People with inheritable diseases shouldn't be allowed to have children.

First off, I'd like to mention that I appreciate you taking your time for refining your arguments and adding citations! A healthy debate is the best kind of debate. Anyways, avanti to my response. "P1: The Declaration of Independence says that all men are created equal and have certain unalienable rights, one of these being liberty. P2: Forcing those with diseases to not procreate goes against the definition of liberty, as it's an oppressive restriction imposed by authority on one's life/behavior. C1: Therefore, it infringes on their unalienable rights. C2: Therefore, those with inheritable diseases should be allowed to have children. " Please do know that the Declaration of Independence is not a global document, and I may not know or understand it as well as an american would do. However, let's say this law ignores the constitution in its entirety. I'd like you to ignore it as you can be way more fluid with your arguments, and I'd really enjoy you being fluid as this is a debate where I'm expecting to learn more than to impose a viewpoint. Besides, what about people that want to have sexual relations with animals? Or with people in their family? Why can't they do it but people with inheritable diseases that threaten their children's life can? There are hundreds of ways the government influences and even intervenes in your life, and they're all made so you can preserve these rights, your life and the life of others. "There is no doubt that children can bring immense amounts of happiness to a person. Even though people with inheritable diseases can adopt a child, why should be denied the right to go ahead with it biologically? " My two initial reasons can be used on this. I'd feel sorry for the people with inheritable diseases that want to be parents, but in this theme, the term "greater good" comes to mind. I don't think we should put the happiness of a person over other's. If the child doesn't have the right for a normal life, the parents shouldn't be awarded the satisfaction of bringing that child into the world just for it to suffer. Even if the child did come out in perfect health, it's still a pretty big risk, and I think letting people take this risk is unethical and immoral. "I've already touched on number 1 and 30 in the last point made, but I really want to talk about number 2. Unsurprisingly, the proposed ban hits every part the definition describes. Not allowing people with inheritable diseases to reproduce is technically unfair treatment, so, in turn, they're treated differently than "able-bodied" people. "" On the theme the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the third basic human right under the 30 declared human rights is the right to life. More specifically, "the right to life, and to live in freedom and safety. ". Freedom is defined as "the power to determine action without restraint". I think we both agree that all genetic disorders impose some hinderance or restraint, may it be physical or psychological, to the child. Even one of the most harmless, like color blindness, can prevent the child from going down on different careers, such as graphic design, aviation, etc. Safety is defined as "the state of being safe; freedom from the occurrence or risk of injury, danger, or loss. ". A child that is being subjected to a heightened chance of malformation is, by definition, not being given a life of safety. How is this not an unfair treatment to the children the couple might have? "Let's just pretend right now that America passed a law saying that those who have inheritable diseases can't have biological children. However, I'd like to ask how you'd enforce this. " That'd be a piece of cake. Basically, if a person with an inheritable genetic disorder is suspected of having a child, the law should investigate the matter. If the person in question has a child in care, different documentation like adoption papers or birth certificates(in case the person might just be babysitting or momentarily taking care of the child) will be asked for. If the person has neither, they will be detained. This would be specially effective when the person with the disease is a woman, as a pregnancy is, most of the time, difficult to hide. This small procedure, along with general discouragement of the activity, will most probably get rid of most of the practice, as small as it may be. "So riddle me this; how would you make sure that all of these people would never have sex? For one, the government shouldn't enforce what two (or more) consenting adults do in the bedroom. Secondly, how would one find proof that they were having sexual intercourse? " I never said I want these people to not have sex. I said that they couldn't have children. I don't want to deprive these people from sexual pleasure. I just want to outlaw their reproduction (or more accurately, say why I think it should be outlawed). "That is incredibly invasive and can be uncomfortable for the parties involved. " If an officer feels uncomfortable enforcing policies that save children from potential serious diseases. , they might of chosen the wrong job. "What about gay people? Would they face this restriction too? " Gay people cannot have children by any means other than adoption (unless you count that strange practice where one of the partners is impregnated or impregnates a third person which I've never actually see anyone do. This would be perfectly legal if both the biological parents are healthy. ) "What punishment would they face? " It depends on the genetic disorder they might have. If they can, they will have to serve in prison, but some disorders require special needs which can't be fulfilled by prison staff. A fine would be more suitable in these cases, along with the child being taken to an orphanage for special care if he inherited the disease. Their partner, might they have the disease or not, will also have to get the same punishment. "What if they were undiagnosed/untreated for say mental, physical, or sexual illness? " This law would mostly count for people who have been already diagnosed. Besides, most of these disorders are diagnosed at birth or at a young age.