Opinions - Should we destroy the last bit of the smallpox disease?

[*Magick* Mage]

Sadly, because of the constitution, we have to let them have children, since it falls under "The right to persue happiness."

That's not in the Constitution. :o

[Ad Bot]

[indyjones]

Sadly, because of the constitution, we have to let them have children, since it falls under "The right to persue happiness."

The pursuit of happiness does not mean "we have to let cripples be happy because it's under the constitution".  If the pursuit of happiness applied everywhere, it would be devastating.

[Stocking]

The problem is, sure, from a logical standpoint it would be best for humanity in the long-run no matter how grossly inhuman it is. But the problem with allowing the government to interfere with something like this, is it creates a means for fulfilling hate filled agendas. マホ～

[rockslide26]

I don't think that people with hereditary diseases should be allowed to have children. Sure, constitution, bla bla bla, but would you rather have a child born with messed up muscles or not have a child born at all?

[LizzyRascal]

I should be able to have children. So, yeah.

[LizzyRascal]

I don't think that people with hereditary diseases should be allowed to have children. Sure, constitution, bla bla bla, but would you rather have a child born with messed up muscles or not have a child born at all?

Even a simple disease like Rheumatoid Arthritis?

[Oasis]

Very interesting. I suppose no from a standpoint of ridding the world of these diseases, but yes otherwise.

[Fredulus]

The problem is, sure, from a logical standpoint it would be best for humanity in the long-run no matter how grossly inhuman it is. But the problem with allowing the government to interfere with something like this, is it creates a means for fulfilling hate filled agendas. マホ～

It's not grossly inhuman to stop the spread of AIDS, etc. I do see your point though.

[TeslaCoil]

Depends if they're stupid enough to do it and know they have a hereditary disease.

I know I wouldn't.

[rockslide26]

Even a simple disease like Rheumatoid Arthritis?

It depends if it's genetic. Is yours genetic?

[fred da kiko]

it depends on the kind, if it's minor then yes, if they have no left side of their brain then no.

[Tylale]

The problem is, sure, from a logical standpoint it would be best for humanity in the long-run no matter how grossly inhuman it is. But the problem with allowing the government to interfere with something like this, is it creates a means for fulfilling hate filled agendas. マホ～

I didn't ask if it was possible, I asked if you think they should be allowed. Obviously until something like a huge population or some major change in the way of human thinking, it isn't going to happen.

Also, stop signing your posts, cigarette.

[CopBlock]

I didn't ask if it was possible, I asked if you think they should be allowed. Obviously until something like a huge population or some major change in the way of human thinking, it isn't going to happen.

Also, stop signing your posts, cigarette.

but signing your posts is cool ♫

[Wynd_Fox]

It's not grossly inhuman to stop the spread of AIDS, etc. I do see your point though.

AIDS isn't hereditary.

[Daedalus]

You have to consider that many hereditary diseases aren't fatal and are barely a damper on the child's life at all. The question is too broad.