[kesFockplek]

No it is selfish...
Let me ask you something (to the people with children)... Do you look at your child and see DNA? Or do you look at your child and remember the funny memories, when they were so small and fit in your arms, when your child said its first word, and so on...

I wouldn't say that you look and see DNA as the abstract concept that it is. What you do see at times is a little bit of yourself or your spouse looking back at you. I can't quantify that, I couldn't tell you want part of my DNA or his that is but it's palpable. I've never adopted a child so I don't know for sure but I imagine that you are missing out on some important experiences. You don't get to experience your wife's body changing as you child grows inside her you miss out on that anticipation. You don't get to experience the birth, that early development, etc. The vast majority of adoptions take place after the age of 1. So your idea that you would still have those cherished experiences of the child's first word, etc. is bogus.

Like I said I've never adopted but it seems that you have never had children nor adopted so I'm not sure how much faith I have in your opinions on this subject.

[kesFockplek]

It makes absolutely perfect sense to me, but it still shouldn't be done. Once it's accepted in society that certain people are not allowed to have children things can turn ugly in a few short steps.

If anything, let anyone breed, but conduct tests to work out the health of the foetus.... if there's problems, terminate.... I have no problem with abortion.

The problem is testing isn't always that accurate. With down syndrome for instance unless you want to get a test that increases the risk of miscarriage you can expect a 75% reliability of the test with 3% false positives. Now as a choice for an expectant parent I don't have a problem with that it's your decision. As a mandated test that will lead to an abortion get the hell out of here! There is two problems I have with this, despite the risk of miscarriage due amniocentesis testing being small it is real. The state has no right telling a woman she must bear that risk. The other problem gnius has already pointed out in this thinking is it's fascist and inhumane. If you currently go to get tested and the result is a positive the decision lies in your hands as to whether you want to carry that baby to full term. It's even your choice whether you have the test. I can imagine if you take the test there is a little stress involved. Now try and empathize with a woman in your system. This test is now one of the most important and stressful tests of her life. If that test comes out positive you are going to turn around to her and say, "I'm sorry but the government has determined that your pregnancy shall be terminated.". Yeah we've taken the decision away from you and your baby will be killed.

When you think these ideas through to their conclusion whether it's banning people from breeding or terminating pregnancies you really see how brutal they really are.

[carinsurancess]

The problem is testing isn't always that accurate. With down syndrome for instance unless you want to get a test that increases the risk of miscarriage you can expect a 75% reliability of the test with 3% false positives. Now as a choice for an expectant parent I don't have a problem with that it's your decision. As a mandated test that will lead to an abortion get the hell out of here! There is two problems I have with this, despite the risk of miscarriage due amniocentesis testing being small it is real. The state has no right telling a woman she must bear that risk. The other problem gnius has already pointed out in this thinking is it's fascist and inhumane. If you currently go to get tested and the result is a positive the decision lies in your hands as to whether you want to carry that baby to full term. It's even your choice whether you have the test. I can imagine if you take the test there is a little stress involved. Now try and empathize with a woman in your system. This test is now one of the most important and stressful tests of her life. If that test comes out positive you are going to turn around to her and say, "I'm sorry but the government has determined that your pregnancy shall be terminated.". Yeah we've taken the decision away from you and your baby will be killed.

When you think these ideas through to their conclusion whether it's banning people from breeding or terminating pregnancies you really how brutal they really are.

I came off totally wrong. I don't mean to ban people or make it illegal for people to have children. But instead promote the idea and view that if you do have a great risk of having a child with life threatening defects then look at alternatives. I was listening to NPR yesterday about how a couple were trying to increase their chances of having a healthy child since they knew they could have children with deadly defects. The procedure (I don't recall the name) did not work and the children they did have ended up dying. I'll try to find it. Until we perfect that procedure I think we should promote people to think about alternatives.

[HonjUopu]

Clearly, everything I said - whoosh.

[encumeterz]

They already do it in China, which has the one child policy.

But they have a legitimate reason for adopting such measures. It may be considered morally, or ethically wrong, but it's still necessary.

So in China they will ban a particular couple from breeding even 1 child? Because 1 child is different than saying hey you sexy couple you can breed because you have good genes, the ugly couple can't breed because you're inferior.

[tickerinet]

So in China they will ban a particular couple from breeding even 1 child? Because 1 child is different than saying hey you sexy couple you can breed because you have good genes, the ugly couple can't breed because you're inferior.

You missed the point.

You said.

I agree. If society accepted that we say who and who can't have babies it would be the Nazi regime all over again.

I was pointing out that this is already in practice in China. The law states any couple may have 1 child. My point is that having children is indeed regulated and people are told they can not have any more children after the first.

Who the couple is, or what undesirable genetics the couple has, has nothing to do with my point.

[encumeterz]

You missed the point.

You said.


I was pointing out that this is already in practice in China. The law states any couple may have 1 child. My point is that having children is indeed regulated and people are told they can not have any more children after the first.

Who the couple is, or what undesirable genetics the couple has, has nothing to do with my point.

No you missed the point. The key word in my quote is "who".

If society accepted that we say who and who can't have babies

The Chinese do not specify who can who can't have children. They only specify for everyone that they can only one have one child.Everyone in china is in the same boat, and everyone can have a child. No one person is discriminated. While I'm sure this rules is broken to a degree by those with power, it's got nothing to do with genetics or being a superior race like we are talking about in this thread.

So you didn't get my point at all. What I'm talking about is discrimination of couples who can and can't have babies.

[tickerinet]

No you missed the point. The key word in my quote is "who".

If society accepted that we say who and who can't have babies

The Chinese do not specify who can who can't have children. They only specify for everyone that they can only one have one child.Everyone in china is in the same boat, and everyone can have a child. No one person is discriminated. While I'm sure this rules is broken to a degree by those with power, it's got nothing to do with genetics or being a superior race like we are talking about in this thread.

So you didn't get my point at all. What I'm talking about is discrimination of couples who can and can't have babies.

I'm not going to argue with you. I understand what you are saying, but you still don't get my point.

Maybe a different presentation may make it a little clearer. A childless couple are in the group who can have a child and a couple who already have a child are in the group who can not have another child. This is socially acceptable over there. That was all I was saying. Don't look any deeper into it, cause that's it.

What you are stating and what I am stating are more similar then you think. In order for the "who can's" to become the "who can't", some requirement must be present. In your argument, the requirement is a genetic abnormality or some other defect. In my example, the requirement is having the first child.

[encumeterz]

Yes I saw your grouping too, and understand what you mean., though I just didn't see how it fitted the thread when it was more about genetics, and how this selfish couple kept on having deformed kids.