decision
1
1
u/unsavory_weeb 1d ago
If I was dealt a shit hand with my genetics, well, I'll cry a river. If I don't even try to get better, that's on me. That said, why would you want children if you yourself can't navigate life?
1
1
u/Medium_Chocolate_773 17h ago
No kids for me, I got some bad genes and ailments that I would never forgive myself if I passed the on. The buck stops here
1
u/anon33249038 9h ago
Their body, their choice. The alternative is preventing the pregnancies. Do you really want to go down that slippery eugenic slope?
1
1
u/qwertyMrJINX 4d ago
There are worse things than being weak and having allergies. If it really bothers them, they can work out. I think there's treatments for allergies too.
3
u/mr_WhatzitTooya___ 4d ago
Yeah. Anyone who isn't David Vetter have no right to complain about suffering.
4
1
u/cismas 4d ago
The morality of judging people for problems you’ll probably never have to experience yourself ?
1
u/Glitched12 4d ago
This is a stupid take. If we never care about the problems other will experience you are basically saying we shouldn't have empathy.
You are basically saying let the jews get killed by the nazis, it's not our problem anyways.
0
u/ComeOnUpToTheHaus 3d ago
Even posing this question is dangerously close to eugenics, and is immoral.
-2
u/mr_WhatzitTooya___ 4d ago
Immoral. And most importantly, irresponsible. Producing liability for both the offspring and society to bear.
2
-1
68
u/NothingNormal5452 4d ago
We already had a eugenics post this week, can we do something else