Should Dwarves(Dwarfs?) be allowed to have children?

[Genyūmaru1]

No they shouldn't. Think about the kids future if death doesn't occur. That's what most parents don't do now, think about the future of their kids, rather than themselves.

 

[slimreaper]

Please show me in the thread where I advocated banning incest in this thread. Then you can call me a hypocrite. My joke about tapping your sister is not eugenics.

most people who are pro changing the definition of marriage are usually anti incest. That makes them hypocrites. I never asserted you were, I asserted this argument is about their hypocrisy

 

[Pumpkin Ninja]

Please show me in the thread where I advocated banning incest in this thread. Then you can call me a hypocrite. My joke about tapping your sister is not eugenics.

Wanting more than a 50% birth rate is Eugenics?

 

[Punk Hazard]

still high risk of death for mother.

I knew someone would try to make me an incest er though. I just love hypocrisy.


Because I love hypocrisy

No wonder you think so highly of yourself

 

[FreakensteinAG]

most people who are pro changing the definition of marriage are usually anti incest. That makes them hypocrites. I never asserted you were, I asserted this argument is about their hypocrisy

What does changing the definition of marriage have to do with reproducing dwarves? Or for that matter having a sweaty RV orgy with Jeb, Bear, T-Bone, Bubba, Slimmy, and Becca in the good ol' Kentucky burg?

Wanting more than a 50% birth rate is Eugenics?

It's a 0% birth rate if it's illegal. I'm well aware of the dangers of achondroplasia. We even know where achondroplasia takes place. Should it be illegal, therefore fine/jailworthy, to have a child on this basis?

 

[slimreaper]

What does changing the definition of marriage have to do with reproducing dwarves? Or for that matter having a sweaty RV orgy with Jeb, Bear, T-Bone, Bubba, Slimmy, and Becca in the good ol' Kentucky burg?



It's a 0% birth rate if it's illegal. I'm well aware of the dangers of achondroplasia. We even know where achondroplasia takes place. Should it be illegal, therefore fine/jailworthy, to have a child on this basis?

because the argument against changing it was that it would potentially make incest legal. The gay supporters said incest is different because their offspring could have defects. They still support dwarf babies though. hypocrites.

 

[FreakensteinAG]

because the argument against changing it was that it would potentially make incest legal. The gay supporters said incest is different because their offspring could have defects. They still support dwarf babies though. hypocrites.

This is what's called a Slippery Slope Fallacy. One thing does not lead to the other. Anybody who argues against gay marriage by talking about dogs, robots, aliens, or their hot cousin should not be taken politically seriously.

We can absolutely talk about incest and dwarves, though. Because reproduction with both leads to physical and mental complications with the child. Should we make it so that the couple receives fines and/or jail time for having that child? Shit no.

 

[slimreaper]

This is what's called a Slippery Slope Fallacy. One thing does not lead to the other. Anybody who argues against gay marriage by talking about dogs, robots, aliens, or their hot cousin should not be taken politically seriously.

We can absolutely talk about incest and dwarves, though. Because reproduction with both leads to physical and mental complications with the child. Should we make it so that the couple receives fines and/or jail time for having that child? Shit no.

It's not a slippery slope if it's in the text.

They changed the definition to "any consenting adult humans" instead of "one man, one woman"

All that needs to happen is pursuit by incest havers

 

[Pumpkin Ninja]

It's not a slippery slope if it's in the text.

They changed the definition to "any consenting adult humans" instead of "one man, one woman"

All that needs to happen is pursuit by incest havers

Wincest!

 

[FreakensteinAG]

It's not a slippery slope if it's in the text.

They changed the definition to "any consenting adult humans" instead of "one man, one woman"

All that needs to happen is pursuit by incest havers

Then absolutely man, have at it (which was what my original argument was the entire time)! Obviously the couple should have genetic screening just to be informed of any carriers of certain genes that would cause complications for the child, but it's ultimately up to them if they want to recreate the South's regional pasttime.

 

[Claymantan]

It's not a slippery slope if it's in the text.

They changed the definition to "any consenting adult humans" instead of "one man, one woman"

All that needs to happen is pursuit by incest havers

Where there is a gap in the law's wording, another law can prevail.

There are laws against incest (in every US state, with varying restrictions), and just because people seeking to legalize incest might do so based on the content of laws that legalize gay marriage, it does not mean they will succeed. Therefore, it's irrelevant. The argument that an existing law might be challenged by the passage of another law does not mean that the new law should not be passed.

Manufactured hypocrisy

 

[slimreaper]

Where there is a gap in the law's wording, another law can prevail.

There are laws against incest (in every US state, with varying restrictions), and just because people seeking to legalize incest might do so based on the content of laws that legalize gay marriage, it does not mean they will succeed. Therefore, it's irrelevant. The argument that an existing law might be challenged by the passage of another law does not mean that the new law should not be passed.

Manufactured hypocrisy

On a national scale they can't ban it just like the states tried to ban homosexuality but were over ruled by the supreme court.

It's the same thing

 

[Claymantan]

On a national scale they can't ban it just like the states tried to ban homosexuality but were over ruled by the supreme court.

It's the same thing

You need to explain this/not use pronouns because I don't understand what you're trying to communicate

 

[Arima]

Nope, only Orcs humans and elves should be allowed :sdo:

You forgot about hobbits :th:

 

[narutojunky]

It's not a slippery slope if it's in the text.

They changed the definition to "any consenting adult humans" instead of "one man, one woman"

All that needs to happen is pursuit by incest havers

"one man, one woman" still allows the same logic you put forward but only for straight incest.

 

[DominiqueX]

Of course they should be allowed by default.
It's not the same as incest, who are you to decide what groups of people are allowed to have children while others are not. Next step is, remember, being allowed to do something doesn't mean that you will use this "permission". Not all dwarf couples want to have children. And if they want a child, there is (or at least should be) always the possibility to check the circumstances with doctors, in order to make the decision if a pregnancy is born under a lucky star or not.

And even if the risks are high, this doesn't mean that all people of this group should be doomed. When two dwarfs actually made it and get a surviving child together, it's a beautiful gift.

The real question is: Should people like you, Slimmyreaperino, who think that they are superior to others and can dictate other people how they have to live their life, have a right to have influence on a society?

 

[~Ethereal~]

Snow White and the 7 dwarfs? XD

 

[Deadlift]

In Mediterranean countries many people have a sort of "disease" called Mediterranean anemia. Their sons are very very exposed to the risk to contract it as well. Should they be allowed to procreate?

 

[SSStylish]

If the risks are as high as this, they shoudln't (imo). All of this is of course subjective and people need to get this. There is no absolute morality and making someone out to be a bad person because he's against it is retarded because of the comparison that the OP has given us. Do people who think incest isn't ok but this is even care about the child?

 

[DominiqueX]

If the risks are as high as this, they shoudln't (imo). All of this is of course subjective and people need to get this. Do people who think incest isn't ok but this is even care about the child?

I think it's up to the parents to decide if they want to take that risk for their possible child or not. It's their business and they have to live with the decision and its consequences.

I think the same about incest. It's not my cup of tea and definitely not the healthy way to have a child, but if it is a consensual relationship and both potential parents are mature enough to handle the consequences, then I'd let them do it too. We can't do more than call attention to the risks and advise them what would be the best for the situation.
But the final decision is up to the people that want to get the child together.