Is it moral for people with "bad" genes to reproduce?

I am very hairy and (oh the irony) have also begun to lose the hair on my head recently, this being when I am a young adult in college. Both traits are inherited from my dad. Obviously, I have to work with what I'm given, and I'll make it through life fairly happily. It's not like I have a choice.

But it made me think: wouldn't it be selfish and immoral to pass on these traits? Making my kids suffer through something they have no control over just doesn't sit well with me. This is an extreme comparison, but it's like that transgender man, Thomas Beatie, who got pregnant and had a baby. That kid didn't have a choice to have a normal dad, and if he/she is not okay with it, sucks for him/her.

This probably isn't the best forum for such discussion, but I've seen some pretty intelligent conversation here so I hope to get some good insight.

It could just be your bad jeans.....

Eugenics is a dangerous road.

Morally no. Every human has the right to reproduce.

hey if people want to have kids let them have kids
if they have HIV or AIDS i can see a problem there
my g/f has all sorts of medical issues but she can't stop talking bout having kids in the future
now i'm all fine inmedical terms and i hope my kids will be balanced in terms of medical condition

there are people perfectly fine who have special needs kids or some very rare disease
you just have to make do

Is it moral to tell someone that they don't have the right to reproduce simply because they have "bad" genes? Nobody has perfect genes, so who gets to decide what "bad" means? We have laws in place for incest, but past that, I don't see a clear way to define anything.

People can be born into any kind of family with any kind of conditions regardless of genes. Because there's uncertainty in all cases, you might as well ban everyone from reproducing. And you give Thomas Beattie as an example ... in any case, what if a child would have prefrerred a smarter mother, or a more athletic dad, or a skinnier brother (vs. a "normal dad")? I just don't think the argument makes sense, because there's no reasonable place to draw the line.

I think one could be much worse off than just being hairy and balding, at least you are in college. I think restricting destitute people from reproducing would be an easier sell.

Eugenics is a dangerous road.

br0kenrabbit

I agree - who decides what is "bad" anyway

well my dad is short, my mom is short, so i'm short. wish i was taller, but oh well, i deal with it. luckily i am healthy, with no mental illness, or crippling disability.

[QUOTE="br0kenrabbit"]

Eugenics is a dangerous road.

Fandangle

I agree - who decides what is "bad" anyway

But since every human should have control over what they want or not, what happens if a kid doesn't want a transgendered Dad or to be adopted by a homosexual couple? th3warr1or

[QUOTE="th3warr1or"]But since every human should have control over what they want or not, what happens if a kid doesn't want a transgendered Dad or to be adopted by a homosexual couple? BadBrain21

I am very hairy and (oh the irony) have also begun to lose the hair on my head recently, this being when I am a young adult in college. Both traits are inherited from my dad. Obviously, I have to work with what I'm given, and I'll make it through life fairly happily. It's not like I have a choice.

But it made me think: wouldn't it be selfish and immoral to pass on these traits? Making my kids suffer through something they have no control over just doesn't sit well with me. This is an extreme comparison, but it's like that transgender man, Thomas Beatie, who got pregnant and had a baby. That kid didn't have a choice to have a normal dad, and if he/she is not okay with it, sucks for him/her.

This probably isn't the best forum for such discussion, but I've seen some pretty intelligent conversation here so I hope to get some good insight.

topraman517

goodwins lawl NAZIS LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

No. It just means you are a really shallow person.

Is it moral to tell someone that they don't have the right to reproduce simply because they have "bad" genes? Nobody has perfect genes, so who gets to decide what "bad" means? We have laws in place for incest, but past that, I don't see a clear way to define anything.

my_mortal_coil

I didn't mean that people with "bad" genes shouldn't have the right to reproduce. What I meant is that people should at least take into consideration what their child may have to go through. For most people the only concern is whether they can financially/emotionally support the child.

However, I realize that, in my argument, I make a non-scientific assumption: that if one is not born into the consciousness of one body, one will be born into the consciousness of another body. With that assumption, I was thinking that it would perhaps be better for my potential offspring to instead be born from someone else, thus avoiding my genetic flaws.

But it's more likely that one only comes into a singular existence, or doesn't. On a biological level, this is the reality. On a spiritual level, I have no clue, being of agnostic atheist beliefs. If this is the true nature of life, then my argument is pretty much null. Any reasonable existence is better than no existence, and if parents want to have a child and can support the child, I say go for it. I have a new appreciation for my parents now.

And with that, I'm heading off to bed, so don't expect me to post again any time soon. Thanks for all the responses and feel free to add more.

I don't want to get all sentimental, but a large part of life's beauty lies in its flaws. To deny bringing someone into the world on the basis that life will treat them harshly due to "bad" genes, is IMO, very immoral.