---

The child doesn't have a choice at all. The parents put their own personal desires over the health of the child,

---

when it comes to this particular hypothetical child, their genetic health is their genetic health. the parents have made it no better and no worse by realising the hypothetical. they might be criticised on utilitarian grounds if we assume that a less healthy child is less happy or less conducive to happiness in others, but the child itself is unharmed.

---

Define: Reasonable

---

trying to paint OTHER people as racists

---

and the purpose of this thread shows itself

trying to paint OTHER people as racists

---

i was willing to play along to find out. i lol'ed.

-------
Do not abandon yourselves to despair.
We are the Easter people and hallelujah is our song.

Pope John Paul II

Yes or no SpM - is choosing who to mate with a personal desire?

Yes or no SpM - is a person's health related to their personal welfare?

-------
"The Jewish problem is one of the greatest problems in the world, and
no man, be he writer, politician or diplomatist, can be considered mature
until he has striven to face it squarely on its merits." - HW Steed

but, to be a good sport about it, take your three yesses and proceed.

---

and the purpose of this thread shows itself

trying to paint OTHER people as racists

---

I just wonder if people think it's morally wrong to mix races because it's inherently selfish.

-------
"The Jewish problem is one of the greatest problems in the world, and
no man, be he writer, politician or diplomatist, can be considered mature
until he has striven to face it squarely on its merits." - HW Steed

the child plucked from the numberless ranks of the unborn might be less healthy than most of its siblings, but its own health does not deteriorate for coming into this world.

---

it would be selfish to harm a child's health under those circumstances, but no child's health has been harmed.

the child plucked from the numberless ranks of the unborn might be less healthy than most of its siblings, but its own health does not deteriorate for coming into this world.

---

Choosing someone that would cause a less-desirable genetic makeup for a potential child would essentially mean one is choosing to bring someone less healthy and adapted to the world compared to bringing someone that is as well off as they could have done (the nature of this moral belief would include any action that harms the child such as malnutrition).

-------
"The Jewish problem is one of the greatest problems in the world, and
no man, be he writer, politician or diplomatist, can be considered mature
until he has striven to face it squarely on its merits." - HW Steed

---

Would it be immoral if I had a child with somebody with bipolarism, knowing that I also have the same mental disorder?

---

Post edited at 6:38 pm on May 26, 2012 by kidd rune

-------
"The Jewish problem is one of the greatest problems in the world, and
no man, be he writer, politician or diplomatist, can be considered mature
until he has striven to face it squarely on its merits." - HW Steed

---

The way you're looking at it is from a flawed perspective. Instead of looking at it from a specific child with only one possible genetic makeup being created, look at it from the perspective of any potential child from these individual adults.  

Choosing someone that would cause a less-desirable genetic makeup for a potential child would essentially mean one is choosing to bring someone less healthy and adapted to the world compared to bringing someone that is as well off as they could have done (the nature of this moral belief would include any action that harms the child such as malnutrition).

---

pick your battle, one or the other: they are to be condemned on utilitarian grounds, or they are to be condemned for harming a child.

the latter is what i am contesting, on the grounds that the child born is not harmed (its life being worth living and its health in no way made worse by the act of conception), and the children unborn are not wronged (there being no moral obligation to bring the unborn into being).

Post edited at 6:58 pm on May 26, 2012 by SpM

no particular child is hurt by dysgenic breeding; it's simply that a child of worse than average health is selected from among the jostling multitude. no harm, no foul.