Selfish, Eugenics or intelligent choice

[Exploited Class]

So this post will be based off of personal experience, but I think it brings up some good questions and I chose philosophy because some of this will be conjecture on some people's part. It is on mine at least.

Okay so my family has had a bad run in with some bad genes. She suffered from schizophrenia and paranoid along with a clinical depression diagnosis. It has skipped generations carried on the mother side as far as we can go back. My mother suffered from it horribly, she thought that people were chasing her and that anybody she met was after her. So I have had first hand experience with the illnesses and see how devastating and dangerous the effects were. Medication treated but not cured the illness obviously.

Now I have made a choice to not have children, to not reproduce and pass on genes that I know are in my family. My sister on the other hand is pregnant and due to have her daughter in March.

Now if I have made a choice not reproduce because of genes I carry, am I selfish, practicing a lesser form of eugenics or am I just making a smart and thoughtful choice?

Many states earlier in this century removed the reproductive ability of people that were institutionalized for mental illness, it was eugenics. Was it eugenics because it was forced or state sponsored? Is it unethical because choice was removed from the individual?

Now, am I not doing the same thing minus the part about choosing?

Let's go one step further. Let's say I decide to risk it and have a child of my own, we'll say for selfish reasons I don't want to adopt, it is in the first trimester I run a test and find out it has a very excellent chance of being mentally ill. I chose to abort. (Now this isn't a choice vs. anti-choice with abortion thread so please post your "It isn't right to ever have an abortion response somewhere else,). Is this a slippery slope? Am I just choosing what I want don't want to pass on, couldn't that bar be lowered at any point, like say left handed or gay, bad eye sight.

Should I have guilt, if I chose to have a child knowing well before hand that they will more than likely have a severe mental illness? What if they later on in life, kill 3 innocent people? If I knew before hand that the mental illness was severe, that if I did not have a child it would not be passed on, that people with mental illness will often not be able to hold jobs or take medicine, have I done an injustice and cost 3 innocent people's live because I chose to not heed my own information and intelligence.

[Mike Fakelastname]

This is an example of where idealism and realism clash. Realism being eugenics and idealism being common morals. I'm an very huge realist so I would say that it would indeed be very selfish to decide to produce a child or to not have an abortion. But looking at it from an idealistic and romantic point of view, most of these people would be strongly opposed to that, based on moral issues surrounding eugenics. Well I say fuck morals, morals differ with each person and they only draw us appart from each other. I think everyone should think whatever they want, and only apply it to themselves and not other people. Like: "You don't want an abortion? Fine, maybe other people do."

[sickofyou]

How do we begin to seek?...is this a question or rather an exploration of that which you have sought after; in– stead i say to those who are lacking resource. Do you need to know if what happens to me really affects those who don't exist already? The answer's are all this world needs...to deny it is folly for some, death 4 others. :)

[RedFW]

Now if I have made a choice not reproduce because of genes I carry, am I selfish, practicing a lesser form of eugenics or am I just making a smart and thoughtful choice?

Unfortunately, reproduction is too often presented as the ultimate sacrifice, the ultimate act of selflessness. Comrade James once made a good post about there being no reason other than selfishness for having children, maybe he can repost it. Regardless of genes, if reproduction is, in itself, a selfless act, not reproducing will always equal being selfish, whatever reasons inform the decision.

I don't know too much about eugenics and sterilisation, but I think the fact that it included so much more than mental illness makes the comparison difficult. I had a look at www.eugenicsarchive.org (http://www.eugenicsarchive.org) , which quotes the law as "encompass the 'feebleminded, insane, criminalistic, epileptic, inebriate, diseased, blind, deaf, deformed; and dependent'...including 'orphans, ne'er-do-wells, tramps, the homeless and paupers.'" It also says that eugenicists 'wished to breed a better race'.

This is a big difference because of what informs your choices. Reading your post it seems that one of the main things informing your decision was your experience of a family member with mental illness. That is something you know about. Eugenicists wanted to define for everyone who or what didn't lead to a better race. Involuntary sterilisation was one of the ways they tried to achieve it. Removing choice was part of it, but they had a very disturbing bigger purpose they were working for and they were preventing people from having children altogether; whereas, you , presumably are able to have children and are just choosing not to.

If you are being selfish for [i]not choosing to reproduce because of genes, who exactly is suffering because of this selfishness?

Sorry, I don't have time to respond to the rest.

[Blackberry]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2004, 01:16 AM
Unfortunately, reproduction is too often presented as the ultimate sacrifice, the ultimate act of selflessness. Comrade James once made a good post about there being no reason other than selfishness for having children, maybe he can repost it.
Well, it is a little old, so I'll restructure it...

=====

I don't believe there is any valid reason to reproduce, and I have decided that I will not be going out of my way to do so either.

There is always that argument about people wanting 'their genes to live on', but this isn't a valid reason. What is there to gain by having 'your genes living on'? When you are dead, what will it matter?

And then there is the planet to think about. With the population in billions, it won't be long until it is in the tens of billions, and this planet clearly won't sustain such a population with the environmental destruction in place.

Those two reasons are selfish reasons in itself, but then let us take ourselves away from biology and the environment, and focus on relationships.

Most parents act and even believe that they own 'their' child. They gave them birth, and so it is their 'right' to raise them how they want to raise them. They then, in 99.9% of cases, proceed to make decisions and force certain tasks on them, discipline, etc., and make them do things that the child would raher not do.

For myself, I was forced to do certain subjects in high school against my will; forced to go on family visits I did not want to go to, and up until recently, forced to drive (as a learner) when I didn't want to...these are just some examples. They could be many other examples that are vastly different.

Most parents try to live their life through 'their' child -- a vicarious life -- usually to make up for their own 'failures'. The parents might have expectations of 'their' children to go to university; play sport; learn how to play an instrument; learn a language; become an accountant, since father is only a shoe maker; etc. etc. All of this puts unrealistic expectations on a child or children, and imagine if you have an extremely 'successful' father or mother in a 'top' job -- you will be expected to exceed this, ordinarily.

And then, after the heavy weight of the above is brought down against them, the parents will tell 'their' children that 'they are extremely lucky to have all of these good things, and have a 'loving' family care for them (if you're regularly hit, you still receive this message). It is a tactic that parents use to make 'their' children feel guilty; to feel sorry for them, and 'appreciate all of the good things they get'. It is one used on me all the time.

With all of the negativeness associated with the birth and raising of a child or children, why bother? It will save billions of people time, stress, and happiness.

Only selfishness is a reason to reproduce, but yet that doesn't seem 'valid' -- at least not to me. There are not only one or two or several more people who can suffer, but also more than 6 billion people.

And to cap it all off: 'If you are being selfish for not choosing to reproduce because of genes, who exactly is suffering because of this selfishness?'

=====

Upon viewing this post, it isn't a necessarily excellent post, as RedFW would have you believe. ;) It is a very flawed piece, which can easily be 'refuted' by selfishness.

For example, there are those who believe that 'their legacy can continue on', and hope that their children will 'make the world a better place, etc. etc., but then that strikes me as vicarious. Fancy expecting that 'your' children will have the same beliefs as you. They can turn out to be real idiots, for all you know.

Other arguments such as 'your children can support you when you're old' strike me as absurd -- ask me whether I am going to support my parents when they get old. Definitely not. I plan to have a buffer zone' that is thousands of kilometres long. Plus, there are no existing laws that compel adult children to support their parents and it's unlikely that such laws will ever be passed...because they'd be unenforcible.

The 'species must live on' argument is flawed...someone is always going to reproduce, even if it just one (two) people.

You can also argue that some of the existing limitations are the fault of capitalism, but even then, I don't think that's good enough. Plus, we can't just wait for a revolution, that one cannot foresee.

If one still wants children though, they should really want to have children, and give them the freedom that you did not have. Otherwise, you're going to be miserable and so are 'your' children.

But you will never be able to excape the 'vicarious life' scenario. It will corrupt you in some way...unless you abandon 'your' children.

But better yet, why not adopt someone, rather than reproduce?

[sickofyou]

I agree with a lot of what Comrade James is saying, but it ultimately comes down to the way you feel, and your 'happiness' not what is done or the way to save the world from over population. Fuck the world population and all those who would try to save it, or keep it the same. Without them having parents to give birth to them they wouldn't even have an bloody opinion in the first place. Always there will be someone saying the world is going to end, if we don't do this or stop doing that, who cares? Of course the world is not perfect and if you want you could have 100s of children and not destroy anything. Although it is a serious choice that you must not take too lightly, but no body ever said that we can't just populate the globe, till it is filled with people. That would not be 2wise to say the least, although if you read the bible and adhere to the will of God, then he directly says to go out and produce multiple offspring, without repercussion. I don't know if that is right either, but it is not my choice. Again it was, and always is yours. So try, and not listen to the SAVE THE WORLD speech. To follow the what?... leading you. Ask this question too your heart. Only then will you know whatever you decide, is right. Love under Will. That be law.

[redstar2000]

The decision not to conceive when there is a substantial risk of the child being born with a predisposition to a serious illness (mental or physical) is obviously both rational and humane.

Your sister's choice is an unfortunate one, regardless of motivation. But treatments are improving all the time and perhaps as your niece grows up, she won't have to suffer the torments of your mother. Genes are, after all, still a lottery and your niece could be "a lucky winner".

I can't help but wonder, though, what happens when it will be possible to "rig the lottery"?

That's still a very long time into the future from now...probably a few centuries.

But if you could "design" your kid, what would you go for? What trade-offs would you be willing to make? What would be your priorities and what would be "nice add-ons" but not essentials?

Nature in general seems to be very "resource-conscious" when it comes to living organisms; that is, the more resources devoted to producing X, the less that's left over for producing Y. Tall people tend to be thinner than people of average height. Really smart people tend to be less muscular than average people. An extremely robust immune system may come at the cost of some other highly desirable trait.

There's little point to objections along the lines of "we should not play God"--if you can do it, then it's not playing. In general, humans resist leaving important matters to determination by chance. If we can "guide" the outcome (or think we can), then we do it without hesitation.

It seems unlikely that we will get the opportunity to pick "all aces" and no "deuces" or "treys". So what will people choose?

And will they feel guilty if their choices don't exactly "work out" as planned?

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[RedFW]

Great post, Redstar!