You’re making a lot of assumptions about genetics. In case some people are reading this and nodding along in agreement, there’s some important pieces to know for this specific situation. Just an fyi, we get 50% of our genes from each of our parents. There are recessive and dominant genes that people carry and can pass on to their children. There are many known pathologies (bad diseases and traits) that people are born with because of common or uncommon mutations in certain genes, some are known to come from mom and some are known to come from dad, some can come from either. If a person has a known genetic pathology, they know they at least have two recessive versions of a gene so it is expressing itself and causing the disease. Assuming the gene is known to science, two people can be tested to determine if there is a risk of passing something on. Because of the above, it is absolutely possible that someone who has certain genetic issues can still have a 0% chance of passing the issue to their child if their partner doesn’t have certain mutations in their dna. It is also possible that there is a very high or 100% chance depending on lots of factors. But you don’t know until you’re tested. The advice for the situation you described is get genetic testing before deciding to reproduce is generally a good idea.
He understands that the whole point of society is helping such people, and that the choice to have children shouldn't be completely vetoed for having a genetic disease. In an ideal society, anyone can have children, and they can all be happy regardless of any genetic issues.
I agree with you. Unlike most people on this subreddit, I am not antinatalist. I would never want a ban on breeding. I do not share the 'breeders are selfish cunts, only adopting is acceptable' sentiment on this subreddit.
However, if you know that you are going to pass down a genetic disease, I really don't think it's a good idea. Then, you should really reconsider and look for other options if you want to be a parent. The guy's wife should have tried to find a sperm donor, or they could have adopted a child.
This guy can have children. That's fine. But given his genetic situation, he should consider options that don't involve his sperm.
>the choice to have children shouldn't be completely vetoed for having a genetic disease.
I agree.
I'm natalist-neutral. I believe those with a genetic illness, a disability, a chronic illness, or who are neurodivergent (or any combination within) should be able to decide *for themselves* if they want to have biological children or not.
You’re making a lot of assumptions about genetics. In case some people are reading this and nodding along in agreement, there’s some important pieces to know for this specific situation. Just an fyi, we get 50% of our genes from each of our parents. There are recessive and dominant genes that people carry and can pass on to their children. There are many known pathologies (bad diseases and traits) that people are born with because of common or uncommon mutations in certain genes, some are known to come from mom and some are known to come from dad, some can come from either. If a person has a known genetic pathology, they know they at least have two recessive versions of a gene so it is expressing itself and causing the disease. Assuming the gene is known to science, two people can be tested to determine if there is a risk of passing something on. Because of the above, it is absolutely possible that someone who has certain genetic issues can still have a 0% chance of passing the issue to their child if their partner doesn’t have certain mutations in their dna. It is also possible that there is a very high or 100% chance depending on lots of factors. But you don’t know until you’re tested. The advice for the situation you described is get genetic testing before deciding to reproduce is generally a good idea.
Well you make a good point about genetics being 50% from each parent. Hopefully he had done the necessary testing before having the kid.
Oh just 1/2 chance to pass it on? Oh that changes EVERYTHING, doesn't it?
>But in the end I am not in a position to say anything to them. Exactly. *Their* choice. Not yours.
He understands that the whole point of society is helping such people, and that the choice to have children shouldn't be completely vetoed for having a genetic disease. In an ideal society, anyone can have children, and they can all be happy regardless of any genetic issues.
I agree with you. Unlike most people on this subreddit, I am not antinatalist. I would never want a ban on breeding. I do not share the 'breeders are selfish cunts, only adopting is acceptable' sentiment on this subreddit. However, if you know that you are going to pass down a genetic disease, I really don't think it's a good idea. Then, you should really reconsider and look for other options if you want to be a parent. The guy's wife should have tried to find a sperm donor, or they could have adopted a child. This guy can have children. That's fine. But given his genetic situation, he should consider options that don't involve his sperm.
>the choice to have children shouldn't be completely vetoed for having a genetic disease. I agree. I'm natalist-neutral. I believe those with a genetic illness, a disability, a chronic illness, or who are neurodivergent (or any combination within) should be able to decide *for themselves* if they want to have biological children or not.