There are several different questions to be asked on this subject.

One: Should people with serious disabilities or diseases (that may be hereditary) be allowed to reproduce?

Two: How do you feel about people choosing their mate based on bloodline, in an attempt to create superior children, instead of choosing someone because you love them? And would you do/have you done this?

Three: The reverse of the last question, and silly, but if someone with a hereditary disability intentionally attempted to create a baby with those flaws by finding a partner with the same problem, what do you think their intent would be by doing that, aside from stupidity? Just something goofy I found from a crazy guy on the internet, and figured it would be something to ponder.

Please answer all of the questions and try not to deviate from the original topic too much.

http://www.humanitas-international.org/holocaust/eugenics.htm

We are all perfect, since we are God's children created in His image.

What I'm asking is, would you judge someone for personally choosing to do that?

I am indifferent to eugenics as long the participants are willing and have given their consent.

One: If we're assuming that the inheritary complications and defects are so extensive that modern medicine can't help it, and the chances are high that the child will face challenges throughout his/her life because of it, then no they should not be allowed to reproduce.

Two: I thought you were refering to common bloodline, and I couldn't help but think of the Habsburgs, and Charles II in particular.

Three: 2edgy8me

If God was so perfect I wouldn't have my testicles hanging externally and vulnerable to all of the world's dangers.

Your first question specifically precludes personal choice: if people are "allowed to reproduce".

My point is, regardless of my opinions, history has already played this out. The entire philosophy has been tried and found wanting. If the discussion of the subject doesn't make you queasy I suggest you need a history lesson.

Someone is feeling a little controversial today..

Then my thread isn't working as intended.

One person can do whatever he/she wants with his or her genes and reproductive organs, as long as they don't want to breed with me solely for my superior genetics, although I'd say it's pretty amoral. However, anything involving enforced eugenics is out of the question. Do not want.

I wouldn't, no. If that's their priority. It was common practice in ancient times when having robust children meant your lineage surviving. Ultimitely though, Eugenics is a flawed ideology.

I'm pretty sure God's first batch of humans all had their testicles buried in their abdomens someplace, but when their balls cooked and they weren't able to reproduce, they all died out and He had to revise his design a bit.

Even if the idea of eugenics makes you queasy, you have to admit that there are some moral problems with reproducing when you have a highly inheritable disease of some kind. Firing a pistol at random in such a way that it had a 25% chance of killing someone would be illegal, but having a kid when there's a high chance that they'll be disabled/won't live to advlthood is entirely legal.

Regarding eugenics for "superior characteristics"... well, most of the things that really matter we don't understand well enough to create breeding programs for anyway, so its stupid. Intelligence is mostly education, athleticism is sorta vague and also dependent on effort, etc. I guess we could breed out, uh.... male pattern baldness or something, but that wouldn't really improve humanity that much.

Even if you're born without arms and/or legs I fail to see how life is by default a net-negative thing.

The reason injuring somebody is immoral is because you're robbing them of something that was naturally theirs. Simply bringing somebody to life who's disabled by nature isn't doing them an injustice. That's all they were ever meant to be.

That being said, as a humanist, eugenics disgusts me.

I would argue that if you had specific physical and mental aptitude goals in mind, you could breed lines of humans with desired traits just as you would with any other animal. Slavery is an historical example, and class/wealth gaps in certain societies is another. Not saying it's right, but we know enough about biology and genetics to actually do it.

That's the only way I would voluntarily father any children. Too many people engage in baby-making based on fleeting emotions that barely last a few years in most cases, leaving children in a broken home.

Good luck fathering any children outside of a sperm bank.

Now he didn't day he wanted to do father kids the traditional way....

That's the plan!

1. Why shouldn't they? Everyone has a right to love, and if that love produces off-spring, so be it.

2. I would NEVER marry someone just to produce superior off-spring. That's...despicable and disgusting really. I married my wife for love.

3. No idea. I'd imagine it would be out of hatred for the life they've been forced to live, and the desire to force it on someone else, even if it's their own offspring.

So how does it ensure that your child will not have a broken home?

At least he'd be letting his kids be raised by somebody other than him.

edit: nvm, I misunderstood what was being said.

To me there's a huge difference in "We should have a child because our genetics match up nicely." and "We should have a child because we've been together for a year and zomg! are so in wuvz!"

In the former, the parents are not actually 'together' thus cannot 'break up' creating a broken home. In the former, the home becomes broken due to the emotional hurt one parent feels after the inevitable split up.