The good of the individual and the good of the whole are not always in conflict. But these discussions where people try to say that someone with a known genetic

The good of the individual and the good of the whole are not always in conflict. But these discussions where people try to say that someone with a known genetic disorder should not be allowed to do anything like this so that they can both have a baby and try to somehow give the baby a better outcome always smack of Arian Race bullshit to me. I did not know I had a genetic disorder when I had kids, so I never had to wrestle with such questions. But I have seen other parents wrestle with them. The bullshit statements you see about concerns that this child will be permanently fucked up for life are just prejudice. Every pregnancy comes with that risk. In fact, I have read that up to half of all pregnancies miscarry before the woman knows she is pregnant and the theory is these are genetic monsters so screwed up they aren't viable. Elsewhere in this discussion someone rebutted something I said with something like "what if the child lives to age 53 but is in agony and a burden to society?" I have paid accident claims. To my horror, I have read reports of children maimed for life because of parents being, imo, inadequately attentive to safety. So, a child can be born with no genetic defect and end up missing a leg, blind or paralyzed due to parental neglect. You are telling me that parents with "the wrong genes" should be wholesale denied reproductive rights because their kids might suffer, but assholes with no sense can have all the damn kids they like because what fucks over their kids permanently is not part of their DNA. And my feeling on that is [redacted, because it no doubt breaks the guidelines].