Sounding off - heavy, highly opinionated (non-mc) topic

[rhinoviper]

So I read an article today about a child poet dying (link below). I had seen another news story on him sometime a year or so ago. His death is not the topic I want you to sound off on.

Article: [color=cyan]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id ... 0/[/color]

What I'd like to get others' opinions on relates to the following excerpt from the article.

His mother, Jeni, 44, has the adult-onset form of the disease, and his three older siblings died of it in early childhood.

Sound off: How do you feel about people consciously making the decision to produce offspring (and, in some cases, multiple times) knowing they either have or are a carrier for a genetically transmittable disease or other life-quality-impacting disorder?

[DerGolgo]

I think wether or not to have kids is everyone's own decision. Nobody has the right to tell others wether they can have kids or not, also, nobody has the right to decide wether a live is "worth living" and thus shouldn't be created in the first place.
The question here can only be answered by that lady.
Maybe there was a chance one of her kids might turn out ot be fine.
The outcome, four kids dying of inherited disease, maybe disturbing, but that is all a topic that centuries of philosphers and other brainy people have taken a crack at and still it's a hot potatoe.

[Dewey]

Women can be prosecuted for exposing their fetus to drugs and alcohol in the womb because this can endanger the life of the baby. I see little difference between this and the case of the woman reproducing when she knows she is putting her child at significant risk.

Personally, I think reproduction should be regulated. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. There are way too many people incapable of caring for themselves that choice to bring another life into the world.

You have to be licensed to legally operate a motor vehicle. It seems having a child would require AT LEAST as much preparation and training!!!!!!!

[smashinator]

With all due respect, regulating who can and can not reproduce is bullshit. Who's doing the judging? The religious right? Buddhist monks? Staticians? Glam-rock bands? People who have every right to have children will inevitably get screwed over by the system.

How much darker would our world be if the kid in the article above hadn't been born? Granted, I haven't read (or heard of) his poetry before this, but he apparently touched a lot of people.

Essentially, who are we to decide if a life is worth living or not?

I don't know enough about this specific example, but for TWO people to keep having kids, they must have felt there was a strong chance that the children would be ok. Unless one of them just kept poking holes in all the condoms.

*steps off of soapbox*

[DerGolgo]

About four years ago, I finished school. I was then drafted to serve my country. I objected to serve with a weapon and ended up working as a caretaker in a home for people with mental and physical disabilities for eleven months.
Allow me to say that this has probably been the most interesting time in my life.
I have met people with fetal alcohol syndrom. I have met people with Down's syndrom. I have met people with ailments that can be cured in an infant today. I have met people who had to be hidden during the Nazi reign. I have met people who suffered the effects of accidents and abuse during early childhood.

I can only say that they all, the lot of them, deserve to live. Most of them lived a happy life. They all went to work everyday. They'd listen to music, watch TV, do all sorts of things "normal" people do.
One of them was the best foosball player I ever did see (and I saw a lot).
Considering this discussion, and modern genetics, almost none of them would even be born today if there was a licensing of parents including the prevention of conception of people who could develop disabilities.
Considering Nazi politics of compulsory sterilisation, most of them would not have been born sixty to seventy years ago.
It is wrong to forbid people to have children because the kids could have a medical condition upon birth.
This may be the decision of the mother, and only the mother. Period.

[rhinoviper]

I would argue that it is equally the father's decision. After all, they're 50% his genes, too. The hope would be that he is also 50% responsible for the care and upbringing of the child.
_____________________

So far your comments are interesting to me. Thank you for indulging me. Anyone else brave enough to put their feet in this fire???

[Dewey]

Some very insightful responses; exactly what I was looking for. I must say I am consistently impressed with the quality of participants on this board.

Obviously very few things are more personal than an individuals choice to reproduce. Personally, I don't think I could stand to watch one of my children die in such a manner, let alone four. Although I do not agree with the mother's decision to REPEATEDLY have children prone to suffering and premature death, the world works in amazing ways and this child was able to make a larger contribution to society in 13 years than I probably will in my lifetime.

As for regulating reproduction, I do believe requiring some minimal amount of parenting training would be of great benefit to society in general (who hasn't seen the 20 year old mother flying down the expressway at 90 mph with kids climbing all over the car). I also realize that regulating reproduction is unrealistic because although legislation may be well intentioned, it is rarely universal and generally susceptible to prejudice and discrimination.

Regardless of your moral views, it is impossible to legislate responsible decision making, something many of us prove on a regular basis.

[Ames]

Eugenics...such a quiet little word. A quiet way to say desperation, suffering, loss. I'm sure we've all seen the e-mail that goes around (far too often) that points out some of histories true geniuses who, had a eugenics program been running, "shouldn't" have been born.

I've often seen great kids come out of terrible situations, and I've seen horrible little swine come from "good" families. Maybe it's luck of the draw, but often times I wonder if some kids have to come up in terrible circumstanses in order for them to be strong enough to effect change. Then I sober up and realize that would imply there's a grand purpose to the universe.

I don't think we need to legeslate who breeds and who doesn't (though if we could tax it think of the surplus it would produce ), but I do think we need to better educate people about being a parent. Not just a DNA donor, but a real live, there for your kid, put everything else second and the kid first, kind of parent. That might make a more pleasant world.

[vespaboy]

From licsensing I'm afraid it's a short leap to forced sterilization. Otherwise, how do you prevent people who haven't taken the parenting classes from having children? Do we force abortions for "accidents?" Force Depoprovara shots on teenage girls?
As far as genetics go, I think reproducing when your child has a possibility for a disorder is one of those great personal desicions that no one but you can make. I would have to think long and hard about it. Being a parent is the best thing in my life, and I would never trade it. But I want my child to be happy, healthy, and have all the chances at life she can. I'm not sure that I would want to bring a baby into the world knowing that she would be shut-out from all life can offer.
However, if we want to legislate good parenting, a better place to start would be breast-freeding. Formula companys recently got a series of PSAs shot down that talked about the benifits of breast-feeding, and the ills of formula. In all but two countries in the world (the US, and some tiny african nation, I forget which) the World Health Organization forbids ANY formula advertising. The US refused to sign, mainly due to lobbying by Nestle, the makers of a bunch of different formulas. So our breast-feeding rates are pathetic. Well below 50% of children are breastfeed past the first month in the US, even though study after study shows that breast feeding has increadible benifits for baby and mom, and ultimatly for society. Breastfeed babys are sick less throughout life, have fewer allergys, are smarter (yes smarter. Breastmilk promotes brain growth, formula does not), better socialized (breast feeding helps bond mother and baby, and teaches the baby to rely on people, not things, which ulitimatly makes them better able to cope with society), and generally make healthier happier humans. The American Academy of Pediatrics recomends breastfeeding till at least age 1 (the WHO says 2), though the world wide weaning age is closer to 5 (something like 4.2). Yet formula companys, the makers of third-rate crap (compared to breastmilk) that most babys are getting these days, have repeatedly blocked any attempt to legislate them, or even to educate new mothers on the advantage of breast milk. At the hospital when Katie was born, we were given a "breast-feeding success" kit that was sponsered by Enfamil, and contained a tub of formula. Formula is almost single handedly responsible for many of the health care woes our nation is facing, but we also cannot sue them for forcing their crap down our children's throats. In the richest nation in the world, our children are malnourished, not due to lack of food, but due giant companies using immoral tactics to poision our kids for a buck. That's what we should be writing our law-makers about, not genetics. And bottle-feeding is what we should be calling parents irresponsible for, not genetics over which they have no control.
Opps. Sorry to rant off-topic there. Do'h! Anyway, to summerize: forced sterilization: bad. Breastfeeding: good. Um...motorcycles for the poor...good?

[Beemer Dan]

Evolution is a numbers game, and the only way to ensure that humanity will be able to survive is to let those who want to breed, do so regardless of circumstance. Now this is purely a evolutionary view, and evolution is all about the suffering and death of 99% of a species in the hopes that a genetic mutation or change in instinct will modify behaviors to overcome conditions that prove deadly to the species or prevent reproduction. Our current views on life, and from a personal perspective this appears horrible, but it's gotten us this far.

A person could have a genetic defect that actually protects them from another problem (sickle cell anemia helps prevent malaria). Or, a handicap that proves to be a unique survival tool (the blind moth is not devoured by the flame). Many of the genetic flaws we are trying to combat may yet be the reason that humanity survives some future unknown disaster. Of course these genetic flaws are quite random, and may never prove to be of any positive use at all.

It's a numbers game, and the only thing we can do to stack the odds greater in our favor is to move our species forward as a whole. Eugenics and parenting licenses don't actually help us, as we aren't intelligent and forward thinking enough to know the difference between what is good for the happiness of society and what is necessary for the survival of humanity. I think we would do better with nationalized healthcare and a great deal more investment in public education, as this would at least point us in the right(purely subjective) direction.

[Slash 6]

I say we put birth control in the water and be done with it.

[Muppet]

birth control in the water... I would LOVE to see all the boys getting all fucked on the hormones. Entertainment like no other


Thinking of how to answer this, everything I tried to write sounded rather genocidal/pro-abortion/gene pool lifeguardy.

Even though I think most the population shouldn't breed (for many reasons besides the fact that earth is just a wee bit over populated at 6 billion and growing) -- I also think that taking away choices --ANY CHOICES-- is bad, and will only lead to bad things.

However, I'm down with what they did (still are? i don't know) in China --1 kid per family unless both parents were an only child. I'm not saying their implementation was all that fantastic, but the idea is friggin SU-PERB.

xx

[Ban Guzzi]

Total Inherited Depravity. The teaching is simply that all men (babies) have inherited Adam's sin. Not only have all inherited Adam's sin, but also man enters the world totally depraved ("Adam's sinful nature"). The Bible, conversely, teaches "the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father…" (Ezek. 18: 20). Furthermore, "The soul that sinneth, it shall die" (Ibid.). All have sinned, but it is because we ourselves have chosen to go astray (Ps. 58: 3, Rom. 3: 23). "Babies" are not presented in the Bible as depraved, but as pure and models of the Kingdom of heaven (Matt. 18: 3-5).

Just remember Calvinism. Nothing beats a school of thought that denies free will.

a little off topic, but "Calvinism" is what popped into my head upon reading this thread...

http://www.bibletruths.net/Archives/BTAR097.htm

[Ban Guzzi]

muppet: China , along with a great many countries, including ours, are headed for trouble with population control. In countries that have a higher average age due to population control, the economys are getting set for Big busts in their economys. Your logic doesn't make sense long term, but makes sense short term. Check an article in the may/june issue of...http://foreignaffairs.org/ titled "the Coming Baby Bust" by Phillip Longman.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary: Most people think overpopulation is one of the worst dangers facing the globe. In fact, the opposite is true. As countries get richer, their populations age and their birthrates plummet. And this is not just a problem of rich countries: the developing world is also getting older fast. Falling birthrates might seem beneficial, but the economic and social price is too steep to pay. The right policies could help turn the tide, but only if enacted before it's too late.


Phillip Longman is Senior Fellow at the New America Foundation and author of the forthcoming The Empty Cradle (Basic Books, 2004), from which this article is adapted.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0465050 ... eader-link



sorry for getting off topic just a little...

[Photo]

birth control in the water... I would LOVE to see all the boys getting all fucked on the hormones.

"This is Bob. Bob has bitch-tits..."

[Slash 6]

actually I was joking about the birth control in the water, but if they could find a way without the bitch tit issue I would be all for it just to stop the accidental 13 year old mothers out there. In my ideal fantasy of how the birth control in the water would work (yes I know this is all fantasy) if a woman wanted to get pregnant all she would have to do is drink bottled water for a month.

As to what Pat and Kellen have been discussing regarding China and population decline/explosion I am forced to agree with Pat that the long run is definitly a negative, especially as aging populations begin need of caretakers and financial support. On the oposite side as one of the younger people out there we would have better odds of getting a good paying job.

The main problem with china (or any state funded population control model) is that I don't really want a third party having any say about the reproductive rights of the women I know.

[DerGolgo]

A good thing would be what Arthur C. Clarke suggested in his book "Richter 10".
A little device is implanted under the skin of the female that entirely prevents the normal female cycle without side effects.
The ladies wouldn't have to suffer three days of agony a month anymore, the men wouldn't have to suffer the suffering women anymore and to get pregnant the ladies would have to take a pill to override the device.
If such a system could be offered for cheap (if not free), unwanted pregnancies would be a thing of the past.

[purple passion]

you know I read this topic a few days ago and this question has resonated with me quite deeply.. The past few years my chances of reproduction have been challanged very heavily... And being born and raised italian catholic the whole "feed and breed" lifestyle has been the mind set I was raised with.
Knowing my medical history and what I could pass on, I am still willing ,wanting and fighting daily to keep the option open to have children.
I belive that being a good parent and person means being able to deal with what ever challanges come from that.. The thought of not having that oppurtunity in my life I find more depressing than the thought of passing on any wacky DNA...
The family that Rhino is refering to in the initial post seemed to have shared a deeper sense of faith and love than most "normal healthy " families I know have... I envy that and only wish that for many others as well as myself.

[GimpyChinaman]

Not breeding is not the same as not being a parent. I've got the congenitive disorder that killed my mother, will kill me someday, and will probably (3/4 chance) kill any kid I have. That said, I'd still love the chance to raise a child and inflict my very own progeny upon the world. I personally have some moral issues with the idea of having children of my very own, I think it would be kind of irresponsible of me to bring a life into this world with a much closer expiration date than average. (I don't hold this against my parents, my mother had no idea what she had until an American doctor told her why she was dying in her early 40's, when you come from backwater Guan-Dong, China, dying at 40 isn't all that out of the ordinary...)

So what do I plan on doing?

I'll adopt.

The way I see things, there are so many unwanted and uncared-for children out there, it makes no sense for me (or anyone who knows they carry a potentially debilitating or fatal congenitive disorder) to make another damn baby that's just going to suffer unduly then die young when I can instead alleviate the suffering of some poor baby who was (through no fault of it's own) born into a situation which will cause it undue suffering (and possibly early death, depending on diet and sanitation).

[GimpyChinaman]

Okay, in all fairness, the above post does come from a man who favors the Chinese Peoples' National Selective Breeding Eugenics Program, since without it, we wouldn't have Chinese acrobats for the Cirque du Soleil or NBA players like Yao Ming...

[Midliferider]

Hey GimpyChinaman,
I must say you are a interesting addition to the group here.
You have some insights to the dynamics of the world few of us have ever experienced. Your sense of humor has some nice twists as well. For exmple, "your shoes" comment when I first read it, I laughed and thought how true most likely. But now it think how sad a truth it is. Life can at times can be so bitter sweet. Why does a whole ethnic group get pinned down with some sort of world economic stereo typed event. Don't take this the wrong way. Your humor is very keen and sharp there's always a message in it just like a those cookies, you know the ones, I'm sure
With respect,
Midlife

[GimpyChinaman]

Midliferider,
I don't think of China's current state as being all that sad, it's nothing more than the collective Chinese people have earned.

At one point in time, China was inarguably the most advanced culture in the world. The problem was that they knew it, and became arogant and complacent. There's a definite century-or-so of stagnation in Chinese culture immidiately predating that chunk of the nation's history known as the Manchurian Dynasty.

I believe the state of modern China should stand as a warning to all other industrialied nations, as that is what happens when a nation becomes so secure, self-righteous, and isolationist in it's superiority that it stands by and turns it's nose up at the rest of the world passing it by.

Makes me worry about where the USofA will be in a few hundred years, until I realize that we enjoy the idea of world domination far too much to ever indulge in the isolationist part of the formula...