How many of you would be happy with a law being implemented that prevents people with genetic diseases/defects from having children?
>>56508326
I'm willing to let some slide but I don't see why not.
>>56508326
10/10 would be happy.
Also ugly, dumb, foreign and immoral people.
>>56508326
lol how's it going, Oberstgruppenführer Smith?
I'd need to hear your definition of genetic defect/disease first
Everyone here has aspergers so none of us could reproduce
>>56508326
How many of you would be happy with a law being implemented that prevents people who are white from having children?
To clarify: I'm talking diseases and defects that have a reasonable chance of being passed to any offspring. Eg, Cystic Fibrosis. People with chronic illnesses such as Crohn's that are not proven to be passed on are still allowed to mate. I'd count some forms of mental retardation.
>>56509665
What about diseases with minimal morbidity/mortality? If mild conditions are excluded, what's your cut-off
What about conditions that are multifactorial, like diabetes? Massive genetic inheritance of type 2.
>>56508965
Confirmed.
>>56508326
For it generally, but always fear of the slippery slope
>>56508326
>>56508379
>>56508823
>>56508965
>>56509543
>>56509665
Get out, Anglo blood.
>>56508455
>dumb
don't be so hard on yourself
>>56508326
I'm for it on a generation by generation basis.
>>56509950
Im short-sighted anyway. Just euthanize my shit up.
>>56508326
Sounds good, also why do your people hate showers? I heard English people don't bathe everyday is that nasty shit true?
>>56508326
To a point.
>inb4 baldness
Yes for Cystic Fibrosis & Huntingtons.
If I had either of those, I would commit to not having children.
>>56508326
But abnormalities is how evolution works, some of the most retarded people do amazing things, like Stephen hawking
>>56509847
it's hard to establish a clear cut off point but pretty much anything that most people would consider life ruining. Eg diabetes can be treated well and doesn't impact life too much, but Down's syndrome makes you dysfunctionally retarded.
>>56510164
I have two showers a day every day.
>>56508326
I think we're close enough to solve most / all genetic disorders via gene therapy that I don't really feel like this is necessary. 100 years ago, maybe?
>>56508326
Who gets to decide what a genetic disease is?
What if the govt decides that being white is a genetic disease?
Or that having an IQ over 100 is a defect?
You're all retarded. People with serious genetic disorders often have a hard time reproducing anyway, because no one wants to fuck a deformed autist.
>>56510164
Most people here shower every morning and/or evening but it's not considered unacceptable to go a day or two without. I personally view such behaviour as degenerate and embarrassing.
>>56508326
Anon this would solve nothing, mutation is a thing you know, people with disabilities would still be born to healthy parents.
This is the problem with eugenics throughout history, it never worked because scientifically it is impossible to suppress mutation.
>>56508326
Happy.
>>56508326
it would be fucking stupid and counterproductive. what if a given individual has a genetic disease, but is, for example, highly intelligent? that way you'd stop the good genes from being passed over just to kill the bad ones. gene therapy would be much better
>>56510459
It would be established in writing - you could apply fear of Government intervention/abuse to any law. Plenty of retards and degenerates are allowed to pollute the collective gene pool when it would undoubtably be better for society in the long term if they were sterile.
>>56510320
You'd be surprised, there are pretty functional Downs people who can hold down a menial job and do it quite well, for a decent amount of time. And once diabetes sets in treatment only goes so far, and many will end up being amputees or just generally useless fucks. But I think I see the distinction you're making, and would mostly agree with it. But, depending on where you do decide to draw that cut-off line, you could get a majority of people to agree with you, or you could be seen as a raving eugenics madman, so the debate is really usually about what exactly consitutues disease and disability.
For me, anything that's guaranteed to kill you before 30, or results in guaranteed mental impairment that prevents you from being able to seek gainful employment, should pretty much prevent you from being allowed to reproduce. Otherwise I think you should be allowed to, but maybe with limits on public health/welfare spending on certain conditions.
The law in SA allows a parent to consent to sterilization for their child if they're severely retarded.
>>56510459
>People with serious genetic disorders often have a hard time reproducing anyway
You'd be surprised. Down's can make you pretty hypersexual for instance, they often fall pregnant. Other disabilities make you pretty prone to sexual exploitation, hence the law I mention above.
I honestly think it would be a good thing:
Primary reason-
-The child will not suffer and will have a chance at living a normal healthy life.
>>56508326
It would be a good idea, but the issue is that the left would make up a new 'disease' and it would include us.
We would need to make the law and then define leftism/communism/cultural marxism/alinskyism as diseases. Also include islam as a disease.
