Imagine a situation both parents are carriers of the mutated CFTR gene that can cause cystic fibrosis. There’s a 1 in 4 chance any offspring they produce would inherit both recessive genes from the parents thereby strickening the child with this lifelong disease.
The complications for an individual with CF include: Chronic lung infections (e.g., pseudomonas aeruginosa, Staphylococcus aureus), bronchiectasis (airway widening and scarring), persistent cough and mucus production, progressive lung damage and respiratory failure, pasal polyps and sinus infections, Digestive System Complications, pancreatic insufficiency (poor digestion and malabsorption), malnutrition and vitamin deficiencies (A, D, E, K), meconium ileus (intestinal blockage in newborns), intestinal obstruction in older individuals, CF-related diabetes (CFRD), liver disease (blocked bile ducts, cirrhosis), male infertility (absence/blockage of the vas deferens), female reduced fertility (thick cervical mucus), excessive salt loss through sweat (risk of dehydration and electrolyte imbalances), low bone density, delayed growth and poor weight gain in children, anxiety and depression related to chronic illness, Increased risk of heat exhaustion, pulmonary hypertension (high blood pressure in the lungs), cor pulmonale (right-sided heart failure due to lung issues) and the eventual need for lung transplantation in severe cases.
Now imagine a genetic counselor telling the couple that is about to reproduce that they should not worry about the risks associated as it would be far worse to give into the “Nazi-praxis that is eugenics”. Wouldn’t you categorize this as insanity?
The life expectancy for someone with CF is about 40 years. The point is that touting simple prophylaxis and common sense as “eugenics” is incredibly naive and ignorant to the realities of the real world. There’s no reason to enable the suffering of children who could’ve otherwise been spared the hassle because you want to avoid eugenics. This type of extreme thinking must be shunned.
Okay, asked and answered. I wasn’t asking with intent to sealion here, and in fairness perhaps I should have posed this question to the top comment. There’s a lot of nuance missing from them simply calling disabled people selfish for breeding. I wouldn’t have even bothered probably, but this other fellow was conflating your view with the idea that it’s the same kind of selfishness to have kids at all given the state of the world, which begins to sound deeply nihilistic. In my defense I was at pains to ask in the least accusatory way I could think of, giving them the benefit of the doubt. Thanks for taking the time to make sense on their behalf.
No problem. I probably should have been less presumptive and snarky in my reply. I’m just tired of seeing it branded as eugenics when the situation is simply prophylaxis. Adoption is always an option for these couples, so i think it would be selfish for them to breed knowing there are risks.
On the other hand, the person you replied to is probably an antinatalist. They believe it’s morally wrong to reproduce. A radical philosophy that has its flaws, but i see the appeal.
GrammarPolice@lemmy.world 11 hours ago
Oh come on, not this crap again.
Imagine a situation both parents are carriers of the mutated CFTR gene that can cause cystic fibrosis. There’s a 1 in 4 chance any offspring they produce would inherit both recessive genes from the parents thereby strickening the child with this lifelong disease.
The complications for an individual with CF include: Chronic lung infections (e.g., pseudomonas aeruginosa, Staphylococcus aureus), bronchiectasis (airway widening and scarring), persistent cough and mucus production, progressive lung damage and respiratory failure, pasal polyps and sinus infections, Digestive System Complications, pancreatic insufficiency (poor digestion and malabsorption), malnutrition and vitamin deficiencies (A, D, E, K), meconium ileus (intestinal blockage in newborns), intestinal obstruction in older individuals, CF-related diabetes (CFRD), liver disease (blocked bile ducts, cirrhosis), male infertility (absence/blockage of the vas deferens), female reduced fertility (thick cervical mucus), excessive salt loss through sweat (risk of dehydration and electrolyte imbalances), low bone density, delayed growth and poor weight gain in children, anxiety and depression related to chronic illness, Increased risk of heat exhaustion, pulmonary hypertension (high blood pressure in the lungs), cor pulmonale (right-sided heart failure due to lung issues) and the eventual need for lung transplantation in severe cases.
Now imagine a genetic counselor telling the couple that is about to reproduce that they should not worry about the risks associated as it would be far worse to give into the “Nazi-praxis that is eugenics”. Wouldn’t you categorize this as insanity?
The life expectancy for someone with CF is about 40 years. The point is that touting simple prophylaxis and common sense as “eugenics” is incredibly naive and ignorant to the realities of the real world. There’s no reason to enable the suffering of children who could’ve otherwise been spared the hassle because you want to avoid eugenics. This type of extreme thinking must be shunned.
Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world 4 hours ago
Okay, asked and answered. I wasn’t asking with intent to sealion here, and in fairness perhaps I should have posed this question to the top comment. There’s a lot of nuance missing from them simply calling disabled people selfish for breeding. I wouldn’t have even bothered probably, but this other fellow was conflating your view with the idea that it’s the same kind of selfishness to have kids at all given the state of the world, which begins to sound deeply nihilistic. In my defense I was at pains to ask in the least accusatory way I could think of, giving them the benefit of the doubt. Thanks for taking the time to make sense on their behalf.
GrammarPolice@lemmy.world 3 hours ago
No problem. I probably should have been less presumptive and snarky in my reply. I’m just tired of seeing it branded as eugenics when the situation is simply prophylaxis. Adoption is always an option for these couples, so i think it would be selfish for them to breed knowing there are risks.
On the other hand, the person you replied to is probably an antinatalist. They believe it’s morally wrong to reproduce. A radical philosophy that has its flaws, but i see the appeal.