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.
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.