Jesslin She'Nedra (jesslin) wrote,
Jesslin She'Nedra
jesslin

  • Mood:

Consentual Darwinism

Random thought of the day, as I was perusing a site that described a birth defect I hadn't encountered before. If a person has a known genetic defect, or is a known carrier of one, do they have any obligation at all to not have children? To help lower the instance of the problem and to help prevent it from cropping up in later generations? Does it matter if it has a chance of fatality for the child? What if there's better than 50% chance the child inherits the problem? Or less than 20%? Does that even matter? What if there's a cure or work around, do you have the child and fix them if they turn out to be broken (which of course allows it to be potentially passed to the next generation)?

I have no interest in thinking any further on this right now. It's certainly not something I need to take any immediate action on - I'm not reproducing, and I'm not in a position to 'thou shalt' anyone else. I'm not even sure *how* I feel myself. It was a passing thought, and now it is out there (here?) to be commented on or ignored as anyone may see fit. I'm expecting 'ignored', frankly :)
Tags: random thoughts
Subscribe
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 3 comments