Is it moral to allow two people with genetic dwarfism to reproduce?

[lawtonfogle]

Yes, I'm wanting to get my cut of the 'is it moral' action, but please here me out here.

First off, I am talking about only certain forms of dwarfism, tied directly a gene (of whose name I forget). Basically, if you have the gene, you will have dwarfism. So any child you have has a 50% chance of having dwarfism as well. If your spouse also has that gene, then there is only a 25% chance of your child turning out normal, a 50% chance of them having the gene and being a dwarf, and a 25% chance of them getting the gene from both parents, which is fatal in every case (or at least 99% of them).

Now, my argument stems from a common argument against incest among consenting adults (forced incest is rape, and rape is bad, so I'm not even going there), which is that children produced have an increased chance of having birth defects. If an increase chance of birth defects is a good argument against incest among consenting adults, then is it a decent argument against two dwarfs with this form of dwarfism reproducing?

Now, the main counter argument I can think of is as follows. An incestuous couple, if they instead did not practice incest (aka, had sex with non-relatives instead of each other) would not have the increase chance of birth defects.

This argument fails for the two following reasons.

First, the argument hinges that something can go from wrong to right by reducing the risk to the minimum. This is not applied else where, where we do not force others to take the least minimum risk in regards to reproduction (aka, we allow for a pregnant mother to smoke).

Second, and potentially far more applicable, we are talking about two people with the a fore mentioned form of genetic dwarfism reproducing. Clearly, if a dwarf would reproduce with a human without dwarfism (or at least that form of dwarfism), there would be a much lower chance of genetic defect. As such, this counter-argument would still allow for the banning of two dwarfs with the a fore mentioned genetic dwarfism from mating.

 

[Chesterton]

What's wrong with being a dwarf? Why be normal?

 

[lawtonfogle]

What's wrong with being a dwarf? Why be normal?

Never said there was anything wrong with being one, but when you reproduce with another dwarf, there is a 25% chance, that is 1 in every 4, that your kid will die from having double dwarfism. I'm just saying, if genetic problems in offspring is an argument against incest, then it should clearly be an argument against dwarf/dwarf reproduction.

 

[Chesterton]

Well there's a 1 in 1 chance that we'll all die.

 

[Archer93]

Yes, I'm wanting to get my cut of the 'is it moral' action, but please here me out here.

First off, I am talking about only certain forms of dwarfism, tied directly a gene (of whose name I forget). Basically, if you have the gene, you will have dwarfism. So any child you have has a 50% chance of having dwarfism as well. If your spouse also has that gene, then there is only a 25% chance of your child turning out normal, a 50% chance of them having the gene and being a dwarf, and a 25% chance of them getting the gene from both parents, which is fatal in every case (or at least 99% of them).

Now, my argument stems from a common argument against incest among consenting adults (forced incest is rape, and rape is bad, so I'm not even going there), which is that children produced have an increased chance of having birth defects. If an increase chance of birth defects is a good argument against incest among consenting adults, then is it a decent argument against two dwarfs with this form of dwarfism reproducing?

Now, the main counter argument I can think of is as follows. An incestuous couple, if they instead did not practice incest (aka, had sex with non-relatives instead of each other) would not have the increase chance of birth defects.

This argument fails for the two following reasons.

First, the argument hinges that something can go from wrong to right by reducing the risk to the minimum. This is not applied else where, where we do not force others to take the least minimum risk in regards to reproduction (aka, we allow for a pregnant mother to smoke).

Second, and potentially far more applicable, we are talking about two people with the a fore mentioned form of genetic dwarfism reproducing. Clearly, if a dwarf would reproduce with a human without dwarfism (or at least that form of dwarfism), there would be a much lower chance of genetic defect. As such, this counter-argument would still allow for the banning of two dwarfs with the a fore mentioned genetic dwarfism from mating.

I think, but this is purely guess work, that if the statistics were as you said and known, then the two dwarves with the matching condition would refrain from reproducing, given the one-in-four chance of the child not surviving.
Me personal, given those odds, would go for adoption, rather than risking it. But then again, I'm an average. And I'm pro-choice.
(My favourite badge reads 'I chose to have a baby, but I'm glad I had the choice')

 

[Archer93]

Well there's a 1 in 1 chance that we'll all die.

True, that!

 

[lawtonfogle]

I think, but this is purely guess work, that if the statistics were as you said and known, then the two dwarves with the matching condition would refrain from reproducing, given the one-in-four chance of the child not surviving.
Me personal, given those odds, would go for adoption, rather than risking it. But then again, I'm an average. And I'm pro-choice.
(My favourite badge reads 'I chose to have a baby, but I'm glad I had the choice')

Yes, many would, but this is not a question of person morals, but is 'it will cause genetic problems (including death)' a reliable reason to ban reproduction, or even the act of sex (since so many people want to equate the two).

 

[Archer93]

Yes, many would, but this is not a question of person morals, but is 'it will cause genetic problems (including death)' a reliable reason to ban reproduction, or even the act of sex (since so many people want to equate the two).

Good point.
In that case, I'm going with 'no, it it not moral to attempt to control other people's bodies and thereby their reproductive equipment'.
Because, for me, personal determination is sacrosanct. As is access to information. If both are available, then my personal (and unrelated) opinion is moot.

 

[Phylogeny]

I don't believe our society should regulate who or should not be allowed to reproduced based on genetic possibilities of acquiring (sometimes) fatal defects. That said, it's best for couples with such high chances to adopt or go through genetic selection.

I had a friend who were Ashkenazi Jews and had Tay-Sachs in their family history. Her parents went through genetic selection to make sure that all their kids did not carry the fatal genes, thereby assuring that all their kids will live past the age of 3.

As for incest, if a sibling couple met one day and fell in love and then found out they were related, I don't believe the gov't should try to pry them apart---simply for the same reason it should not be within the state's power to tell two consenting adults who they may be with.

That said, the couple should be advised to never have biological kids. Such close relations will almost always result in severe birth defects for future progeny.

 

[lawtonfogle]

I don't believe our society should regulate who or should not be allowed to reproduced based on genetic possibilities of acquiring (sometimes) fatal defects. That said, it's best for couples with such high chances to adopt or go through genetic selection.

I had a friend who were Ashkenazi Jews and had Tay-Sachs in their family history. Her parents went through genetic selection to make sure that all their kids did not carry the fatal genes, thereby assuring that all their kids will live past the age of 3.

As for incest, if a sibling couple met one day and fell in love and then found out they were related, I don't believe the gov't should try to pry them apart---simply for the same reason it should not be within the state's power to tell two consenting adults who they may be with.

That said, the couple should be advised to never have biological kids. Such close relations will almost always result in severe birth defects for future progeny.

Actually, the percentage the first generation is not that high. Only when incest happens over a couple generations do you get the really bad defects.

 

[Phylogeny]

Actually, the percentage the first generation is not that high. Only when incest happens over a couple generations do you get the really bad defects.

That's true for most cases since it usually involves cousins. Siblings, especially children of full siblings, have a much higher frequency of genetic problems. But issues of incest is probably more common amongst cousins than siblings.

 

[RealityPixie]

It is immoral to prevent the two people from reproducing out of their own free will. It is moral, however, to educate them about the risk and to strongly discourage them from doing so whilst presenting them with other options, such as adoption. But then one has to wonder, with the way genetic technology is going pretty soon there'll probably be a way to make sure the babies don't inherit such genes (not saying that such technology is right, but it could happen)