Forums / Discussion / Serious Debate

I have some pretty tough questions for our resident KYMers today.

Parenting. Something that many of us aspire to be involved with some day (and something some of us would love to avoid). It's something we all have to deal with at least at some point in our lives, if not just how our own parents embrace parenting. Pretty much every parent has screwed up at some point or another – but we're not here to talk about the minor fuck ups – sometimes some parents really, really screw up.

It's no doubt that we all agree that some people should NOT be allowed to take care of their children. But in some cases, it's just too late. For example, a Detroit mother killed two of her children and stuffed them in a freezer for years. Most people would agree that it is practically mandatory to take those children away, however, without those children being discovered, the two survivors would have risked continual abuse from their mother.

But is there a point where someone, truly, should not be allowed to have children? Is it ethical for someone who simply is mentally or physically unable to take care of their own children to be denied the right to have children?

There's also the question of genetics. Many people have genetic conditions that they fear may be passed down onto their children. Many people with congenital glaucoma for example, end up having grandchildren who inherit their disorder.

Personally, I don't agree with forced sterilization, but I see the comment "She shouldn't be allowed to have kids!" pop up a lot on child abuse cases like this, and it had me wondering about where we draw the line on these sorts of things.

But as an alternative, is genetic modification or forcing a child into adoption through an authority really "ethical" either? What do you think is the best solution to the problem of the severely mentally ill having children that they abuse?

I think it's really fucked up that some people honestly believe forced sterilization is the answer. Sure, it looks real good on paper, seeing that no child would have to suffer from abusive parents or genetic disorders again. But do you really think a system like that would work? First off, where would we even draw the line between incapable and capable of adequately caring for a child? It could start as only barring people with severe mental illness and genetic disorders, but it could easily extend to single parents, people in poverty, people in the middle class, and we could end up with only the 1% being able to have kids. And this isn't even mentioning the fact that family situations drastically change as a child grows. A family that was financially well-off and mentally stable when the child was born could end up going bankrupt, the parents could develop anxiety disorders or some other form of mental illness due to the state of their lives crumbling around them, which could lead to abusing/neglecting their children. Or in another hypothetical situation, the parents divorce and the parent with custody ends up in an abusive relationship with a new partner that extends to abusing the children.

There's also a lot of questions as to how we would determine whether someone is fit to parent. Do they have to take a test? Go through physical and mental evaluations? Do they have to at least graduate high school with a certain GPA? What standard are we going to require? What if in a married couple only one spouse is deemed fit to be a parent? Does that mean the other spouse that was deemed fit to parent has to either divorce and find a new partner or be doomed to the same fate as their spouse and never be allowed to care for a child? How are we going to be sure this whole thing is foolproof? I can see a million possibilities where completely fit potential parents are denied their right to have children while people who should be sterilized slip through the cracks and are free to have as many children to abuse as they please.

All the logical arguments against it aside, this is just a completely unethical practice along the likes of Eugenics. You do realize we are talking about actual human beings here, not your fucking cat right? I can't even imagine how nightmarish it must be to be a person who dreamed all their life of raising a family only to be denied because the government decided they were "unfit" and fucked with your genitals so that you could never have children even if you tried. Good job, now you have god knows how many adults that have developed mental illnesses from going through such a traumatic experience (not to mention the social stigma that must come from getting forcefully sterilized). For about as long as I can remember I've dearly wanted to raise a family. I have never considered myself a suicidal person, but I'm not being dramatic when I say I would become severely suicidal if I were in a situation like that.

So, yeah. TL;DR: I sincerely hope that people that support forced sterilization never get put into a position of power

I don't think that forced sterilization and eugenics is ethical outside of very extreme circumstances that I don't think have ever occurred and ever will.

That being said, for certain genetically transmissable and incurable diseases (the examples I would use are Huntington's and AIDS; it has to be something actually resulting from genes or reproduction rather then having increasing your chance of disease), I think society should very strongly discourage these people from reproducing and therefore spreading it. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, and the best way to prevent these things from spreading is by not having kids or sex as the case may be.

{ First off, where would we even draw the line between incapable and capable of adequately caring for a child? It could start as only barring people with severe mental illness and genetic disorders, but it could easily extend to single parents, people in poverty, people in the middle class, and we could end up with only the 1% being able to have kids. }

That is literally, nearly word for word, the argument against the legal right to die, yet nobody is offing their grandparents in the multiple European countries where human euthanasia is legal. "It would start as only letting those with terminal diseases die, but it could easily be extended to bullied kids and old people who cost too much to take care of!1!!" Like it would be a free for all and unregulated, or an even better conspiracy theory, the government will use it to kill people!!!

The longer we go "ehhhh, ethics…. ehhhhh" the worse off our species is going to be, from a medical point of view. We have already seen hundreds of diseases and disorders, which were previously 1 in a million chances, soar to rates like 1 in 1000.

Forced sterilization isn't that great an option because we know that the cause of these conditions vary with factors other than heredity. Epigenetics, environment, etc all play a role in the expression of most genetic/chromosomal disorders, even the extremely hereditary autism. The medical science community takes a "we can cure it" approach rather than "we can prevent it" for this reason, among others, but that results in treatments that are way too expensive for your typical family.

It really comes down to: people are going to be shitty parents and pass down their shitty genes regardless, we just have to deal with it as it comes. Even if that Detroit woman had been sterilized, what if she decided to adopt instead and those kids ended up in the freezer? Can't prevent bad parenting any more effectively than we prevent crime.

Crimson Locks, you basically worded exactly what I wish I could explain to these individuals.

For readers of this thread, I thought of another controversial example – not sterilization but similar – what about people past a certain age? There are cases where people have children as late as their 60s, and many studies show that advanced age can greatly increase the risk of genetic defects.

We have already seen hundreds of diseases and disorders, which were previously 1 in a million chances, soar to rates like 1 in 1000.

Is this caused or can be fixed by "proper breeding", though? I can't think of a good reason why, genetically, a bunch of people would start becoming autistic when there were hardly any before.

Is eugenics a bad idea? Yes.

{ I can’t think of a good reason why, genetically, a bunch of people would start becoming autistic when there were hardly any before. }

We travel more often/for less money/faster than ever, and we got looser with our sexual morals. More opportunities for the genes to spread, and they did.

We also expanded the definition of autism, so it's being diagnosed at a higher rate than ever, but as the graph says that can only account for ~25% of the increase.

We travel more often/for less money/faster than ever, and we got looser with our sexual morals. More opportunities for the genes to spread, and they did.

That's a really vague answer. is there any actual research to back this up?

It's not vague at all. More people of different ethnicities who grew up with very different environmental and epigenetic factors are more able to meet/date/get married/have kids than 50 years ago. These are all things that contribute to the rate of autism, along with the recessive genes going through families.

Is there research to back up what? That transportation makes it easier to meet different people? or that more people having more sex results in more babies?

More people of different ethnicities who grew up with very different environmental and epigenetic factors are more able to meet/date/get married/have kids than 50 years ago. These are all things that contribute to the rate of autism, along with the recessive genes going through families.

Why? For starters, why would people outside of their local populations intermarrying increase the rate of recessive genes showing up rather then decreasing it, since the number of recessive genes should be higher in an isolated group?

Is there research to back up what?

That people of different ethnicities marrying or people having more babies results in higher rates of autism?

This is starting to get a little, I don't know, Hitler-y.

I think just encouraging people to check out the person's legal record before having sex with them is a good idea. No one has to be sterilized or forced breeding. You can just look up a woman and be like "Oh she is known for having a mental disorder and has abused her children I better not put my dick in that".

People who abuse their children, murder them, or show they are incapable of raising kids safely should not be allowed to adopt or have biological kids.

Now when it comes to mental disorders and genetic problems that is another story. ultimately it is up to the person that they breed with. If someone is willing to deal with or risk the possibility of genetic disorder that is their choice. Once again it is up to choice, some people are willing to risk it, but the public should be informed of disorders that can be passed down before having sex.

I think a lot of problems could be solved by just having FAR better sexual education. Knowing which diseases or disorders can spread through sex, encouraging people to make sure their partner is safe not just physically but mentally for sex or children. would go a long way in solving problems.

Anyone with a track record for child abuse, child neglect or generally ruins the lives of either the persons own kids or other peoples kids: should not be allowed to keep and rear those kids and shouldn't be allowed to have any more

But I believe procreation is a basic human right and I'm against that right being forcefully denied, at least not without a proper legal trial to determine if someone can safely parent or not in the future. For example a court can decide if a serial rapist should be given the snip in case that rapist re-offends and causes another unwanted pregnancy. Singular case-by-case decisions to force sterility on individuals who need it is fine

But we shouldn't be imposing sterility to everyone under a certain criteria in order to follow some kind of program. Sterility really isn't something that you can decide for the masses on a bureaucratic level because each person is different when it comes to their plans and capability to breed responsibly and people need that freedom of choice

{ why would people outside of their local populations intermarrying increase the rate of recessive genes showing up rather then decreasing it, since the number of recessive genes should be higher in an isolated group? }

Autism has been around in small numbers for centuries. It's well established globally, and was global well before it was initially described as "autism" in the late 1890's. Your average adult globally carries about six recessive genes for various horrific conditions (there is research on that one), our global population has simply been intermingling far too long for any humans to be considered an isolated group anymore.

{ That people of different ethnicities marrying or people having more babies results in higher rates of autism? }

Science does not currently have a solid answer for why the rate of autism is increasing so sharply. "More sex with more people" is just one piece of what is surely a very complicated puzzle, i.e. only having more babies with more people wont increase the rate of autism, it's that factor in combination with all the other factors contributing to autism (many of which are still unknown).

Your average adult globally carries about six recessive genes for various horrific conditions (there is research on that one), our global population has simply been intermingling far too long for any humans to be considered an isolated group anymore.

But if everyone has the same genes overall, why would people intermarrying outside of ethnic groups more often increase or decrease the rate of autism?

Science does not currently have a solid answer for why the rate of autism is increasing so sharply.

So why would practicing any form of genetic watchfulness be an ideal solution to the problem? And why would you post that graph in a thread about hereditary genetic diseases under the assumption that genetics are what is causing the higher rates of autism?

{ But if everyone has the same genes overall, why would people intermarrying outside of ethnic groups more often increase or decrease the rate of autism? }

People don't have the same genes overall. Your typical adult carries six recessive genes for various horrific conditions. Some conditions are more prevalent among certain ethnicities. If I had a kid with my white neighbor, the chances are far less that our kid has sickle cell anemia than if I had a kid with a black guy, for example.

{ So why would practicing any form of genetic watchfulness be an ideal solution to the problem? }

Are we having this conversation because you didn't actually read my post again?

My post literally says: { Forced sterilization isn’t that great an option because we know that the cause of these conditions vary with factors other than heredity. }

I posted the graph to show one of many genetic/chromosomal disorders whose rates are increasing. Otherwise I'm sure you'd be saying WELL WHO SAYZ THE RATEZ R EVEN INCREESING because you're just trying to argue with me, yet again.

"More people of different ethnicities who grew up with very different environmental and epigenetic factors are more able to meet/date/get married/have kids than 50 years ago. These are all things that contribute to the rate of autism, along with the recessive genes going through families."

I've been asking for proof of this, but all I've gotten is "it's just a contributing factor." Are the autism genes centered on a specific population, then? What's supposed to be causing then to have a resurgence?

My post literally says: { Forced sterilization isn’t that great an option because we know that the cause of these conditions vary with factors other than heredity. }

Genetic watchfulness isn't limited to forced sterilization; it could be as simple as getting a punch card with a list of your families risks of certain illnesses. But why should this be considered a significant way of stopping the rise of autism if you can't come up with a good reason for why genetics are causing autism to be on the rise in the first place?

While eugenics and forced sterilization is not the answer, I do think that we should at least have a law that (if we don't already) prohibits those with a history of abuse or neglect to ever have children (either through birth or adoption).

Forced sterilization in a sense is "guilty until proven innocent" because it doesn't even give them a chance to prove themselves as worthy parents. Remember that appearance is not everything, just because someone is well off and a good person on the surface does not make them a good parent.

I don't like that such irresponsible and abusive people are allowed to breed, but unless there is some surefire way to test if someone is going to be a good parent, it's a necessary evil. It's better to let a criminal free than to punish an innocent (at least in my opinion).

The government forcing regular people do anything--especially things relating to sterilization--just doesn't sit right at all. As a form of punishment for a severe crime, I could see it being used, but it sort of ties into the death penalty debate and the "what if they're innocent." Plus, there's eighth amendment considerations to keep in mind and I'm sure a ton of legal cases that I'm too lazy to look up.

I just don't think it's really needed. We already have prison for punishment and forced sterilization of "undesirables" is just too uncomfortable and unethical a topic for most to fully consider.

Crimson Locks said:

It could start as only barring people with severe mental illness and genetic disorders, but it could easily extend to single parents, people in poverty, people in the middle class, and we could end up with only the 1% being able to have kids.

Better make sure that slippery slope's nice and greased.

a blind spy said:

…what about people past a certain age?

Kind of redundant since nature automatically sterilizes woman past a certain age.

Farm Zombie said:

Is eugenics a bad idea? Yes.

Not necessarily. Eugenics is merely "improving the genetic quality of the human population." Previously, that was done with sterilizing those seen as genetically inferior (mentally ill, ethnic groups, etc.) and "removing them from the gene pool." Today, with our advancements in genes and DNA, we're getting closer to being able to genetically modify babies before their born.

Now ask yourself, if you were an expecting parent, and your doctor said they could significantly reduce the risk of cancer, or one of dozens of diseases in your baby, wouldn't you leap at the chance? That's modern eugenics. Of course, it does run the risk of Khan popping up eventually, but we can cross that bridge when we come to it.

Forced sterilization even if is to avoid having more children is not OK.

Eugenics is bad idea if we start choosing who can have children or not but i am for eugenics if a couple (the father ,the mother or both) with a genetic disposition for certain diseases, you can modify the genes to avoid said diseases if possible.

@xTSGx you forgot that a men even with the decrease of sperm production because of aging can impregnate a woman who is fertile ,therefore raising the chances of genetic defects and raising even more if the woman is above 30 years old.

@xTSGx – Due to changes in science, people can have children post menopause. It's not common but it does happen and there isn't really anything legally that stops it despite the risks.

Should some people not have children? Abso-fucking-lutely. Look at majority of parents in the 21st century.

Should some people be forced not to have children (e.g. forced sterilization)? No.

So, yeah. TL;DR: I sincerely hope that people that support forced sterilization never get put into a position of power

Yeah, I hope so too because we might get people in power like this poster that make ignorant claims and use them to push their ideology.

HIV/AIDS is not an inheritable trait so its not genetically transmissible. In fact its the opposite of what you posted. A mother with AIDS does not pass the virus to her unborn child during embryonic development instead its passed down during the birthing processes if the mother bleeds and her blood enters the babies circulatory system. So AIDS how you put it "only increases your chances" of a child born with it.

In Canada mother to child transmission of HIV/AIDS is nearly eliminated

Not to mention that this sort of thing goes against the driving force of evolution which is to promote diversity. When your gametes are being formed they actually go out of their way to do complex reactions and rearrangements of your genetic material to ensure there is diversity by means of random mutations (look up Holliday Junctions). If we support this sort of thing we will only hurt ourselves in the long run.

Btw that graph Lisa showed earlier about autism cases isn't showing a increase in autism rates; its an increase in diagnoses.
Humanity isnt any more prone to autism than it was 10/20/100 years ago the curve is merely due to the improvement in our ability to detect the condition over the last few decades.

HIV/AIDS is not an inheritable trait so its not genetically transmissible. In fact its the opposite of what you posted.

As I admitted in that very post…

So AIDS how you put it “only increases your chances” of a child born with it.
In Canada mother to child transmission of HIV/AIDS is nearly eliminated

Good to know, but I imagine the rates of transmission are much higher in poorer countries.

Not to mention that this sort of thing goes against the driving force of evolution which is to promote diversity. When your gametes are being formed they actually go out of their way to do complex reactions and rearrangements of your genetic material to ensure there is diversity by means of random mutations (look up Holliday Junctions). If we support this sort of thing we will only hurt ourselves in the long run.

I don't think it will hurt our evolutionary prospects more then it benefits them to try and eliminate certain gene mutations that are easily transferable and severely damaging; which they aren't that many of, but are nonetheless good examples for having that kind of societal attitude. (Such as Huntington's)