Should people who have clinical depression be allowed to procreate?

[chasmaniac]

Ooh ooh, I've got one! Should women be allowed to wear pants?

[Mirror Image]

Should women be allowed to wear pants

Only when there's not a windstorm or on a ladder.

[bwv 1080]

Should anyone with a known, diagnosed, and hereditarily/genetically developed mental illness (ie. clinical depression, bi-polar, etc.) be allowed to have their own biological children?

I know there is currently no law for this, but I've had a vasectomy for this reason.  I don't believe I have the right to pass on this depressive gene (potentially) to another human being.  To me, knowing I have the diagnosis of clinical depression, and clearly received the depressive gene from my mother, I don't think it is right (knowing this) to have biological children of my own.  It really isn't any different than knowing you have AIDS or HIV, and deciding to have children.  IMHO.

you a closet Nazi or something?  Who has the right to prohibit other people from having kids?

[Brahmsian]

you a closet Nazi or something?  Who has the right to prohibit other people from having kids?

I realized after the fact I should have worded my question differently.  I meant to ask the question more as a moral, personal choice (like I did), rather than a government imposed prohibition.

[lisa needs braces]

Should anyone with a known, diagnosed, and hereditarily/genetically developed mental illness (ie. clinical depression, bi-polar, etc.) be allowed to have their own biological children?

I'll raise you one: Should anyone be allowed to procreate?

http://www.amazon.com/Better-Never-Have-Been-Existence/dp/0199296421

[Brian]

My parents' best friends never had kids, and he had a vasectomy, because she has epilepsy.

[ibanezmonster]

I'll raise you one: Should anyone be allowed to procreate?

http://www.amazon.com/Better-Never-Have-Been-Existence/dp/0199296421

I get more and more inclined to agree with this viewpoint each day.

[Florestan]

I'll raise you one: Should anyone be allowed to procreate?

http://www.amazon.com/Better-Never-Have-Been-Existence/dp/0199296421

The most logical act then would be to commit suicide instead of writing books. 

[Sandra]

I get more and more inclined to agree with this viewpoint each day.

I hope you're not serious, Grieg. The book seems to be beyond stupid, in my opinion. It's main arguments are that (1) "Coming into existence is always a serious harm." (Harm to who?), and (2) that "it would be better if humanity became extinct" (Better for who?) If the experiences in this world are not satisfying in any way and there's absolutely no interest to live, committing suicide always fixes that problem. What kind of "serious harm" is that if it could be fixed in less than a second?

[Florestan]

I hope you're not serious, Grieg. The book seems to be beyond stupid, in my opinion. It's main arguments are that (1) "Coming into existence is always a serious harm." (Harm to who?), and (2) that "it would be better if humanity became extinct" (Better for who?) If the experiences in this world are not satisfying in any way and there's absolutely no interest to live, committing suicide always fixes that problem. What kind of "serious harm" is that if it could be fixed in less than a second?

Excellent refutation, Sandra.

Off topic question: where in Europe have you had your vacation eventually? 

[Elgarian]

I'll raise you one: Should anyone be allowed to procreate?
http://www.amazon.com/Better-Never-Have-Been-Existence/dp/0199296421

Following the inexorable quasi-reasoning of the book's writer, one must inevitably conclude that it would be 'better' for there not to be a universe at all. But 'better' for what, or for whom? The whole thing seems to proceed from confusions about goodness and value systems, and what constitutes harm. I wonder if he considered applying similar logic to the writing of his own book?

1. The confused philosophy of this book will bewilder and upset some readers, causing serious harm.
2. Therefore it would be better if this book were not written.
3. But, er ... I'll write it anyway.

[Sandra]

Excellent refutation, Sandra.

Off topic question: where in Europe have you had your vacation eventually? 

Oh, thanks for asking! We spent a wonderful week in Kiev, Ukraine. This wasn't my idea but I really enjoyed it! I met lots of interesting people. It's a different world there.

[Florestan]

Oh, thanks for asking! We spent a wonderful week in Kiev, Ukraine. This wasn't my idea but I really enjoyed it! I met lots of interesting people. It's a different world there.

Thanks for answering. If you have time and are willing, please share your experiences with us: likes, dislikes etc. TIA.

[Florestan]

Following the inexorable quasi-reasoning of the book's writer, one must inevitably conclude that it would be 'better' for there not to be a universe at all. But 'better' for what, or for whom? The whole thing seems to proceed from confusions about goodness and value systems, and what constitutes harm. I wonder if he considered applying similar logic to the writing of his own book?

1. The confused philosophy of this book will bewilder and upset some readers, causing serious harm.
2. Therefore it would be better if this book were not written.
3. But, er ... I'll write it anyway.

4. Not least because of all the harms of life earning money is the least harmful. 

[Sandra]

I'm surprised Oxford University Press published this. You'd think this would be an excellent book to turn down.

[Holden]

The answer is simple - YES. You think that you are genetically disposed towards a depressive illness but what about the the other parent in the equation? If they aren't genetically disposed then it changes everything.

Scientists still can't predict how the genetic combinations of two people will work out unless it is obvious that both have the same recessive gene. It's a risk but it should still be taken. Medication does a wonderful job with depressive illnesses if your child inherits your genes as opposed to your partner.

[Karl Henning]

Oh, thanks for asking! We spent a wonderful week in Kiev, Ukraine.

I've heard that the Gate is Great.

[Grazioso]

I realized after the fact I should have worded my question differently.  I meant to ask the question more as a moral, personal choice (like I did), rather than a government imposed prohibition.

Makes a huge difference. The first thing that popped into mind when I saw the thread title were early 20th-century eugenics programs (in the US and elsewhere), more specifically the Nazi policies to deal with mental illness in their society: forced sterilizations and "euthanizations" by the hundreds of thousands 

Your question naturally leads one to ask: should anyone with any potentially inheritable mental or physical "defect" be restrained from, or restrain themselves from, breeding? Maybe a kid might be born blind from blind parents but end up curing cancer or winning the Nobel Peace Prize.

[Karl Henning]

Makes a huge difference. The first thing that popped into mind when I saw the thread title were early 20th-century eugenics programs (in the US and elsewhere), more specifically the Nazi policies to deal with mental illness in their society: forced sterilizations and "euthanizations" by the hundreds of thousands 

Separately (and in curious timing) this morning I read this:

[E]ugenics enjoyed wide acceptance in the early 20th century, advocated by dignitaries such as Theodore Roosevelt and Alexander Graham Bell. It was certainly seen as less controversial than birth control at the time. (The Supreme Court, in an 8-1 decision, even ruled in 1927 that Virginia could sterilize a white woman considered an imbecile.)

From this piece fact-checking H. Cain.

[Grazioso]

Separately (and in curious timing) this morning I read this:

From this piece fact-checking H. Cain.

The US was a "leader" in the movement, with many states adopting laws forcing sterilization, and the Nazis actually modeled some of their practices on American ones