• stolid_agnostic@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    9 months ago

    This is the case. One thing is treating all humans with respect, and another is knowingly contributing to someone having a more difficult life. You can love the ones who already exist without passing on your genetic nonsense to new ones.

    • Wogi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      9 months ago

      So people who are more likely to get cancer shouldn’t reproduce? What about people with asthma?

      What about people lower on the socioeconomic scale?

      If you follow your logic even a few steps it’s gonna get real eugenics-y real fast.

      • stolid_agnostic@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        9 months ago

        I never attempted to lay out guidelines. As an general time I think anyone who rolls the dice when they can pass on a condition is horribly selfish and lacking in empathy.

      • force@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        But one of your points… why should someone who can’t afford a child have a child? It’s pretty valid to say that if my current position makes it so my kids would suffer a lot (which, in a corporatist society especially in the US, being very poor unfortunately generally causes immense pains in life) that it’d be immoral for me to create kids and then inflict that same issue upon them without them even being able to consent to it.

        I can’t afford to continue college, and I can’t get a scholarship or anything to help – my ADHD was the main factor in me doing poorly in school even though I made A’s on almost every assignment/test given to me (I just didn’t do most of the assignments). I can’t afford housing. I had a seizure just randomly a few weeks ago and now I have USD$80K in medical bills (I can get that reduced a bit, but no way I can pay it off).

        I am poor. There is 0 chance that I’m forcing all this stuff on a child, including the ADHD part. No doubt I would at least do good at getting treatment and helping the child with their ADHD completely unlike my parents did (I wasn’t diagnosed until 19 even though it was very obvious I had ADHD and my teachers even told them I probably have ADHD), but especially my flavour of ADHD is clearly not something that I want to pass down to kids in this society. And I’m pretty sick of people treating mental disorders like they’re somehow not nearly as serious as physical/physiological disorders.

        If we lived in a socialist society where everyone is treated perfectly like they should be treated, then sure – having a disability wouldn’t be so bad. Even in that case I’d still find it immoral if I made kids that would have as equally terrible of a time just trying to enjoy their own hobbies and work as me. It’s like the biggest fun and life and it feels it’s been ripped out of my hands, I don’t want my kids to deal with that.

        And once again, there are still plenty of unadopted kids out there who would otherwise be suffering if they weren’t adopted. I think just having kids at all rather than adopting when that’s the case is immoral, irregardless of if you’re disabled or not.

        Also I see a big difference in the cancer part and Autism/ADHD/bipolar/etc. since if your parent or parents have, for example ADHD, it’s almost certain that it will be passed down (like 90-99% chance). That kind of chance of passing down is definitely not the case when it comes to cancer. Like 60% (or more) of people get cancer in their lifetimes anyways so it’s pretty likely you’ll get cancer regardless.

        Also cancer is something that can be taken out (if not found late), neurodivergence is not. And cancer doesn’t affect you your whole life, while mental disorders do.