October 4th, 2002
|04:41 am - i shed, but only in my room.|
what moral obligation do parents have for consideration of their possible children, genetically speaking? should hemopheliacs have kids? people born with missing/deformed limbs? people with mental or emotional problems? bad eyesight? bad skin? if there's a line, where is it, and why? etc
np: James - Laid - - Laid
|Date:||October 4th, 2002 04:49 am (UTC)|| |
Genes don't work through thought.
Parents might know they are hemopheliacs, but their genes aren't going to know that, their genes will want to try to keep going. They will be compelled to reproduce, and because of modern science and medicine, they will live long enough to do so, thus making an evolutionarily "bad" gene non-deadly, so that it keeps going.
Which isn't BAD. We're just superceding natural selection.
However, while we're doing that, people should reproduce less. Duh.
(Read "The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins, ASAP. He also invented the word MEME in that book.)
well they can be compelled all they like. they don't HAVE to reproduce - a lot of people don't. my question was nothign to do with natural selection, it was a moral question: should someone have kids, if they know theyre likely to pass teh kids some shitty traits? is that fair to the child?
|Date:||October 7th, 2002 11:06 pm (UTC)|| |
The next logical question is: would eugenics be a morally acceptable practice? The children would be superior...
|Date:||October 7th, 2002 11:35 pm (UTC)|| |
Re: Ponder ponder
removing a genetic disease is not the same as adding/removing a subjectively judged genetic trait. but generally, yes you're right. and i take it from your tone that you don't agree with this. why?