Should people with severe genetic physical or mental deformities be allowed to have children?

>Only natural selection can decide if Downs syndrome or whatever is the next step in human evolution.
Think about it:
They are evolving to:
1) Being able to reproduce (there is a selection against the Down syndrome people that cannot reproduce)
2) Being taken care off by others

How is that not everything you evolutionary need?

Humanities m8o

What if downies evolved to make others feel sympathetic for them, thus ensuring their survival?

Like pandas but human.

yes, but so should all other people

What about people who have genetically fatal disease like Huntington's(autosomal dominant). Is it ethical after they have genetic testing confirmed?

>and Humanities was a mistake

Two tards become one tard.
One tard married another, that's 8 tards who became one.

But seriously, allowing the Goverment to legislate marriage is a slippery slope.

>but no one is questioning whether they should be allowed to reproduce or not.
well you should be.

imo it's definitely not ethical for those people to have children (actually in some parts of the US, you can sue your parents for "wrongful life" for this type of thing). It's not like anyone's that interested in starting a state-sponsored sterilization program for these types of people, though, so really what are you supposed to do about it?

Survival of Downs syndrome kids, people with autoimmune diseases like MS, muscular distrophy, PKU, or type I diabetes
is only possible because of civilization though. Natural selection is completely minimal at this point. The only natural selection that still exist is against babies with other trisomy disorders that are completely not viable by birth( like in chromosomes 2, 10, 4, or 8).

I'm not talking about state regulation I'm just talking about ethics. Are these people not immoral for doing such a thing and worthy of our contempt?

>is only possible because of civilization though.
Implying that humans do not niche construct*, and that civilization is 1) not natural and 2) not the new environment and niche

*Term from ecology in case you are wondering

There's already 7 billion retards on the planet what is a few more gonna do?

>Should people with severe genetic physical or mental deformities be allowed to have children?

Most people with severe mental defects are also genetically disabled in such a way that they can't have children in the first place.

down's syndrome isn't hereditary

>Do as your programming instructs you to do
>Are these people not immoral?

I mean like come on man they're retarded, you can't really expect them to have deep thoughts regarding ideology and morality and yet you want to hold them in contempt for their failure to do so

I think you're actually the retarded one the more I think about it

Downies are infertile you stupid fucks.

No, you can't breed.

>down's syndrome isn't hereditary
Oops.

>Are these people not immoral for doing such a thing and worthy of our contempt?
Well, in my opinion it's immoral since they understand the risks to the well-being of the child, but decide to have a child anyway.They're valuing the joy of having a child over sentencing another human being to a (much higher than ambient chance of) a lifetime of suffering, which is unequivocally wrong.

Whether or not they're worthy of our contempt is another questtion. Why should my energy be wasted on feeling superior to some sick person?

If the nazis let defectives breed I don't know why we shouldn't.

Most people shouldn't be allowed to have children, desu. Only the most exceptional members of our species should mate, this will bring our collective average up while at the same time reducing the weight of raw numbers holding us back atm.

Just to clarify, this was in response to the question about people with serious hereditary genetic diseases , not in response to whether or not retarded people should have children.

Some of the dumbest shit I've read all day

>implying he's wrong
>implying people should be allowed to have children for no reason other than it makes their dick feel good for a couple of seconds

Civilization being natural or not is a whole other argument. I do think yes, it came about because of natural processes however, the "environment" it creates hardly mimics natural conditions. Most importantly, civilization must be sustained. The people who would have never been "fit" enough to contribute to creating it in the first place will have a hard time sustaining it. Thus, natural selection, is not specifically strong in civilizations. Notice I never said it was completely non existent.

My reply was more in context of late onset genetic diseases like Huntington's. So not everyone of them is retarded. You get genetic testing and symptoms don't usually start before age 45. It's all down hill from there though till death.

honestly I have my doubts, only because exceptional people come from members of the ordinary population all the time.

But eugenic control MUST be established if man is to make any kind of substantive change to his present state. The population boom means that regression to the mean is accelerating, while at the same time the value of that mean is deflating.

The collective work of a thousand generations is at risk.

It's weird because it could or it could not be, it all depends on how it goes because remember, both of them( not just one) still have 3 chromosome 21s. Are you familiar with non disjunction mechanism?

>stop downies and other undesirables from reproducing
>"whoops, looks like nature selection has weeded you out"

you know that humans are a part of nature, right?

That's why selective breeding is still natural selection. And if it isn't then the "natural selection" concept needs an update.

>But eugenic control MUST be established if man is to make any kind of substantive change to his present state.
>The population boom means that regression to the mean is accelerating, while at the same time the value of that mean is deflating.

Drama queen rabble rousing, sounds like something a dedicated infowars watcher would say
/pol/ pls go and stay go

>Are you familiar with non disjunction mechanism?
Yes but sort of forgot when engaging in this thread.

That's exactly what I'm saying. Natural selection is extremely simple: "that which survives, survives. That which does not survive, does not survive." If we were to bar peopple with undesirable genes from reproducing, this would be natural selection weeding them out, just as surely as any other 'natural' extinction. mistakenly drew a line between deliberate policy and natural selection, when in fact the former is simply an example of natural selection at work.

>oh no the fact that most people currently alive are genetically inferior to a smaller selection of the total population hurts my feefees
>le you are pathetic fag kys

>the "environment" it creates hardly mimics natural conditions.
That does not matter, because it is the environment now.
>Thus, natural selection, is not specifically strong in civilizations.
Well cultural selection has taken the front seat, but there is still some genetic component.

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the mechanisms of evolution and natural selection

>le >you are pathetic fag kys

lol u mad racist idiot?

why am I racist now

>If we were to bar peopple with undesirable genes from reproducing, this would be natural selection weeding them out, just as surely as any other 'natural' extinction.
I follow you, though usually natural selection is not so much top-down and artificial.
And cultural evolution is much more important in humans even though genetics clearly play a role.

Well you're purporting the efficacy of eugenics and I can guarantee a part of your criterion is race related

So I think that would fit many people's definitions for racism

Then you better go sterilize yourself for the good of the State m8.

Not a /pol/fag or the user you replied to but you are seriously being presumptive. This whole thread was about genetic disorders ( which are usually found throughout all races equally to some degree) and you assume user wants eugenics for racial purposes? Pretty silly imo.

There's a guy telling me that the work of 1000 generations is at risk if we don't start euthanizing parts of the population. He then gets angry and tells me to kill myself when I accuse him of being an idiot from /pol/, but I'm the one who's being silly. But to relate that all back to the thread topic I think you're as retarded as he is and I'm now thinking maybe neither of you should reproduce.

If you define natural selection to include the positive effects modern society has on downies etc, you have to include possible negative effects too. You can't just arbitrary pick and choose what is and isn't natural selection to obtain a desired result.

Yeah it's pretty clear you have no clue what natural selection is

>all this time, /pol/ has been a psyops operation to convince us to support eugenics

SO now I'm retarded for thinking people with bad genetic disorders shouldn't be able to reproduce? Who the hell said anything about euthanizing people? Again, you're being as dramatic.

I'm pretty sure I understand it much better than you. I'm also pretty sure you've fundamentally misunderstood the argument I'm putting forward. Now, are you gonna reply with something more substantive than "u dont understand lol", or are you just gonna shut up? /tv/ probably has some Bane threads up, might be more your level.

What about sustaining it thought? When did a natural environment require a group of individuals to consciously work to sustain it?

>I can guarantee a part of your criterion is race related

no you can't.

To totally eliminate entire sections of the human population would be really stupid, because true diversity guarantees a flexible genetic response to environmental shifts.

This doesn't mean flooding ethnically homogeneous countries with foreign peoples though.

Besides, nobody would ever seriously argue that the best negroid is inferior to the worst mongoloid just because of his forensic classification.

You're retarded for thinking that disbarring people with genetic disorders from reproducing would have any sort of tangible, positive effect for all the effort and resources you'd put in to carrying it out

>When did a natural environment require a group of individuals to consciously work to sustain it?

When did we ever consciously sustain an environment? The modern world was crafted by macroeconomic forces well beyond any one consciousness.

All it takes is a less than 2 hour procedure as opposed to some worker continuously having to take care of or monitor some of these people for the rest of their lives. Btw I didn't even propose a concrete plan for regulation .I just stated these people shouldn't do such a think.

It's true, again, for the initial stages but not for when large scale civilizations started to take place. Admit it; such people being born regularly into the population would not be able to sustain it as well as those who were born normal.

>When did a natural environment require a group of individuals to consciously work to sustain it?

literally agriculture

it seems like you don't really understand the broad meaning of the world natural. It's not all about forests and waterfalls you know.

You guys know that there are people with downs who aren't actually retarded, right? There are cases where cognitive ability isn't affected.

yeah I read about some downies scoring 115 on an iq test

shit's fucked yo

Shit that's higher than mine, I'm 93 and am a reasonably intelligent dude.

>I'm 93 and am a reasonably intelligent dude
>93
>reasonably intelligent
fuck off brainlet

IQ tests aren't actually that good at reliably pinpointing an individual IQ. They're really good for large populations though.

people are "allowed" to have children in many ways.
I allow you to have children because there's not a fucking thing I can do about it.

>people with down syndrome are really just domesticated humans

wat
yes they are
or to put it in better terms they're a good measure of how not retarded you are

>It's all down hill from there though till death
Isn't that true of everyone after age 45?

I mean in the most severe, scientifically meaningful way. They're better at representing large groups.

Hey, a club footed clinical depressive isn't *that* defective.

The agricultural revolution was the back bone of civilization though.

In terms of the symptoms. Look up the symptoms of Huntington's and stop being cheeky.

Naturally.

Where do you draw the line though? What about infertiles? What about really poor people who cant support their kids? What about people who hold radical views? Or ugly people?

Who are you really to say whether or not someone should be "allowed" to fullfill its base objective in life?

If a retard impregnates a normal or if a retard is impregnated by a normal will the baby be retarded or have a higher chance at being retarded or normal?

Are there any documented incidents of retards procreating?

No.
And these kinds of people should really be euthanized at birth or aborted anyway.

Because the Nazi's ruined eugenics for everyone.

No, I'd never subject people to that shit