we as humans never knew before if that would happen through the miracle of science we do know, the moral question lies in the part of; should we even know what kind of baby we are having...should science be able to tell us if it's gonna be a healthy kid or not...shouldn't we treasure life as it is handed out to us, like evolution did for us millions of years, what if one of these supposed to be unhealthy kids is a prototype of our race that we can't even see untill it has fully grown, we evolve
@007mano1 The fact of the matter is that a huge part of our procreation is (sexual) human attraction. Human attraction is (and seemingly has always been) greatly subject to genetics. The stronger, fitter and more fertile have always been more attractive to the opposite sex. Then here comes my question: Has - by using selective attraction - evolution not always tried to predetermine the health and success of our children? Think about it...
@JRico4qh2 yh, In part that is true, up untill the point were humans, even those who are stronger and fitter and more fertile might end up with a baby not as healthy so to speak, genetically or physically, cause even through evolution we have seen birth-defects on species, supposed to be evolving in a better way through superiour genetics, hence was the point I tried to make, is the virtue of science allowed to be able to judge whether or not that child should or shouldn't be born
not different, from one another. imo thats the same thing and i also think if you you have any sort of disease disorder whether it is mental or physical what you would inherit to your child you shouldnt be allowed to have that kid. Neither you should have kids if you live in very low standards.
I think if the baby will die short after birth (like, not having natural lifespan of other human beings) then it's morally unacceptable to give birth to him/her. However, if the child will be only sick, they shouldn't necessarily not let them have a child, but they must put them in jail IF they find out that the child isn't raised properly.
I think it would be unneccesary and also kind of stupid for them to have kids, but there shouldn't be a law against it. As he says in the video, where do you draw the line? It would not be difficult to move that line more and more until only some select people could legally have kids, and while that might be good for the human race (if done properly), it would not be good for the little person.
Imagine following scenario: You live in a VERY poor environment. (Which you, first of all, didn't chose to get born in) and you meet a boy/girl. You know they both didn't chose to get born in this environment.. Could you deny them making children? (there is no disease or anything similar to that involved, the only thing you know is that it's a very poor environment where there barely is a proper house.) I honestly can't deny them making children.
Why bringing in life a baby that's gonna have a hard time, giving birth to a baby must hurt like hell. Abduct that shit instead, it's way more easier and less painful
If the baby's needs will not be met, I don't think people should be allowed to have a baby, nor should we create babies that we know will have undesirable mutations and/or diseases.
the second point i feel is relevant, Is your thoughts on weather or not punishment is necessary. This is a fault of opinion in general... Its hard to say but punishing for murder in anyform is from an objective standpoint is sad. Sacrifice cannot be mended by sacrifice, nor can evil be mended by evil. HAHA but thats in the ideal world... I would probably kill someone who was after my life, or a loved ones... so dnt get mad at me, I'm just as human as the rest of ya :)
I think you bring up a good question, Not one to be brushed off like my friend trancemisho thinks it should be. Its my belief that there are a wide majority of people who shouldn't have children regardless of diseases (like my friend ericafash). I truely feel sorry for those who really want children and cant, This is only provided that the people have something to offer the children. There is a huge majority of people who want kids for the sake of having them, like to fit in. (16 and pregnant
Yes. There should be laws against that. If you want to get serious about advancing the human race and making sure that the strong and healthy only pass on their genes then yes. Want genetic disorders to fade out?no baby. Why should the child suffer for their parents need to have them. Might as well be feeding them snake venom
Well I believe it depends on how you look upon the disability or disease. Those are two different things. A "disabled" child may still be accepted and accommodated in this society without severe pain. They think differently and act differently which is the norm for them because they haven't experienced anything else. Diseases on the other hand slowly kill the child so it is different. Your analogy may not be the most accurate.
Also, I think that if parents weren't allowed to pass on of a genetic disorder that would cause their baby harm, they would also have to stop people who could potentially become alcoholic, abusive, etc, from having kids. I also think that the government should never interfere with anything like this. As soon as they started into not wanting children with mental illness, we'd have a problem. Mental illness is often just a few steps away from genius.
i think that if people know for sure that their kid will suffer because the genes that were passed by them they shouldn't even be considering it .. nowadays there are other ways to have a kid like sperm or egg donors or adoption .. no parent in their right mind should make their kid suffer if there are other options ..
Well like the two people who are conspiering to commit murder cant actually be arrested before the crime is commited the two persons who want to have a baby could not have been arrested (if their would be a law against them having babies) before they actually had a baby.
--They should be allowed to have a baby, free will to do whatever they want. But someone should rly teach them what they are gonna put their child through by making him themself instead of having an adoption.
The difference I think lies with the fact that murderers usually want to commit the crime then go on with their lives and not be caught. Whereas, the parents of such a child would hopefully know what will happen and hopefully be willing to take responsibility for the care of that child and make the child's life as comfortable as possible.
Sometimes(and i hate to say that)same results caused by non-same intensions are not the same.I understan the comparison you make between the victim of a harful act and a baby born harmed.But he first one was made in order to cause pain(phsical and mental) to the victim while in the second situation the problem they cause it's something like "a necessary sacrifice"for this baby to be born.His destiny is not the same with the first man,because the baby is destined to receive great amount of love.
I think that if i certainly knew my son/daughter would inherit any desease of that kind, i would probably choose not to have a baby, and it is also my belief that the choise is up to the parents and the government should not interfere ( IF the parents are mentally healthy, i mean if they dont have the baby just because they WANT the child to have a desease and suffer, which is actually the same than a entirely healthy child who's hitted by his parents for pleasure). this is just MY opinion
An enormous majority of people living in this world are in a state of poverty, to say it is illegal or even wrong to birth a child if a couple is in this condition would be ridiculous. It is nature to mate and give birth, you cannot take that away from humanity.
not to state the obvious but by the baby being born it will probably help doctors over time develop a cure. also since the people with the genetic thing are old enough to have kids, at least the kid will live past puberty. the two situations are not identical in the least bit.
No , i would not give birth to my child only if i know that i will pass on a deadly and highly debilitating illness like aids for example but i would like to ask you that should a cure for aids develop a few years from when i make the decision to terminate a being with potential consciousness become a reality would i still be able to live with this decision and following your question would i be considered a murderer however well meaning my decision was in the larger scale of things.
mid pregnancy if i discover my child/creature of potential consciousness is 'deformed' i would still give birth to it.i dont know if my child will have a hole in its heart just as i dont know if a cure for its problems will come a year or even ten from if i terminate it .and even if my child has to live complicated life of medicines and not going out in the sunlight because he/she/it is allergic to it , would i not like to share the rich world of consciousness to my unborn child .
also a fuzzier question - is a conscious being which suffers from a physical deformity or a mental one not entitled to a life no matter how much its quality is inadequate and full of dependence on you or a support system ? will it not have meaning or its own system of existing ? just because we think its not a fulfilling life ? and even if my child has to live complicated life full of hardship would i not like to share the rich world of consciousness with my child .
We get rid of sick animals because they are suffering, feeling pain and need lots of care. It is for their own good, isn't it? So I don't understand the point of giving a birth to a child who would be the same. Especially, if he is not expected to live long, has really serious illnesses or it is genetical. If I were told that I am carrying a really sick baby, I WOULD do an abortion, for the babys and ,my own good. I think the best option for people who can't have healthy infants is adoption.
Would-could you do a costume Drama on the 4th century Christological disputes that happened in the BYZANTINE EMPIRE?( I'm serious) or maybe a 13th century Dominican Inquisitor.You enjoy these verbal-flip-flops & yer really good at them.I can picture you dressed up like St.Basil of Caesarea & St.John Chrysostom,Thomas Aquinas & don't forget"TheGrand Inquisitor"from,TheBrothersKaramazov by Dostoevsky.
i think that not only do you have an open mind but nature has an open mind in a sense. there is still a good chance to have a healthy child in some cases and in the others that are a victim of the genetic disorder and so on have a chance to live a normal life just fine to one day reproduce like their parents.Think about Africa and sickle cell anemia. If everyone killed people that had diseases and so on, the human race would not have the natural imuneities that we have today.
the baby with the disease could change the world like Adolf Hitler because said that he has suffered from irritable bowel syndrome, skin lesions, irregular heartbeat, Parkinson's disease, syphilis, and a strongly suggested addiction to methamphetamine, and he changed the world. PCE xx -I'm High
I can't take what I cannot give back. You certainly can try to control a child's birth but will never know what the future holds for that child, so I'm certainly against abortion. Think about Ramanujan, a child prodigy, who was born into worse of conditions. Now, he is reined as a mathematical genius who in his short lived life made some of the greatest contributions to humanity. Imagine what a loss it would have been if his parents decided to deny him the right to live.
i believe that they should not have a child, its just my opinion that anyone that has a very serious condition should not have children at all. like the "retards" <<-- sorry for that couldnt think of the actual term. but i know many of them who are allowed to have children and its just passed on through the child as well, i do not think this should be allowed...
Nobody has asked to live and we we're all put on this world without our permission. So if we kill ourselves, I think that's justified. In case of abortion, I think that it can't be legal or illegal, good or bad and it's just a choice for the parents to take. It's a choice which makes the life of the parents better and it doesn't matter what's best for the baby, because if they are born with a handicap, they can easily learn to live with it.
@MargauxEmmanuelle First of all the question didnt mention abortion, it was more like a couple planning on having a child knowing fully that the child will have some genetic mutation. Also there are some things that people cannot just learn to live with. I don't think it is fair on the child to be born with a serious disability when there are so many healthy children that would love to be adopted.
@DeanLeysen I am relatively new to your channel so I do not know if you have answered this before. However, I still want to ask you this question: where do you stand on the political spectrum?
@iiBigfootii Also, as an answer to your question, I would let the parents bear their child; better to have lived (I know it's loved, but same concept) and died than to have never lived before.
A lot of people would say a life is better than no life. And I don't beleive this is a place where a government should step in. But it is an area where I think the individual should make the decision.
i completely agree with you. the people should adopt and it is immoral but i dont see anyway there could be a set punishment for birthing an unhealthy child. that is why its immoral, not illeagle
What I see/hear of more often is that a serious disease develops suddenly in children/teens/adults with no reasoning why it exactly occurred, ALD, Leukemia, Autism. Maybe a toddler develops a disease/disorder due to antibiotics when it was a baby. There's no way of telling. A parent takes a gigantic leap of faith that they can handle having children no matter what problems arise. I think people should freak out less about future in vitro making the "perfect being" and make adoption easier.
I had a discussion with my biology teacher bout this today. It is against the laws if nature, if we let someone whos gene pool is damaged live. I know, its immoral, but think about it, humanitys gene pool will degrade if we keep making degraded people and even keep them alive with resources that can and should be directed in a better direction.
@DeadFail "Humanitys gene pool will degrade if we keep making degraded people and even keep them alive with resources that can and should be directed in a better direction."
That sounds like something Hitler said.
Basically, the whole world agrees that he was wrong.
For example, murder is absolutely unacceptable. But saying to people can't reproduce because the outcome would be inferior, is also unacceptable. If the disease is dangerous enough to kill then the child will die and eventually, over time, that certain gene will disappear. Survival of the fittest. Nature roots out the weak. But saying two people cant reproduce because the outcome is inferior just sounds like someone recreating the 3rd riche, if you will. only tall blonde and blue eyes allowed.
If this person (I don´t care if a criminal, baby or whatever... althought a baby has much more hope to become somekind of productive) is stupid, not able to function as a humanbeing or does more harm than good: KILL IT! KILL IT WITH FIRE!
I think in some areas in the world its selfish to even birth healthy children. I don't think most of us realize the current problems, and future problems of overpopulation.
But in terms of this question I believe no child should be brought into an environment where their needs won't be met. As well, if parents know they will pass on some kind of disease to their child, it would be immoral in my opinion to have one. There are many alternatives now.
@ericafash What about animals shouldn't animals have those rights to get their needs met? we often take what they need away from them. Does anything actually make us better than them?
I find it a very selfish thing to do (by the parents) because sane people would not make a baby knowing its life would be bad. Doing so, they just want to make themselves happy instead of thinking about their child's happiness. That is just terrible.
i don't see what kind of penalty you can give for doing so though. it's more about making people aware about what they are doing.
There should not be laws about it, because you just can not draw a line. Makes sense to me.
Plus if I know someone is getting killed who doesnt deserve it, I would consider (if there is no other option left (police/protecting the potential victim) killing the future-murderer. Would you consider killing a pregnant woman (or a women who wants to become pregnant) with a disease? =/
@Letes92 You could just force the woman to get an abortion rather then killing her, making people with serious diseases infertile could also be an option if it was believed that they were planning to have a baby in spite of the knowledge that they would be forcing it into low quality of life. Im not neccesarily saying i would agree with it, im just trying to show there are other options and its not as black and white as your point made it sound.
Of course you could threaten someone who is going to kill (or to get pregnant), so he does not do it or turns himself in blabla. I mean like..more the last minute kind of situation. I would(that is what I think)be ready to use violence/kill someone who wants to kill to protect someone innocent or at least I would not disagree with that. So if those two from Dan described cases were really the same, I would have to agree with killing someone who is going to get pregnant
@PooeyBum11 yeah but that was hypothetical^^ in reality of course I would not agree with that because to me, there is somehow a difference, even if is not rational (Im a very rational person) but only because I dont want to stop my race from reproducing. Still I wont understand why parents with those diseases arent just adopting a kid.
i believe it is absolutely ok, and great, if you want to have a kid even if you know for certain that you will pass a disease or disability over,
if, you do your best, and absolute best to give it a life, maybe even better or more extreme then other peoples lives, example Dick and Rick Hoyt, the man who runs marathons with his disabled child, as his child feels free when he is with him
When you have a kid, you're giving life to someone who would otherwise not have one. If you can give a good life, that's great; but if you can only give a really terrible life, it's still more than no life. You are not forcing your child to live this terrible life — they can dismiss it (commit suicide) at any time should they decide they don't want it anymore. All you are really doing is giving them the choice to live; in the end, they will decide whether or not their life is worth keeping.
@Yutzyz If someone really wants to end their life, they're going to end it, regardless of who tried to arrest them. There are many ways to purposely die, and it's virtually impossible to take all suicide options away from someone so long as they remain conscious. Once someone has successfully committed suicide, their are automatically exempt from all laws (because you can't punish a dead person), so one can only really be convicted of attempted (failed) suicide, not successful suicide.
It sounds "amoral" only from a third person perspective or if you imagine your self being that parent who might even outlive his own child. From the kids angle, the life he gets is the only one he knows, and it is probably better to have some years of any kind of life than no life at all. It is just our own fear of death that makes us see the "morality" in this picture. In "another life" I would always rather live 5 years sick than not live at all.
No it is not right for parents to give birth to sick children. I would even go so far as to say that even mental disabilities like downs and the likes should not be allowed. Are their life worth less? No, it isn't, but it's cruel to let a person be so dependent on help from others, and it is a socially bad thing to do in societies with "universal" wellfare. This may be cynical, but at least is isn't cruel. Here is another question: Why would parents want a sickly child? How weird is that
I mean i do not think the child should be punished because the parents have a deadly disease. If they know they have it and still are going to have the baby this is my opinion but i think that they are retarded. That childs life is gonna suck.
I think its up to the parents whether they think that it is better to have a disabled life than non at all or if they think it is better for the person not to exist than to suffer a disability, Both ideas have merit and good arguments to back them up. It is really a personal thing and for each person to decide not a government. Personally I would not have a child, instead adopt.
@trancemisho But the outcomes are the same - Causing another human being pain or death IS illegal. The question was, if the parents are AWARE that they are going to pass on a disease or medical condition that will with 100 % certainty cause the child to suffer or die, is it then a morally justifiably decision to have a child?
@trancemisho So what you're saying that if a baby is going to be born and this baby has severe physical and mental disabilities it would be ok? What if this baby has muscular dystrophy and can't properly walk or function? what if this baby is born severely mentally handicapped and isn't intelligent enough to live independently? Your view is far too simplified to be reasonable.
I have since the beginning of my remember-able childhood known a guy with a considerable nerve disorder. This person is my age currently 17, he can hardly speak a sentence without problems, he cannot walk, he will cant shit on his own, he knows that he is a economical burden on society. Yet I know that he PREFERS LIVING over being or not being born, and i gladly share my money to help him keep living. Of course everyone should be allowed to have kids, and any one giving up that right is an idiot
@razaelielm You're saying that everyone should be allowed to have kids, but do you really believe that?
Why are some children taken away from their parents and adopted when their real parents are abusive or otherwise socially inept of raising a child?
If parents choose to have a child despite being fully aware that the child is going to, with utmost, definite certainty, suffer and die from a hereditary disease at an early age - arent they then ultimately responsible for their child's suffering?
@ph34rn0d34th survival of the fittest still applies in the same way in a modern society, i just used the Africa example as a very obvious example, but in the UK for example you have people in poverty and people who are rich and have all the things they want. "fittest" now simply means how rich you are. But i do totally agree about what you're saying about how survival of the fittest in its original un-evolved terms no longer applies because of modern medicine etc
It's rather contradictory, since the parents are already capable of giving birth then this would indicate that the disease is bearable.
But in cases of detectable genetic defects, it's a fine line. Since there have been cases where a doctor has diagnosed a baby in the womb to have complications, but then when they're born, they're perfectly fine and grow up to be completely normal.
Even with these slim chances on a human being, I'd take the chance =)
i believe that under those circumstances, the parents having a disabled child and therefor making it suffer is almost the same as the first cituation. however, if one of it's parents had the disease and lived through it, either that persons genetic makeup was balanced with the disease, or that society had found a 'cure' for it (if not to make it hurt less). by thinking about the two later scenarios, technically the newborn baby would be fine, for he/she contains it's mothers/fathers genes too.
getting a child in some circumstances is like saying:, "bla bla i'm special i want a child to make it suffer bla bla i don't care i just wnat a child..."
rip their organs for reproduction out of them
the line should be genetic disabilities that reduce the quality of life
and for god sake, people are forced on this world, let us die without having to jump in front of a train when we want too
I think that if the two adults both have an illness that would definitely be passed onto the child, I believe it would be kinder to keep the baby being non-existent because if the illness kills the baby or seriously shortens the life, I think it would be kinder to just adopt a baby instead because it would be doing more good to the world. My point being if the child does live on but passes the illness to more humans, it could have horrible consequences. If they adopt then they'll be doing good.
Indeed, I think that laws shouldn't interfere. Not that I think having a child knowing that his life would be a hell to live is right. Of course not. But I can't imagine what excess would emerge of laws prescribing the right way to live a life. They already denie mariage to gay people, they denied racials, women, or peasants fundamental rights cause of this type of arguments. Free will should be respected to some point, and I say respected, not necessarely approved.
I would say that yes it should be illegal to deliberately have a child with any sort of mental disability, especially when there are well children who send their whole childhood in an orphanage. But it definitely shouldn't be illegal to have a child in a bad economic situation.
Dude i have a child and if two people like that want to have a kid its their deal but they have to adjust to catering to the necessary needs of the child.
Its interesting to see the argument of how giving life to a children is the greatest gift ever, but then again you think about what kind of life you would be giving to him? Would a life of continual unhappiness be considered a gift? If one could ever ascertain that such a life would be created, then I'm against creating it.
It also makes you think about orphans and other kids: most had all the chances to come to the world to live a happy, productive life, but were "left behind" for various reasons: their opportunity to REALLY live was taken away from them... so why not give them another chance?
Maybe the answer is making people understand what they are doing. Maybe we shouldn't punish, but look down upon people that choose to have a crippled baby regardless. Make birth control something that is available to everybody and let society regulate itself.
There is a big difference here. 2 ppl who are actively conspiring to harm/kill are committing a crime. 2 ppl planning to make a baby are not. There is a flaw in the premise because there is no such thing a guarantee in genetics. That said... Let's chg it up and say the baby is already conceived and it is found to have a condition/disease... The choice then becomes intertwined with pro abortion vs anti abortion... When does life begin. Etc
Humans are really into control and punishment. I don't understand why. These 2 situations are completely different. You can't ever be 100% sure that the baby will be born sick. What if the baby was made by accident, should the parents be punished anyways? There are people with serious genetic conditions and in pain, but living happily. Their parents love them. Murderers don't love their victims, they are driven by hate. See the difference?
I feel like yes, it would be a good thing to restrict the possibility of passing on genetic and highly harmful diseases but I don't know how this would be done. if there was a way of enforcing it, I would say that it should be if its a genetic disease that is a dominant trait and a parent has this dominant gene. more than that might be ridiculous though. its a touchy subject. i know if i had a dominant genetic disease though I would choose to adopt rather than have my own kids.
@Nagassh well, I see your point, and I agree to a certain degeree. You see, I think you left out genetic conditions that do not affect a determined person, but will affect their descendents. In that case, even with the worse genetic condition in the world, the parents still could have a fulfilling life with as much ease as the next guy (or close to), but for their child... pretty damn hard, I'd say.
The first major problem with your logic is that two people who carry the markers for genetic disorders only have a percentage chance of passing on the disease to the baby. We also have genetic markers that are passed on to everyone that can be activated by environmental factors so technically everyone having a baby would be those two people.
I do believe in the government having a say, though. Pedophiles shouldn't have kids. There should be a mandatory test to have a child.
if it's a certainty then it makes me wonder why would someone want to cause harm to someone like that, i.e. by having the baby who would suffer his/her whole life. on the other hand, suffering is relative and dealing with hardships like that highly depends on the person.
Im storngly against people that rnt suited to be parents,and i think thats the main problem,but considering the baby...there is really really hard to draw the line. What if baby is born with disease, but later, humanity discovers the cure or something to help them? That is actually the case with me. My body lack the ability to produce hormones and, i was born couple of decades earlier, my life would be hell.But now, modern medicine is advanced and i can live normal life. U never know the future
@GOTTACO I agree with you that bringing in a child with disadvantages into the world is stupid, but it also benefits the society. For example, it creates problems for doctors, scientists and engineers to solves, which results in the discoveries and inventions to improve the human's living conditions.
My wife had a son born in 1987 with CF / Lung disease he has a BA degree,Girlfriend and is fairly happy. Many other with same disease suffer and die young so you never know!
A child most certainly should not be born if they will be certain to have a "gymped" life. I don't think children should be born unless it is the only child or the parents are certified by some way assuring they can provide a proper lifestyle and food even... So many kids are just born without either of the parents caring the least bit. There should be heavy fines for irresponsible pregnancies too along with the child being taken away ofc. Imho we need less children being forced to live unhappy.
Going to have to say that the parents shouldn't have a child and that there should be laws. Even if a couple really wants to have a child, passing on life threatening traits or traits that would cause horrible things for the baby is irresponsible and not a good idea. These laws could also be given, if people don't accept them, as a way to stop hereditary things like aids. If the child develops an issue then abortion shouldn't be forced, but I would advise it.
@Birdpoofool To bring a child in to this worth with disadvantage is stupid. But hey people dont always make the smartest decisions so i say let everyone do w.e. they want and just go have a beer ;)
IMHO If the child is born sick, it's still give an opportunity for a life to experience living, which is the greatest gift in the universe. If the child is never born, then they would never get to experience the goodness.
sometimes i feel like i wish i was never born but i dont even have any serious problems with how i am.. but lets say i was born with a critical disease or something really bad like that, i think if i could choose what my mom should've done before she had me, i would choose for her to have an abortion because why would you want to have a kid and force someone to live their life that way if its just going to be cruel and shitty to the baby you're having. well thats what i think.
My mother had aids when she was pregnant with me and I came out fine so its possible to be born into a healthy life if your mother has a disease but the chances are very slim.
The parents would be very selfish if they were to have the kid. They are condemning an inocent person to a shitty life. I know I couldn't live with myself if I knew I was responsible for such a thing.
Might it not be dangerous to put ourselves in such a situation were we see ourselves as able to determine who are more fit to have kids than others? All the answers to these kind of questions end up in a grayish area and no mater to which extreme you take it, the solutions are always kind of off. Guess it's a question to be evaluated and reevaluated with no clear answer.
My take: Make adoptions more attractive and give adopting families governmental support (especially if genetically misfitted)
@kiddacidsk8rboy I merely pointed out that, technically, you did. Something that means nothing is not punished, like me holding my breath for 5 seconds while writing this comment, or saying "Hey" instead of "Hi" to a friend. By saying that "taking life means nothing", you said murder (and other life-taking actions) isn't wrong, and, therefore, should not be punished. Again, I'm merely pointing it out, I don't think you believe murder should go unpunished, but that is, in essence, what you said.
@JSLSampaio Not to sound defensive, but technically i said nothing of the sort. That is merely the conclusion you came you on your own. Allow me if you will, to explain a bit further. I am not saying i advocate murder. All i am saying is that death in itself is a very true and very real aspect of our lives and should not be taken lightly wether it is preventing a life or taking a life either way i feel that murder should be punishable and the right to give a life should lay with the parents.
@kiddacidsk8rboy well, yes, it was a conclusion of mine, based on the premise that you believe that only wrong things should be punished, as, I would say, most people. Therefore, as stated before, murder, not being wrong, wouldn't be punishable.
3) (I didn't have enough space). 3) It's a odd moral question but i do not believed laws can be introduced in a case like this because each case is different (depending on disease). However the people comitting murder are doing this act out of malice whilst the couple is probably trying to bring some joy into their lives
1) Could ou please make a video of your opinion of the after life
2) I agree with a lot of the comments about abortion but they must consider that there are people out ther who would abort a pregnancy depending on something such as sex of the child so if you are for abortion how do you find out if each individual reason is acceptable
If the couple are considering having the child BEFORE conception, they need to consider that if they planned on being parents, ultimately, their goal (logically) is to raise a human being to the best of their abilities, in all their power. Thus, it's also in their power to prevent the child from suffering, so if it were me, I would choose NOT to have my own biological children, but to adopt. After all, there are already so many children suffering in the world, help the ones who are already here.
I think that many people are unfit to have children, but it is not my place nor the governments to decide what other people choose to do with themselves. If the theoretical couple wants to have a diseased baby, they will deal with the consequences.
The first 2 ppl should go to jail imo, but I have nothing against ppl that can have handicapped in some way child cuz that child can hate his parents as much as he wants to + u r not obligated to have any contact with that kid so it's none of ur business. The only reason I see for having a law against the second 2 ppl is cuz Hitler wrote it and he wants to breed his higher race... and there r still a lot of stuff I can say here but comments have limits :(
I'm disable. I have spina- bifada there is a difference between knowing committing a crime and unknowingly passing a genetic defect on..its a crap shoot to pass on genetic defects they may or may not skip a gen
What exactly is so interesting about this question? Conspiring to end a life is not at all the same as running a high risk of a conceiving a diseased child.A law to prevent the latter would occur only in a highly controlled (unfree) society where the the burden of such a child falls on everyone.In a free society those parents bear full reponsibility for their defective kid,or till they find some gullible sucker to pawn the kid off on.
Perhaps the deciding factor here is; Quality of life & do no harm. Your life is your own, to live productively or throw it away uselessly. But you don't have the right to inflict a life sentence upon another. & why would anyone want to on their own child? Two hayfever, ecsema or asthma sufferers might decide that their prospective childs quality of life would far outweigh the moderate occasional discomfort. But genetic ailments that seriously compromise life would be selfish to impose on another
In many ways, i do see yourpoint, but as we all know, humans will fight to survive and make their offspring survive, this is basic evolution, and making a new group of criminals for the sake of perfecting the human species will result in enormous riots. Hitler didn't succeed either, even though his standard of "perfect" was different it is basically the same thing, AND he is also one of the reasons why a modern society will never accept this,
It's a human downside to have diseases, some people are unfortunate to get them and some don't, government should stay out of private buisness until they learn how to manage a fucking country.
Abortion on demand and without apology. Can't look after the child/ don't want it? 100% your choice what you want to do. If you (the pregnant person) want to have a child knowing it will be born with disbilities, people should respect your decision. Likewise if you feel you cannot adequately look after the child, no one should be able to force you carry the pregnancy to term and to give birth. Adoption is not an option for everyone, as it is a flawed system.
I do not think it is fair to bring a child onto the planet when there is a certainty of a disease being passed on to it, that said assuming these prospective parents are smart, they should realize the extreme monetary costs associated with having a child with said disability. While it would be almost impossible to implement legislation to protect against such a thing it makes sense that it is morally and ethically the wrong choice.
Obviously there should be a law, limiting the rights of the parents, BUT the penalty should only take place if the child is actually born with a disorder in the end, cuz most people won't consider checking themselves out, for it. Which I guess they should, cuz fixes for genetic disorders r to come in the near future, if they aren't already here, i guess.
In the end there's still adoption, which is comendable thing to do anyway.
I simply say no because once you make that kind of rule then you can always change it to surve of prepuces also science maybe able to control an strange person ect.
Abortion in my opinion, many are against it but seriously, their are very unresponsable teenagers for example, who drink, party, and everything while they are pregnant, i know a girl at my highschool who didnt know she was pregnant until 3 months later, and she was still partying, the child could EASILY have a very critical issue because of her, do you really want to have a kid live like that because of your stupid choices? nah, abortion should be the choice to go.
I would like to get your opinion on Inbalance between right and wrong
watch?v=vDFsZThCJh0&context=C3d36efeADOEgsToPDskLWtOduNdHOWq7vFGBwRzpp
Storestyggesvendsen 5 days ago
we as humans never knew before if that would happen through the miracle of science we do know, the moral question lies in the part of; should we even know what kind of baby we are having...should science be able to tell us if it's gonna be a healthy kid or not...shouldn't we treasure life as it is handed out to us, like evolution did for us millions of years, what if one of these supposed to be unhealthy kids is a prototype of our race that we can't even see untill it has fully grown, we evolve
007mano1 6 days ago
@007mano1 The fact of the matter is that a huge part of our procreation is (sexual) human attraction. Human attraction is (and seemingly has always been) greatly subject to genetics. The stronger, fitter and more fertile have always been more attractive to the opposite sex. Then here comes my question: Has - by using selective attraction - evolution not always tried to predetermine the health and success of our children? Think about it...
JRico4qh2 5 days ago
@JRico4qh2 yh, In part that is true, up untill the point were humans, even those who are stronger and fitter and more fertile might end up with a baby not as healthy so to speak, genetically or physically, cause even through evolution we have seen birth-defects on species, supposed to be evolving in a better way through superiour genetics, hence was the point I tried to make, is the virtue of science allowed to be able to judge whether or not that child should or shouldn't be born
007mano1 5 days ago
u need a licence to have a dog... and u dont to have a kid! wheres the cop on in that?!
MsMouseymousey 6 days ago
not different, from one another. imo thats the same thing and i also think if you you have any sort of disease disorder whether it is mental or physical what you would inherit to your child you shouldnt be allowed to have that kid. Neither you should have kids if you live in very low standards.
Kvahran 1 week ago
I think if the baby will die short after birth (like, not having natural lifespan of other human beings) then it's morally unacceptable to give birth to him/her. However, if the child will be only sick, they shouldn't necessarily not let them have a child, but they must put them in jail IF they find out that the child isn't raised properly.
sinachiniforoosh 2 weeks ago
I think it would be unneccesary and also kind of stupid for them to have kids, but there shouldn't be a law against it. As he says in the video, where do you draw the line? It would not be difficult to move that line more and more until only some select people could legally have kids, and while that might be good for the human race (if done properly), it would not be good for the little person.
xway2 3 weeks ago
@ terranark
Snake venom is only effective when injected into the blood stream. Drinking it is virtually harmless.
xXRubix21Xx 4 weeks ago
Imagine following scenario: You live in a VERY poor environment. (Which you, first of all, didn't chose to get born in) and you meet a boy/girl. You know they both didn't chose to get born in this environment.. Could you deny them making children? (there is no disease or anything similar to that involved, the only thing you know is that it's a very poor environment where there barely is a proper house.) I honestly can't deny them making children.
sablehhh 1 month ago
Couple A: It depends on who they're going to murder. Couple B: Is just cruel.
NimCMS 1 month ago
Why bringing in life a baby that's gonna have a hard time, giving birth to a baby must hurt like hell. Abduct that shit instead, it's way more easier and less painful
letthedramabegin8 1 month ago
@ericafash I think the people answering yes are answering from a comfortable place where this would never effect them...
Bouxjiful 1 month ago
If the baby's needs will not be met, I don't think people should be allowed to have a baby, nor should we create babies that we know will have undesirable mutations and/or diseases.
Austin101123 1 month ago
yes those people should be staralized. And if alowed to have the baby the baby should be staralized
3258jose3258 1 month ago
Have you seen "Sparta" ?
If yes = Problem solved. (answer would be to let them have sex and kill the baby right after birth)
If no = you may continue living in a cave.
OrkChieftan 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
the second point i feel is relevant, Is your thoughts on weather or not punishment is necessary. This is a fault of opinion in general... Its hard to say but punishing for murder in anyform is from an objective standpoint is sad. Sacrifice cannot be mended by sacrifice, nor can evil be mended by evil. HAHA but thats in the ideal world... I would probably kill someone who was after my life, or a loved ones... so dnt get mad at me, I'm just as human as the rest of ya :)
ShadowCookie 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
I think you bring up a good question, Not one to be brushed off like my friend trancemisho thinks it should be. Its my belief that there are a wide majority of people who shouldn't have children regardless of diseases (like my friend ericafash). I truely feel sorry for those who really want children and cant, This is only provided that the people have something to offer the children. There is a huge majority of people who want kids for the sake of having them, like to fit in. (16 and pregnant
ShadowCookie 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
Yes. There should be laws against that. If you want to get serious about advancing the human race and making sure that the strong and healthy only pass on their genes then yes. Want genetic disorders to fade out?no baby. Why should the child suffer for their parents need to have them. Might as well be feeding them snake venom
terranark 1 month ago
Well I believe it depends on how you look upon the disability or disease. Those are two different things. A "disabled" child may still be accepted and accommodated in this society without severe pain. They think differently and act differently which is the norm for them because they haven't experienced anything else. Diseases on the other hand slowly kill the child so it is different. Your analogy may not be the most accurate.
Maneesa09 1 month ago
I agree with TheP1x3l
Also, I think that if parents weren't allowed to pass on of a genetic disorder that would cause their baby harm, they would also have to stop people who could potentially become alcoholic, abusive, etc, from having kids. I also think that the government should never interfere with anything like this. As soon as they started into not wanting children with mental illness, we'd have a problem. Mental illness is often just a few steps away from genius.
creativewriter1000 1 month ago
i think that if people know for sure that their kid will suffer because the genes that were passed by them they shouldn't even be considering it .. nowadays there are other ways to have a kid like sperm or egg donors or adoption .. no parent in their right mind should make their kid suffer if there are other options ..
SofiaaMDias 1 month ago in playlist More videos from DeanLeysen
Well like the two people who are conspiering to commit murder cant actually be arrested before the crime is commited the two persons who want to have a baby could not have been arrested (if their would be a law against them having babies) before they actually had a baby.
--They should be allowed to have a baby, free will to do whatever they want. But someone should rly teach them what they are gonna put their child through by making him themself instead of having an adoption.
AlphVeduki 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
The difference I think lies with the fact that murderers usually want to commit the crime then go on with their lives and not be caught. Whereas, the parents of such a child would hopefully know what will happen and hopefully be willing to take responsibility for the care of that child and make the child's life as comfortable as possible.
TheP1x3l 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos 3
This has been flagged as spam show
Sometimes(and i hate to say that)same results caused by non-same intensions are not the same.I understan the comparison you make between the victim of a harful act and a baby born harmed.But he first one was made in order to cause pain(phsical and mental) to the victim while in the second situation the problem they cause it's something like "a necessary sacrifice"for this baby to be born.His destiny is not the same with the first man,because the baby is destined to receive great amount of love.
musicResistances 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
Comment removed
musicResistances 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
I think that if i certainly knew my son/daughter would inherit any desease of that kind, i would probably choose not to have a baby, and it is also my belief that the choise is up to the parents and the government should not interfere ( IF the parents are mentally healthy, i mean if they dont have the baby just because they WANT the child to have a desease and suffer, which is actually the same than a entirely healthy child who's hitted by his parents for pleasure). this is just MY opinion
ASRAIN07 1 month ago
An enormous majority of people living in this world are in a state of poverty, to say it is illegal or even wrong to birth a child if a couple is in this condition would be ridiculous. It is nature to mate and give birth, you cannot take that away from humanity.
tmcdonaldd 1 month ago
not to state the obvious but by the baby being born it will probably help doctors over time develop a cure. also since the people with the genetic thing are old enough to have kids, at least the kid will live past puberty. the two situations are not identical in the least bit.
slumberr329roper 1 month ago
No , i would not give birth to my child only if i know that i will pass on a deadly and highly debilitating illness like aids for example but i would like to ask you that should a cure for aids develop a few years from when i make the decision to terminate a being with potential consciousness become a reality would i still be able to live with this decision and following your question would i be considered a murderer however well meaning my decision was in the larger scale of things.
piaaaa04 1 month ago
mid pregnancy if i discover my child/creature of potential consciousness is 'deformed' i would still give birth to it.i dont know if my child will have a hole in its heart just as i dont know if a cure for its problems will come a year or even ten from if i terminate it .and even if my child has to live complicated life of medicines and not going out in the sunlight because he/she/it is allergic to it , would i not like to share the rich world of consciousness to my unborn child .
piaaaa04 1 month ago
also a fuzzier question - is a conscious being which suffers from a physical deformity or a mental one not entitled to a life no matter how much its quality is inadequate and full of dependence on you or a support system ? will it not have meaning or its own system of existing ? just because we think its not a fulfilling life ? and even if my child has to live complicated life full of hardship would i not like to share the rich world of consciousness with my child .
piaaaa04 1 month ago
The point of life is to be happy, disorder or short lived is irrelevant. What kinda sickness where you thinking about that should be criminalized?
Daren2007 1 month ago
We get rid of sick animals because they are suffering, feeling pain and need lots of care. It is for their own good, isn't it? So I don't understand the point of giving a birth to a child who would be the same. Especially, if he is not expected to live long, has really serious illnesses or it is genetical. If I were told that I am carrying a really sick baby, I WOULD do an abortion, for the babys and ,my own good. I think the best option for people who can't have healthy infants is adoption.
Car0111e 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
Would-could you do a costume Drama on the 4th century Christological disputes that happened in the BYZANTINE EMPIRE?( I'm serious) or maybe a 13th century Dominican Inquisitor.You enjoy these verbal-flip-flops & yer really good at them.I can picture you dressed up like St.Basil of Caesarea & St.John Chrysostom,Thomas Aquinas & don't forget"TheGrand Inquisitor"from,TheBrothersKaramazov by Dostoevsky.
tlaniganschmidt 1 month ago
i think that not only do you have an open mind but nature has an open mind in a sense. there is still a good chance to have a healthy child in some cases and in the others that are a victim of the genetic disorder and so on have a chance to live a normal life just fine to one day reproduce like their parents.Think about Africa and sickle cell anemia. If everyone killed people that had diseases and so on, the human race would not have the natural imuneities that we have today.
toxicityhate 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
the baby with the disease could change the world like Adolf Hitler because said that he has suffered from irritable bowel syndrome, skin lesions, irregular heartbeat, Parkinson's disease, syphilis, and a strongly suggested addiction to methamphetamine, and he changed the world. PCE xx -I'm High
maf1995 1 month ago
Comment removed
maf1995 1 month ago
I can't take what I cannot give back. You certainly can try to control a child's birth but will never know what the future holds for that child, so I'm certainly against abortion. Think about Ramanujan, a child prodigy, who was born into worse of conditions. Now, he is reined as a mathematical genius who in his short lived life made some of the greatest contributions to humanity. Imagine what a loss it would have been if his parents decided to deny him the right to live.
macrosoft001 1 month ago 2
i believe that they should not have a child, its just my opinion that anyone that has a very serious condition should not have children at all. like the "retards" <<-- sorry for that couldnt think of the actual term. but i know many of them who are allowed to have children and its just passed on through the child as well, i do not think this should be allowed...
P1tBullFan4L1f3 1 month ago
Nobody has asked to live and we we're all put on this world without our permission. So if we kill ourselves, I think that's justified. In case of abortion, I think that it can't be legal or illegal, good or bad and it's just a choice for the parents to take. It's a choice which makes the life of the parents better and it doesn't matter what's best for the baby, because if they are born with a handicap, they can easily learn to live with it.
MargauxEmmanuelle 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@MargauxEmmanuelle First of all the question didnt mention abortion, it was more like a couple planning on having a child knowing fully that the child will have some genetic mutation. Also there are some things that people cannot just learn to live with. I don't think it is fair on the child to be born with a serious disability when there are so many healthy children that would love to be adopted.
kikkavella 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@DeanLeysen I am relatively new to your channel so I do not know if you have answered this before. However, I still want to ask you this question: where do you stand on the political spectrum?
iiBigfootii 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@iiBigfootii Also, as an answer to your question, I would let the parents bear their child; better to have lived (I know it's loved, but same concept) and died than to have never lived before.
iiBigfootii 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
A lot of people would say a life is better than no life. And I don't beleive this is a place where a government should step in. But it is an area where I think the individual should make the decision.
billybobjoe198 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
i completely agree with you. the people should adopt and it is immoral but i dont see anyway there could be a set punishment for birthing an unhealthy child. that is why its immoral, not illeagle
timmiraye 2 months ago
What I see/hear of more often is that a serious disease develops suddenly in children/teens/adults with no reasoning why it exactly occurred, ALD, Leukemia, Autism. Maybe a toddler develops a disease/disorder due to antibiotics when it was a baby. There's no way of telling. A parent takes a gigantic leap of faith that they can handle having children no matter what problems arise. I think people should freak out less about future in vitro making the "perfect being" and make adoption easier.
russianfantastico 2 months ago
I had a discussion with my biology teacher bout this today. It is against the laws if nature, if we let someone whos gene pool is damaged live. I know, its immoral, but think about it, humanitys gene pool will degrade if we keep making degraded people and even keep them alive with resources that can and should be directed in a better direction.
DeadFail 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DeadFail "Humanitys gene pool will degrade if we keep making degraded people and even keep them alive with resources that can and should be directed in a better direction."
That sounds like something Hitler said.
Basically, the whole world agrees that he was wrong.
Eveningwake 1 month ago
For example, murder is absolutely unacceptable. But saying to people can't reproduce because the outcome would be inferior, is also unacceptable. If the disease is dangerous enough to kill then the child will die and eventually, over time, that certain gene will disappear. Survival of the fittest. Nature roots out the weak. But saying two people cant reproduce because the outcome is inferior just sounds like someone recreating the 3rd riche, if you will. only tall blonde and blue eyes allowed.
fboyg91 2 months ago
Good q but, for me, not really hard. It comes down to survival of the fittest and what has become humane acceptable in modern society.
fboyg91 2 months ago
If this person (I don´t care if a criminal, baby or whatever... althought a baby has much more hope to become somekind of productive) is stupid, not able to function as a humanbeing or does more harm than good: KILL IT! KILL IT WITH FIRE!
SaschaStankiewicz 2 months ago
They have no business telling us whether or not we can reproduce.
Tony1130 2 months ago in playlist Uploaded videos
I think in some areas in the world its selfish to even birth healthy children. I don't think most of us realize the current problems, and future problems of overpopulation.
But in terms of this question I believe no child should be brought into an environment where their needs won't be met. As well, if parents know they will pass on some kind of disease to their child, it would be immoral in my opinion to have one. There are many alternatives now.
ericafash 2 months ago 51
@ericafash What about animals shouldn't animals have those rights to get their needs met? we often take what they need away from them. Does anything actually make us better than them?
NinjaKlein 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@ericafash Agreed. There's so much to say...but yeah well said for sure. Cheers.
slaveescaping 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@ericafash only if the couple is capable of babies id this a valid question
thoostorm4 1 week ago
i dont think we need more retarded people im mean come on look at me :p
frohman8 2 months ago
I find it a very selfish thing to do (by the parents) because sane people would not make a baby knowing its life would be bad. Doing so, they just want to make themselves happy instead of thinking about their child's happiness. That is just terrible.
i don't see what kind of penalty you can give for doing so though. it's more about making people aware about what they are doing.
OurLastDancee 2 months ago in playlist Uploaded videos
gataka style genetic engenineering is the answer
vassilmihailov 2 months ago
There should not be laws about it, because you just can not draw a line. Makes sense to me.
Plus if I know someone is getting killed who doesnt deserve it, I would consider (if there is no other option left (police/protecting the potential victim) killing the future-murderer. Would you consider killing a pregnant woman (or a women who wants to become pregnant) with a disease? =/
Letes92 2 months ago
@Letes92 You could just force the woman to get an abortion rather then killing her, making people with serious diseases infertile could also be an option if it was believed that they were planning to have a baby in spite of the knowledge that they would be forcing it into low quality of life. Im not neccesarily saying i would agree with it, im just trying to show there are other options and its not as black and white as your point made it sound.
PooeyBum11 2 months ago
@PooeyBum11
Of course you could threaten someone who is going to kill (or to get pregnant), so he does not do it or turns himself in blabla. I mean like..more the last minute kind of situation. I would(that is what I think)be ready to use violence/kill someone who wants to kill to protect someone innocent or at least I would not disagree with that. So if those two from Dan described cases were really the same, I would have to agree with killing someone who is going to get pregnant
Letes92 2 months ago
@Letes92 yes if there was no other way to stop them and they had a very sever inheritable medical condition i would agree with you
PooeyBum11 2 months ago
@PooeyBum11 yeah but that was hypothetical^^ in reality of course I would not agree with that because to me, there is somehow a difference, even if is not rational (Im a very rational person) but only because I dont want to stop my race from reproducing. Still I wont understand why parents with those diseases arent just adopting a kid.
greetings(;
Letes92 2 months ago
GENETIC SCREENING
reynoldsvideos 2 months ago
i believe it is absolutely ok, and great, if you want to have a kid even if you know for certain that you will pass a disease or disability over,
if, you do your best, and absolute best to give it a life, maybe even better or more extreme then other peoples lives, example Dick and Rick Hoyt, the man who runs marathons with his disabled child, as his child feels free when he is with him
if you can make your childs life happy, then yes,
RoaringMetalHead55 2 months ago
When you have a kid, you're giving life to someone who would otherwise not have one. If you can give a good life, that's great; but if you can only give a really terrible life, it's still more than no life. You are not forcing your child to live this terrible life — they can dismiss it (commit suicide) at any time should they decide they don't want it anymore. All you are really doing is giving them the choice to live; in the end, they will decide whether or not their life is worth keeping.
Vhourgannox 2 months ago
@Vhourgannox suicide being illegal, it cannot be acounted for in law making
Yutzyz 2 months ago
@Yutzyz If someone really wants to end their life, they're going to end it, regardless of who tried to arrest them. There are many ways to purposely die, and it's virtually impossible to take all suicide options away from someone so long as they remain conscious. Once someone has successfully committed suicide, their are automatically exempt from all laws (because you can't punish a dead person), so one can only really be convicted of attempted (failed) suicide, not successful suicide.
Vhourgannox 2 months ago
my parents did it too me, financial situations... damn
lucabtje 2 months ago in playlist Uploaded videos
It sounds "amoral" only from a third person perspective or if you imagine your self being that parent who might even outlive his own child. From the kids angle, the life he gets is the only one he knows, and it is probably better to have some years of any kind of life than no life at all. It is just our own fear of death that makes us see the "morality" in this picture. In "another life" I would always rather live 5 years sick than not live at all.
mudrocutim 2 months ago
No it is not right for parents to give birth to sick children. I would even go so far as to say that even mental disabilities like downs and the likes should not be allowed. Are their life worth less? No, it isn't, but it's cruel to let a person be so dependent on help from others, and it is a socially bad thing to do in societies with "universal" wellfare. This may be cynical, but at least is isn't cruel. Here is another question: Why would parents want a sickly child? How weird is that
TheYuxiaodi 2 months ago
I mean i do not think the child should be punished because the parents have a deadly disease. If they know they have it and still are going to have the baby this is my opinion but i think that they are retarded. That childs life is gonna suck.
TheGavGav2006 2 months ago
I think its up to the parents whether they think that it is better to have a disabled life than non at all or if they think it is better for the person not to exist than to suffer a disability, Both ideas have merit and good arguments to back them up. It is really a personal thing and for each person to decide not a government. Personally I would not have a child, instead adopt.
thommmiey 2 months ago
Of course is different. Committing murder is taking somebody's life. Making a baby is creating life. The rest is just point of reference.
trancemisho 2 months ago 11
@trancemisho But the outcomes are the same - Causing another human being pain or death IS illegal. The question was, if the parents are AWARE that they are going to pass on a disease or medical condition that will with 100 % certainty cause the child to suffer or die, is it then a morally justifiably decision to have a child?
porrsmurfen 2 months ago
@trancemisho
Agreed. Plus, how could we make it law to deny someone the experience of being a parent?
If I were by some miracle in a position of power to sign and pass a law like that, I physically couldn't.
TheAmorri 2 months ago
@trancemisho So what you're saying that if a baby is going to be born and this baby has severe physical and mental disabilities it would be ok? What if this baby has muscular dystrophy and can't properly walk or function? what if this baby is born severely mentally handicapped and isn't intelligent enough to live independently? Your view is far too simplified to be reasonable.
MrNopancakemix 1 month ago
@trancemisho That's fucked up. Creating life can be just as harmful as taking it away.
mariwanakid 2 weeks ago
Well its not thier fault for the dieses...but Damn that makes me think...
bessiemooo 2 months ago
I have since the beginning of my remember-able childhood known a guy with a considerable nerve disorder. This person is my age currently 17, he can hardly speak a sentence without problems, he cannot walk, he will cant shit on his own, he knows that he is a economical burden on society. Yet I know that he PREFERS LIVING over being or not being born, and i gladly share my money to help him keep living. Of course everyone should be allowed to have kids, and any one giving up that right is an idiot
razaelielm 2 months ago
@razaelielm You're saying that everyone should be allowed to have kids, but do you really believe that?
Why are some children taken away from their parents and adopted when their real parents are abusive or otherwise socially inept of raising a child?
If parents choose to have a child despite being fully aware that the child is going to, with utmost, definite certainty, suffer and die from a hereditary disease at an early age - arent they then ultimately responsible for their child's suffering?
porrsmurfen 2 months ago
Some questions should not be asked.
fr3eman1 2 months ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@fr3eman1 All questions should always be asked.
TurtleyPompato 2 months ago
Watch Gattica.
nerdlass 2 months ago
Simple: They should not be allowed; They should adopt.
IF however they choose to have their own baby, they already have their punishment. A suffering diseased/disabled child with not much time to live.
mmmmm9872345 2 months ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@ph34rn0d34th survival of the fittest still applies in the same way in a modern society, i just used the Africa example as a very obvious example, but in the UK for example you have people in poverty and people who are rich and have all the things they want. "fittest" now simply means how rich you are. But i do totally agree about what you're saying about how survival of the fittest in its original un-evolved terms no longer applies because of modern medicine etc
gr3g1995 2 months ago
If your friend became disabled due to an accident would you end their life because of the shit life they will have?
If your friend was going to have a disabled baby would you end the babies life becasue of the shit life if will have?
Asking the question like this, most people will answer NO.
Parody1000 2 months ago
It's rather contradictory, since the parents are already capable of giving birth then this would indicate that the disease is bearable.
But in cases of detectable genetic defects, it's a fine line. Since there have been cases where a doctor has diagnosed a baby in the womb to have complications, but then when they're born, they're perfectly fine and grow up to be completely normal.
Even with these slim chances on a human being, I'd take the chance =)
Life is worth every sacrifice.
gaieve 2 months ago
situation*
squirtle69able 2 months ago
i believe that under those circumstances, the parents having a disabled child and therefor making it suffer is almost the same as the first cituation. however, if one of it's parents had the disease and lived through it, either that persons genetic makeup was balanced with the disease, or that society had found a 'cure' for it (if not to make it hurt less). by thinking about the two later scenarios, technically the newborn baby would be fine, for he/she contains it's mothers/fathers genes too.
squirtle69able 2 months ago
getting a child in some circumstances is like saying:, "bla bla i'm special i want a child to make it suffer bla bla i don't care i just wnat a child..."
rip their organs for reproduction out of them
the line should be genetic disabilities that reduce the quality of life
and for god sake, people are forced on this world, let us die without having to jump in front of a train when we want too
dodelol 2 months ago
I think that if the two adults both have an illness that would definitely be passed onto the child, I believe it would be kinder to keep the baby being non-existent because if the illness kills the baby or seriously shortens the life, I think it would be kinder to just adopt a baby instead because it would be doing more good to the world. My point being if the child does live on but passes the illness to more humans, it could have horrible consequences. If they adopt then they'll be doing good.
TigerlilyofRavenclaw 2 months ago
Indeed, I think that laws shouldn't interfere. Not that I think having a child knowing that his life would be a hell to live is right. Of course not. But I can't imagine what excess would emerge of laws prescribing the right way to live a life. They already denie mariage to gay people, they denied racials, women, or peasants fundamental rights cause of this type of arguments. Free will should be respected to some point, and I say respected, not necessarely approved.
narii87 2 months ago
I would say that yes it should be illegal to deliberately have a child with any sort of mental disability, especially when there are well children who send their whole childhood in an orphanage. But it definitely shouldn't be illegal to have a child in a bad economic situation.
qlHlp 2 months ago
whats wrong with dissabilities?
PBUnit 2 months ago
Your lips are really purple
nimrodrool 2 months ago
I don't think there is a couple in this world that stupid or selfish to conceive a baby that will suffer all his life...or is there?
MrSpectruElegiac 2 months ago
Diseases that will severely affect the quality of life of one person. Adverse living conditions can be overcome but genetic disorders cannot.
c3vzn 2 months ago
I think it would be completely irresponsible for two sick people to reproduce a sick child. Adoption is the way to go!!!
AndreaManion 2 months ago
Dude i have a child and if two people like that want to have a kid its their deal but they have to adjust to catering to the necessary needs of the child.
t3hmikel 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Its interesting to see the argument of how giving life to a children is the greatest gift ever, but then again you think about what kind of life you would be giving to him? Would a life of continual unhappiness be considered a gift? If one could ever ascertain that such a life would be created, then I'm against creating it.
f3rn4n2x3str3ll4 2 months ago
It also makes you think about orphans and other kids: most had all the chances to come to the world to live a happy, productive life, but were "left behind" for various reasons: their opportunity to REALLY live was taken away from them... so why not give them another chance?
f3rn4n2x3str3ll4 2 months ago
Comment removed
f3rn4n2x3str3ll4 2 months ago
Comment removed
PunksterD 2 months ago
Maybe the answer is making people understand what they are doing. Maybe we shouldn't punish, but look down upon people that choose to have a crippled baby regardless. Make birth control something that is available to everybody and let society regulate itself.
RMittelstaedt93 2 months ago
It's going to be a law only rich people can have children? wow
TheDecon18 2 months ago
@TheDecon18 No not at all.
RMittelstaedt93 2 months ago
There is a big difference here. 2 ppl who are actively conspiring to harm/kill are committing a crime. 2 ppl planning to make a baby are not. There is a flaw in the premise because there is no such thing a guarantee in genetics. That said... Let's chg it up and say the baby is already conceived and it is found to have a condition/disease... The choice then becomes intertwined with pro abortion vs anti abortion... When does life begin. Etc
098anne 2 months ago
Humans are really into control and punishment. I don't understand why. These 2 situations are completely different. You can't ever be 100% sure that the baby will be born sick. What if the baby was made by accident, should the parents be punished anyways? There are people with serious genetic conditions and in pain, but living happily. Their parents love them. Murderers don't love their victims, they are driven by hate. See the difference?
fceuseofenglish 2 months ago
I feel like yes, it would be a good thing to restrict the possibility of passing on genetic and highly harmful diseases but I don't know how this would be done. if there was a way of enforcing it, I would say that it should be if its a genetic disease that is a dominant trait and a parent has this dominant gene. more than that might be ridiculous though. its a touchy subject. i know if i had a dominant genetic disease though I would choose to adopt rather than have my own kids.
TigersEyexo 2 months ago
@Nagassh well, I see your point, and I agree to a certain degeree. You see, I think you left out genetic conditions that do not affect a determined person, but will affect their descendents. In that case, even with the worse genetic condition in the world, the parents still could have a fulfilling life with as much ease as the next guy (or close to), but for their child... pretty damn hard, I'd say.
JSLSampaio 2 months ago
@theredvino, AIDS is preventable now. They are suggesting it will be gone by 2015.
asmud24 2 months ago
The first major problem with your logic is that two people who carry the markers for genetic disorders only have a percentage chance of passing on the disease to the baby. We also have genetic markers that are passed on to everyone that can be activated by environmental factors so technically everyone having a baby would be those two people.
I do believe in the government having a say, though. Pedophiles shouldn't have kids. There should be a mandatory test to have a child.
asmud24 2 months ago
@asmud24 he made it clear that he was referring to a theoretical situation in which you know for SURE that the condition will be passed.
f3rn4n2x3str3ll4 2 months ago
if it's a certainty then it makes me wonder why would someone want to cause harm to someone like that, i.e. by having the baby who would suffer his/her whole life. on the other hand, suffering is relative and dealing with hardships like that highly depends on the person.
cinnamondusts 2 months ago
@mrpops2ko haha, that should have 400 likes
EmoKidNotReally 2 months ago
responsability is all in the eye of the beholder.
rico46davis 2 months ago
is this a god complex emerging.
rico46davis 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Im storngly against people that rnt suited to be parents,and i think thats the main problem,but considering the baby...there is really really hard to draw the line. What if baby is born with disease, but later, humanity discovers the cure or something to help them? That is actually the case with me. My body lack the ability to produce hormones and, i was born couple of decades earlier, my life would be hell.But now, modern medicine is advanced and i can live normal life. U never know the future
gdoomy 2 months ago
Comment removed
gdoomy 2 months ago
@GOTTACO I agree with you that bringing in a child with disadvantages into the world is stupid, but it also benefits the society. For example, it creates problems for doctors, scientists and engineers to solves, which results in the discoveries and inventions to improve the human's living conditions.
Birdpoofool 2 months ago
adoption
TheModernExplorer 2 months ago
My wife had a son born in 1987 with CF / Lung disease he has a BA degree,Girlfriend and is fairly happy. Many other with same disease suffer and die young so you never know!
Tex200950 2 months ago
A child most certainly should not be born if they will be certain to have a "gymped" life. I don't think children should be born unless it is the only child or the parents are certified by some way assuring they can provide a proper lifestyle and food even... So many kids are just born without either of the parents caring the least bit. There should be heavy fines for irresponsible pregnancies too along with the child being taken away ofc. Imho we need less children being forced to live unhappy.
MrSomecrackhead 2 months ago
Going to have to say that the parents shouldn't have a child and that there should be laws. Even if a couple really wants to have a child, passing on life threatening traits or traits that would cause horrible things for the baby is irresponsible and not a good idea. These laws could also be given, if people don't accept them, as a way to stop hereditary things like aids. If the child develops an issue then abortion shouldn't be forced, but I would advise it.
So yes, laws should be made.
TheRedVino 2 months ago
So I believe that "creating" a sick child is better than not to create one.
Birdpoofool 2 months ago
@Birdpoofool To bring a child in to this worth with disadvantage is stupid. But hey people dont always make the smartest decisions so i say let everyone do w.e. they want and just go have a beer ;)
GOTTACO 2 months ago
IMHO If the child is born sick, it's still give an opportunity for a life to experience living, which is the greatest gift in the universe. If the child is never born, then they would never get to experience the goodness.
Birdpoofool 2 months ago
sometimes i feel like i wish i was never born but i dont even have any serious problems with how i am.. but lets say i was born with a critical disease or something really bad like that, i think if i could choose what my mom should've done before she had me, i would choose for her to have an abortion because why would you want to have a kid and force someone to live their life that way if its just going to be cruel and shitty to the baby you're having. well thats what i think.
kirbygirl496 2 months ago 9
My mother had aids when she was pregnant with me and I came out fine so its possible to be born into a healthy life if your mother has a disease but the chances are very slim.
MiichaelsChannel 2 months ago
@MiichaelsChannel wow thats really fortunate :)
kirbygirl496 2 months ago
The parents would be very selfish if they were to have the kid. They are condemning an inocent person to a shitty life. I know I couldn't live with myself if I knew I was responsible for such a thing.
jacksparowv 2 months ago
Might it not be dangerous to put ourselves in such a situation were we see ourselves as able to determine who are more fit to have kids than others? All the answers to these kind of questions end up in a grayish area and no mater to which extreme you take it, the solutions are always kind of off. Guess it's a question to be evaluated and reevaluated with no clear answer.
My take: Make adoptions more attractive and give adopting families governmental support (especially if genetically misfitted)
Vergeon360 2 months ago
The solution : Divide by 0
pucksaver95 2 months ago
@JSLSampaio Despite all my efforts to choose my words, they will inevitably be misunderstood. :/ I never said it should go unpunished.
kiddacidsk8rboy 2 months ago
@kiddacidsk8rboy I merely pointed out that, technically, you did. Something that means nothing is not punished, like me holding my breath for 5 seconds while writing this comment, or saying "Hey" instead of "Hi" to a friend. By saying that "taking life means nothing", you said murder (and other life-taking actions) isn't wrong, and, therefore, should not be punished. Again, I'm merely pointing it out, I don't think you believe murder should go unpunished, but that is, in essence, what you said.
JSLSampaio 2 months ago
@JSLSampaio Not to sound defensive, but technically i said nothing of the sort. That is merely the conclusion you came you on your own. Allow me if you will, to explain a bit further. I am not saying i advocate murder. All i am saying is that death in itself is a very true and very real aspect of our lives and should not be taken lightly wether it is preventing a life or taking a life either way i feel that murder should be punishable and the right to give a life should lay with the parents.
kiddacidsk8rboy 2 months ago
@kiddacidsk8rboy well, yes, it was a conclusion of mine, based on the premise that you believe that only wrong things should be punished, as, I would say, most people. Therefore, as stated before, murder, not being wrong, wouldn't be punishable.
JSLSampaio 2 months ago
all i know is that after you "where do we draw the line..." examples are utterly REDICULOUS.
gordodacat 2 months ago
3) (I didn't have enough space). 3) It's a odd moral question but i do not believed laws can be introduced in a case like this because each case is different (depending on disease). However the people comitting murder are doing this act out of malice whilst the couple is probably trying to bring some joy into their lives
kevinmac631 2 months ago
Hie Dean,
1) Could ou please make a video of your opinion of the after life
2) I agree with a lot of the comments about abortion but they must consider that there are people out ther who would abort a pregnancy depending on something such as sex of the child so if you are for abortion how do you find out if each individual reason is acceptable
kevinmac631 2 months ago
If the couple are considering having the child BEFORE conception, they need to consider that if they planned on being parents, ultimately, their goal (logically) is to raise a human being to the best of their abilities, in all their power. Thus, it's also in their power to prevent the child from suffering, so if it were me, I would choose NOT to have my own biological children, but to adopt. After all, there are already so many children suffering in the world, help the ones who are already here.
Mangofreakxx 2 months ago
a short life is better than no life at all
idnthavausernamhelp 2 months ago
@idnthavausernamhelp Yeah but your wasting money and resources on someone when you could give it to someone who could use it.
beatlifetwice 2 months ago
it's like aids. if you got it that's a shame, but it's your responsibility to NOT pass it on to other humans.
my opinion.
iont3 2 months ago 30
I think that many people are unfit to have children, but it is not my place nor the governments to decide what other people choose to do with themselves. If the theoretical couple wants to have a diseased baby, they will deal with the consequences.
zadickel 2 months ago
The first 2 ppl should go to jail imo, but I have nothing against ppl that can have handicapped in some way child cuz that child can hate his parents as much as he wants to + u r not obligated to have any contact with that kid so it's none of ur business. The only reason I see for having a law against the second 2 ppl is cuz Hitler wrote it and he wants to breed his higher race... and there r still a lot of stuff I can say here but comments have limits :(
check090909 2 months ago
Comment removed
check090909 2 months ago
I'm disable. I have spina- bifada there is a difference between knowing committing a crime and unknowingly passing a genetic defect on..its a crap shoot to pass on genetic defects they may or may not skip a gen
stompySharpNpointy 2 months ago
Aaaaaah ça y est, il à enfin retrouvé son tshirt !!! C'est promis la prochaine vidéo il nous montre ses couilles.
biroute79 2 months ago
What exactly is so interesting about this question? Conspiring to end a life is not at all the same as running a high risk of a conceiving a diseased child.A law to prevent the latter would occur only in a highly controlled (unfree) society where the the burden of such a child falls on everyone.In a free society those parents bear full reponsibility for their defective kid,or till they find some gullible sucker to pawn the kid off on.
TiaSaysSo 2 months ago
Perhaps the deciding factor here is; Quality of life & do no harm. Your life is your own, to live productively or throw it away uselessly. But you don't have the right to inflict a life sentence upon another. & why would anyone want to on their own child? Two hayfever, ecsema or asthma sufferers might decide that their prospective childs quality of life would far outweigh the moderate occasional discomfort. But genetic ailments that seriously compromise life would be selfish to impose on another
hiyadroogs 2 months ago
In many ways, i do see yourpoint, but as we all know, humans will fight to survive and make their offspring survive, this is basic evolution, and making a new group of criminals for the sake of perfecting the human species will result in enormous riots. Hitler didn't succeed either, even though his standard of "perfect" was different it is basically the same thing, AND he is also one of the reasons why a modern society will never accept this,
Laffen47 2 months ago
let see => im alive so i will die
so everybody's sick
you're so stupid
h4ckivist 2 months ago
no one is perfect fucker
h4ckivist 2 months ago
It's a human downside to have diseases, some people are unfortunate to get them and some don't, government should stay out of private buisness until they learn how to manage a fucking country.
whiteynator 2 months ago
Abortion on demand and without apology. Can't look after the child/ don't want it? 100% your choice what you want to do. If you (the pregnant person) want to have a child knowing it will be born with disbilities, people should respect your decision. Likewise if you feel you cannot adequately look after the child, no one should be able to force you carry the pregnancy to term and to give birth. Adoption is not an option for everyone, as it is a flawed system.
hazeldelirium 2 months ago
I've seen Wrong turn and Wrong turn 2. Kill em with fire!
InspiredDev 2 months ago
I do not think it is fair to bring a child onto the planet when there is a certainty of a disease being passed on to it, that said assuming these prospective parents are smart, they should realize the extreme monetary costs associated with having a child with said disability. While it would be almost impossible to implement legislation to protect against such a thing it makes sense that it is morally and ethically the wrong choice.
Maliicious1 2 months ago
Obviously there should be a law, limiting the rights of the parents, BUT the penalty should only take place if the child is actually born with a disorder in the end, cuz most people won't consider checking themselves out, for it. Which I guess they should, cuz fixes for genetic disorders r to come in the near future, if they aren't already here, i guess.
In the end there's still adoption, which is comendable thing to do anyway.
Trinivalts 2 months ago
I simply say no because once you make that kind of rule then you can always change it to surve of prepuces also science maybe able to control an strange person ect.
robnaj 2 months ago
Abortion in my opinion, many are against it but seriously, their are very unresponsable teenagers for example, who drink, party, and everything while they are pregnant, i know a girl at my highschool who didnt know she was pregnant until 3 months later, and she was still partying, the child could EASILY have a very critical issue because of her, do you really want to have a kid live like that because of your stupid choices? nah, abortion should be the choice to go.
XTen1000DaysX 2 months ago 16