Recognizing that the aforementioned 'genetic diseases' only constitute those that are genetically inheritable by the children of the afflicted individual.
The act of discouraging reproduction amongst individuals who suffer from genetic disorders is usually accomplished through chemical castration at birth.
I shall carry the role of PRO, or supporting that genetically ill individuals should be forbidden, in this case actively prevented, from reproducing and adding more genetically ill members of the population into the human gene pool.
The format of the debate shall be four rounds for arguments and the purpose of each side making their case. The final round is for closing statements.
However, in procreating, these genetically ill individuals are knowledgeably spreading the risk of their offspring being born genetically ill as well. If people knowledgeably spread an illness, like an STD for instance then they are typically reviled. Why is it not the same in this case as well?
you make a good point, however this is very similar to what i am trying to say yes they are reviled but they do it none the less. The thing is every human on the planet earth has the option to do as they will. Trying to prevent people from procreating goes against basic human rights. Nobody can stop anybody from doing anything, Tell someone not to do something they immediately want to do it.
In most countries that is true, but even if we can"t force them to, if we had a choice, then the option should be to ban people from reproducing who have genetic diseases. The world population is supposed to skyrocket according to the UN . http://www.un.org...
The point is, with resources decreasing and populations increasing, shouldn"t we doing all we can to sustain our current resources? By having lower populations, we can keep more resources. The chances that a person suffering from a genetic disease would give their kid the disease if they were to have one is around 50%. http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov...
I acknowledge the amount of people with genetic diseases isn"t terribly high but still, the fewer the better.
My opponent has been shown different pieces of evidence that I use to support my argument and I acknowledged that what I am arguing for isn't realistic, but if it were to come up as an issue, that the most logical stance is to forbid people suffering from genetic diseases to not be allowed to reproduce. I have clearly won this argument.