This one is messy. Let me explain. No one should be disallowed from having children. It's not anyone's right to decide that but the prospective parents. But it **is** the prospective parents' responsibility to determine if they are healthy enough to produce healthy children. My husband and I chose not to have children because he has several debilitating conditions, and we do not want to bring a child into this world only to suffer like he has. It would be irresponsible and cruel to do as such, and I think more prospective parents should stop and think critically about their genes and the likelihood that their offspring might be born into a lifetime of physical or mental suffering.

I 100% agree with this and I find it disheartening that so many other people don't. Life sucks. Bringing a child into this world is cruel and selfish. You'll be responsible for all the pain, illness, grief, heartache and any other negative emotions that person has throughout their life because you brought them into this world. Now imagine you brought a child into the world knowing there is a high chance of them suffering from a serious disability that they inherited from you. You've magnified the pain of an already sucky life just so you can have a child. Like it's a toy car or something. There is never a none selfish reason for having kids.

They shouldn't reproduce if there is a high risk of their kids having the same conditions or worse. And they should take this decision themselves. Especially if they already survive at the expense of the public, for them to bring kids into the world that will burden the others even more is not their right plus they will put their own kids into pain. If you already have a kid that has problems, that kid has every right to live and we take care of the disabled, but to have kids knowing they will have health issues, that is selfishness. We have gone from survival of the fittest to paying all the unfits to live an easy life while the fit have to do double work to provide for everyone. Fit people no longer reproduce because they carry the burden of the whole society. We are going backwards in evolution this way.

A tempting enforcement, but the law simply cannot be trusted with that kind of power. The government would find some way to completely muck that system up and it would either be ineffective or lead to some sort of horrific injustice. That being said, yeah, people with serious inheritable disabilities who then deliberately use their own DNA to make a baby? I don't get it. Do you feel the need to validate your family by your genes? Like a breeding animal? You are not your genes. You are your ideas. And your ideas can be passed on to ANY kid. Ideally one of our ridiculous number of orphans.

**TL;DR: Is it okay to take away someone’s right to have children because of something they cannot control?** - On one hand, it would not be fair in terms of the quality of life of the child. If such an inheritable disability would cause the child lifelong pain and difficulties, I think the expected quality of life of the child outweighs one’s desire to reproduce. - For context: 1.5% of abortions (3,083) in 2020 we carried out under Ground E for grounds for abortion. ‘That there is substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped. In 2019 this accounted for 2% of abortions (3,183) What these statistics show is that when faced with the possibility that a child will be born with serve disabilities; they would rather terminate than proceed with the pregnancy. - However, who are we to play God and say who has the right to have children? China was widely criticised for their one-child policy. The scheme that was said to have officially started in 1980 came into effect to stabilise the country’s ever-growing population. This might not be exactly the same situation but what we see is governmental influence and interference on having children, something that arguably should not be in the domain of the state. It is said China forced women to undergo sterilisations, abortions and forced them to use contraception. - Where is the bridge between this and eugenics? Where we attempt to improve the human race by selecting desirable traits to reproduce, weeding out seemingly negative traits. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/abortion-statistics-for-england-and-wales-2020/abortion-statistics-england-and-wales-2020 https://www.britannica.com/topic/one-child-policy

It’s a tricky one. They should be allowed, subjective to whether they can provide for the child. Simply put, Government should not dictate who can and cannot have children. If the disabled person, with the consent of their partner, wants to bear children, then they should. There is a chance that the child may not end up inheriting the disability, so all would be fine. However if they did, The parents should be held accountable for their actions as they knew the risks. In the UK, we have a benefits system that accounts for those who need it. Despite this, if the parents appreciate the possibility of their child being disabled, then they should not expect state support. This is because the taxpayer should not bear the cost of individual decisions if there are clear risks involved. Essentially, People, regardless of whether they are disabled, should be allowed to reproduce. Private healthcare should, however, be their only Option (regarding illness as a result of disability) for treatment. It sounds harsh, but individual Liberty must be coupled to individual responsibility.

**This kind of ableism is a slippery slope towards a society that criminalises disabilty** Disabilities can be incredibly difficult to live with, but they should not stop someone from being able to have children - that kind of implication is something that, [historically, is far too familiar](https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/the-murder-of-the-handicapped). There are many reasons why this kind of thinking must be quashed: • People should not be made to feel like they do not deserve to exist because of their disability • At what point do we define a disability "serious" enough for it to be deemed enough to sterilise a person? • This kind of rhetoric lies dangerously close to historic scandals where those deemed undesirable were sterilised, often because of discriminatory beliefs such a [racism](https://muse.jhu.edu/article/380293) • Serious disabilities should be accounted for when people are deciding whether or not to have children, but that is the responsibility of the person with the disability, and _no-one else_

People who are a net negative to humanity's progress shouldnt exist and all possible actions must be taken to prevent their existence should be taken, while banning someone from reproducing is overly controlling funding their existance through welfare programs on the condition they dont reproduce is, should they reproduce they receive no money from state welfare and are forced to fund themselves or die trying.