Support NeoGAF

[The Shadow]

Racism is not natural, I have no idea why you keep saying this. As far as I know racism is a fairly recent social construct, definitely not something hardwired into our genes. If I'm the ignorant guy here please post some studies or articles that show some evidence, not being cheeky, legitimately curious.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/05/050525105357.htm

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/philosophy-dispatches/201209/the-roots-racism

The last one is probably best, since it explains that the natural human tendency to form groups and be anxious of other groups leads to modern day racism.

My whole point is that just because something is "natural", doesn't necessarily mean it's "good", or something we must do, or that it's "ok" to do. We're not machines.

Nowhere did I even insinuate that you were programmed to prefer, or treat better than others, your own offspring. I said you were programmed with the drive to procreate and make your own offspring, how you treat them vs. anybody else is an entirely different argument.

You're really not getting it at all. I'm not making any implications of you. Please stop with this persecution complex. I'm asking you a question without any implication.

You say that we have a natural biological drive to have kids with our own genes. You're saying we have a PREFERENCE to conceive our own kids. Correct? Why does this preference for our own children change when we marry someone else with someone else's kids?

It's not a hard question, really.

There are plenty of people that have the drive and programming to create their own offspring and them treat them like shit, raising a child is different than the drive to make one.

Why? Explain why the preference for having your own children is completely different than when you have to raise said children. Why would the preference for your own genes change from before birth, to after birth?

This is where I think the biological and genetic side of things differs from how you view modern, intelligent humans who can take a step back and realize "This isn't my offspring, but I can still be a decent human and raise them well." Believing one thing does not negate the other. We are programmed at a base level to procreate, but we can operate at a higher mental level to realize that this may not always work and look at other options.

For once I agree with you 100%.

So how can we be decent, intelligent human beings who take a step back and raise someone else's kids, and yet still have the preference to spread our own genes over someone elses? Doesn't raising someone else's kids to the point where they can have their own children compete directly with our own kids with our own genetic lineage?

It's a conflict of interest there, don't you agree? They can't both be right, can they?

Your judging someone because of not agreeing with the methodology. Maybe he didn't want to do genetic counseling or pay a lot of money for a more complex reproduction cycle. Just because dumping someone over genetics is more obtuse than the typical reason, doesn't make him a prick for making that decision. In fact, it's very mature and people like you that can't conceptualize that are just being sanctimonious.

What if he was in a position to create laws and decided to make it illegal to have children with someone who was deemed genetically incompatible? Would that be OK?

This has happened in the past. The only difference was the fact that it was made into law. Is it more OK if it's just a single person making that decision?

 

[Fury451]

Your judging someone because of not agreeing with the methodology. Maybe he didn't want to do genetic counseling or pay a lot of money for a more complex reproduction cycle. Just because dumping someone over genetics is more obtuse than the typical reason, doesn't make him a prick for making that decision. In fact, it's very mature and people like you that can't conceptualize that are just being sanctimonious.

So knee-jerk dumping the so-called girl of his dreams based on completely anecdotal and uniformed (i.e a quick net search) evidence with no indicators that anything is wrong with her, lying about the reason for the dumping and just walking away out of fear and pure speculation is mature? When his genes may be no winners either?

 

[E92 M3]

What if he was in a position to create laws and decided to make it illegal to have children with someone who was deemed genetically incompatible? Would that be OK?

This has happened in the past. The only difference was the fact that it was made into law. Is it more OK if it's just a single person making that decision?

"What if" is a weak logical branch in this discussion. We're discussing a person that made a PERSONAL decision to not be with a woman he has found to not be genetically compatible with. That's it.

No need take it out further than it is.

So knee-jerk dumping the so-called girl of his dreams based on completely anecdotal and uniformed (i.e a quick net search) evidence with no indicators that anything is wrong with her, lying about the reason for the dumping and just walking away out of fear and pure speculation is mature? When his genes may be no winners either?

Doesn't take a scientist to realize that if there is a genetic defect present in the immediate family, chances are it can spread to the next heir. You guys have problems with realizing abstract concepts that are outside the norm.

People dump each other for numerous reasons, and this isn't any different.

 

[The Shadow]

"What if" is a weak logical branch in this discussion. We're discussing a person that made a PERSONAL decision to not be with a woman he has found to not be genetically compatible with. That's it.

No need take it out further than it is.

Yes, a personal decision. I agree. No need to take it further? Strongly disagree. Just because we fear thinking critically about the implications of how we feel doesn't mean we should close all discussion about them. Let's not pull a Rick Scott here.

Why is it morally acceptable on a PERSONAL LEVEL reject someone because you find them genetically incompatible than say, on an institutional level?

Why is his decision ok, but not on a wider scale? That's it. Just curious on your take.

 

[Switch Back 9]

Why? Explain why the preference for having your own children is completely different than when you have to raise said children. Why would the preference for your own genes change from before birth, to after birth?




For once I agree with you 100%.

So how can we be decent, intelligent human beings who take a step back and raise someone else's kids, and yet still have the preference to spread our own genes over someone elses? Doesn't raising someone else's kids to the point where they can have their own children compete directly with our own kids with our own genetic lineage?

It's a conflict of interest there, don't you agree? They can't both be right, can they?

Because empathy can often override genetic programming WHEN the situation presents itself. Not wanting to get into that situation from the get go is mostly what I'm arguing here. Most people want to make their own kids. However, we are capable of overriding this with empathy, compassion and modern intelligence in order to adapt to a situation where these two things seem to conflict.

And yes, it definitely competes with it, hence the preference for one over the other, even that can change after the fact.

 

[E92 M3]

Yes, a personal decision. I agree.

Why is it morally acceptable on PERSONAL LEVEL reject someone because you find them genetically incompatible than say, on an institutional level?

Why is his decision ok, but not on a wider scale? That's it. Just curious on your take.

Personal decisions cannot be simply expanded to an institutional level - that's why they are personal. When we discuss changes enacted on a broad scale, feelings and emotions must be excised out.

 

[wildfire]

I had a different idea of how this thread would start and that was rough to read.

I'm concerned about defects being passed on to children myself and I have to revise my dating options because of that concern. I personally couldn't handle certain defects and I see it as wrong as having a child I raise living with such complications.

I despise the way he handled it. He lied about why he was breaking up with her and I seriously doubt he tried discussing their options. If he had been frank with her and found out what her own limits are on child rearing and abortion are then he would've been able to make the right decision that worked for both of them even if that mutually meant agreeing to break up.

What he did though was unilaterally make a decision without any consideration for what his future partner could be thinking. That is not how you work with someone you were seriously thinking of marrying and raising children together.

 

[Random Painted HIghway]

But it takes a narcissistic asshole to think "I must pass down my genes" and/or "I will not raise children other than my biological ones".

Narcissistic for wanting to have blood related children? Come on now.

 

[E92 M3]

Narcissistic for wanting to have blood related children? Come on now.

Exactly. Some are very sanctimonious with a high level of bullshit.

 

[The Shadow]

Because empathy can often override genetic programming WHEN the situation presents itself. Not wanting to get into that situation from the get go is mostly what I'm arguing here. Most people want to make their own kids. However, we are capable of overriding this with empathy, compassion and modern intelligence in order to adapt to a situation where these two things seem to conflict.

And yes, it definitely competes with it, hence the preference for one over the other, even that can change after the fact.

Fair enough. I accept your position that we can change and still have that preference, at least initially.

Still, if we're capable of overriding our genetic programming with empathy, compassion, and modern intelligence when raising kids who are not our own, doesn't it stand to reason that someone is lacking those, when they choose to forgo what IS a solid relationship on the basis of a POSSIBILITY of procreation issues?

I guess this is where we differ: This guy doesn't strike me as a particularly empathetic, compassionate, or intelligent person. I can't value the decision of someone who wishes to end a relationship so suddenly over something he read online. This is an emotional, fearful decision, not one based on genetics.

Personal decisions cannot be simply expanded to an institutional level - that's why they are personal. When we discuss changes enacted on a broad scale, feelings and emotions must be excised out.

Does that also mean that moral objections change as well? Is a personal decision based on fear or ignorance more moral and just than one on an institutional level?

 

[Valhelm]

Can we accurately do prenatal screening for these diseases?

 

[E92 M3]

Does that also mean that moral objections change as well? Is a personal decision based on fear or ignorance more moral and just than one on an institutional level?

I am not really sure what you are trying to get. From the perspective of simplicity (the best way to view life) a personal decision comes from personal beliefs that shouldn't be mandated or regulated by ones enacted on a institutional level. That's it.

 

[wildfire]

I guess this is where we differ: This guy doesn't strike me as a particularly empathetic, compassionate, or intelligent person. I can't value the decision of someone who wishes to end a relationship so suddenly over something he read online. This is an emotional, fearful decision, not one based on genetics.

*head fakes*

What? It was based on both. You can't define someone's personal fear without defining the source of that fear.

 

[The Shadow]

I am not really sure what you are trying to get. From the perspective of simplicity (the best way to view life) a personal decision comes from personal beliefs that shouldn't be mandated or regulated by ones enacted on a institutional level. That's it.

I used the institutional example as one that has historically been deemed in-human. The difference being his personal choice versus an institutional choice. Since you're not really getting it, I'll try a different approach.

You say that we're "judging" someone because we don't agree with their methodology. That "dumping someone over genetics is more obtuse than the typical reason, doesn't make him a prick for making that decision. In fact, it's very mature and people like you that can't conceptualize that are just being sanctimonious."

Since genetics plays a part in all our differences, how is his decision to reject his girlfriend based on her brother's disability any different than say, her race? Both are made up of her "genetics", correct? Is it more acceptable to reject her genetics because of her brother, than say, if she was a different race?

 

[FunkyMunkey]

My whole point is that just because something is "natural", doesn't necessarily mean it's "good", or something we must do, or that it's "ok" to do. We're not machines.

And that works vice versa. Just because some would prefer to have blood-related children, doesn't make it "bad" or something we must avoid, or that it's "not ok" to do.

You say that we have a natural biological drive to have kids with our own genes. You're saying we have a PREFERENCE to conceive our own kids. Correct? Why does this preference for our own children change when we marry someone else with someone else's kids?

This is not an opinion. Our species, and every other species on Earth that has ever existed, is programmed to reproduce. To pass on genetic information. And that preference CAN (sometimes) change when someone marries someone else with kids because we aren't robots. And with some people it doesn't. Everyone is different. Some people want to adopt rather than having their own children when they are perfectly able to. Some people choose to not have any, ever.

But if you're trying to argue that there isn't (in general) an inherent want for humans to pass on our dna to the next generation, you will lose that argument. Honestly I don't even know what you're trying to say, you're jumping all over the place. Bringing in racism and stuff, come on.

So how can we be decent, intelligent human beings who take a step back and raise someone else's kids, and yet still have the preference to spread our own genes over someone elses? Doesn't raising someone else's kids to the point where they can have their own children compete directly with our own kids with our own genetic lineage?

It's a conflict of interest there, don't you agree? They can't both be right, can they?

Yes they can. How do you not understand that? Someone can marry someone who already has children, love those children tremendously, and STILL want to have biological children. Why are you creating this strange situation in your head where they're mutually-exclusive? It's not even relevant in this case as he wouldn't want to have biological children with the woman in the first place.

What if he was in a position to create laws and decided to make it illegal to have children with someone who was deemed genetically incompatible? Would that be OK?

What the fuck? You are really, really expanding this way beyond it's merits. The man wants a higher chance of healthier children, that's it. That need outweighs his want to stay with the girl, for him. Simple as that.

When someone gets dumped for being too short/tall, bald, unsymmetrical face, etc, or any other trait that you can't control, do you go down the same philosophically random path in your mind? Because it's the exact same thing as in this case. People selectively choose their mates based on things they both can't and can change, that's the world we live in, fair or not.

Since genetics plays a part in all our differences, how is his decision to reject his girlfriend based on her brother's disability any different than say, her race? Both are made up of her "genetics", correct? Is it more acceptable to reject her genetics because of her brother, than say, if she was a different race?

If you don't see the difference between not wanting a child of a different race, or hoping not to get a child that is deformed, bound to a wheelchair their whole life, dying at a young age, disabled, etc, etc, than I really don't know what to say. That's quite the reach you've got.

Apparently not wanting to date short guys and risk having short offspring makes a ton of women out there just as bad as racists.

 

[The Shadow]

This is not an opinion. Our species, and every other species on Earth that has ever existed, is programmed to reproduce. To pass on genetic information. And that preference CAN (sometimes) change when someone marries someone else with kids because we aren't robots. And with some people it doesn't. Everyone is different. Some people want to adopt rather than having their own children when they are perfectly able to. Some people choose to not have any, ever.

But if you're trying to argue that there isn't (in general) an inherent want for humans to pass on our dna to the next generation, you will lose that argument. Honestly I don't even know what you're trying to say, you're jumping all over the place. Bringing in racism and stuff, come on.

I'm not arguing that there isn't an inherent want for humans to pass on thier DNA. I'm arguing that saying something is "natural" means that's ok and gets a free pass. (Protip: that's where the racism comes in). You grasped this in your first sentence, and then lost it all-together here.

Moreover, you seemed to have shifted between calling it a genetic need or "programming" to a choice or preference. They are not the same and they don't change just to fit your argument or beliefs. A genetic need isn't something we switch off or on. We either cognitively fight against it, or go with it. Capisce?

Is there a genetic drive to have your own children and spread your own genes? Absolutely. Not arguing that at all. Is it "OK" to do something, because it's a genetic drive, natural, or human nature? That's where I say, no, I don't think something should be defended just because it's a genetic drive and that's what I'm arguing.

He's an asshole. His decision to reject a successful relationship based a genetic want to his own children does not preclude him from being a prick any more than a genetic predisposition to form groups makes racism OK.

If it makes it any easier, let's take the possibility of disabled children out of the equation. If he decided to end a long-term successful relationship on the basis that she could no longer have children due to cancer, or an accident, or just plain how she was born, would also make him a asshole.

Why are you creating this strange situation in your head where they're mutually-exclusive? It's not even relevant in this case as he wouldn't want to have biological children with the woman in the first place.

Because a genetic drive isn't a personal choice. They aren't the same thing.

When someone gets dumped for being too short/tall, bald, unsymmetrical face, etc, or any other trait that you can't control, do you go down the same philosophically random path in your mind? Because it's the exact same thing as in this case. People selectively choose their mates based on things they both can't and can change, that's the world we live in, fair or not.

Not the same at all. Sexual attraction already existed there. They were already in a relationship. People don't get "dumped" for being too short or too tall, or bald, or any of those things. They're selectively rejected without proceeding to a stage in a relationship where children's genetic makeup is even considered.

Very different situation there.

If you don't see the difference between not wanting a child of a different race, or hoping not to get a child that is deformed, bound to a wheelchair their whole life, dying at a young age, disabled, etc, etc, than I really don't know what to say. That's quite the reach you've got.

Apparently not wanting to date short guys and risk having short children makes a ton of women out there just as bad as racists.

How is that a reach? People have sought to genetically purge the disabled and deformed to prevent their genes from spreading. People have made laws making it illegal to marry different races to prevent their genes from mixing.

At what point does it make it ok to discriminate? What's normal? Being absolutely serious here. You're saying that it's distinct. Explain to me where that line actually separates, where it's ok to discriminate, and where it's not. Why is it ok to discriminate on the possibility of having disabled children? Why is it not ok to discriminate having mixed-race kids?

At what point is it ok to discriminate on the basis of a person's genes?


That last portion, well, that's a textbook example of a slippery slope. No one made that argument and if you genuinely think I'm making that argument, you didn't read carefully enough. If you're trying to change MY argument instead of debating it properly, well, shame on you. Challenge yourself to address it directly, instead of making these slippery slope rebuttals.

 

[CornBurrito]

And I am free to think that you are judging him from a position that is lacking tremendously in empathy for his situation, and only on a superficial and juvenile "you should always stay with someone you claim to love" footing.

Hasn't gene therapy advanced enough to handle some of this shit?

 

[Pyrrhus]

Hasn't gene therapy advanced enough to handle some of this shit?

Short answer, no. Even if it had, you think it's cheap?

 

[Fezzan]

I don't get this thread, couldn't he just get her a new pair?

 

[fuzzyset]

I don't get this thread, couldn't he just get her a new pair?

Boooo

Spoiler

3/10

 

[CornBurrito]

Short answer, no. Even if it had, you think it's cheap?

No I don't think it is cheap. Did I say that anywhere in my post? I just didn't assume the people in the OP were poor.

 

[Jackpot]

If we're throwing out hypotheticals, let's make it more ominous. What if your wife had an affair and knew that the kid wasn't your child, and still allowed you to raise them as your own?

I would love my wife less, not the child.

No, I wouldn't love the child any less.

Exactly, genes didn't matter. It was meaningless. Whatever extra bond you thought you had from sharing genetic markers only existed in your head.

 

[Lesath]

Your judging someone because of not agreeing with the methodology. Maybe he didn't want to do genetic counseling or pay a lot of money for a more complex reproduction cycle. Just because dumping someone over genetics is more obtuse than the typical reason, doesn't make him a prick for making that decision. In fact, it's very mature and people like you that can't conceptualize that are just being sanctimonious.

A man makes an amateur decision based on incomplete information to abandon the apparently-not-love of his life. Why, depending on the disorder, she might not even be a carrier! So, yes, in a situation where he was consider pledging the rest of his life to a woman, not taking this step for a nebulous chance that he has every ability to and chose not to confirm is a sign that he not only lacks maturity, but intelligence. And while counseling might come at some financial cost, fact of the matter is that HAVING A CHILD a great financial cost, and is a drop in the bucket compared to the long run.

 

[E92 M3]

A man makes an amateur decision based on incomplete information to abandon the apparently-not-love of his life. Why, depending on the disorder, she might not even be a carrier! So, yes, in a situation where he was consider pledging the rest of his life to a woman, not taking this step for a nebulous chance that he has every ability to and chose not to confirm is a sign that he not only lacks maturity, but intelligence. And while counseling might come at some financial cost, fact of the matter is that HAVING A CHILD a great financial cost, and is a drop in the bucket compared to the long run.

Yet again, you're analyzing too deeply into a simple manner. He didn't want to deal with any chance of it even happening and left. People leave each other for various reasons and this one is just as solid. Like I said before, you're being judgmental because his reasons are more abstract than the usual.

 

[Lesath]

Yet again, you're analyzing too deeply into a simple manner. He didn't want to deal with any chance of it even happening and left. People leave each other for various reasons and this one is just as solid. Like I said before, you're being judgmental because his reasons are more abstract than the usual.

Please explain why it is wrong to judge people for doing stupid things?

 

[E92 M3]

Please explain why it is wrong to judge people for doing stupid things?

Stupid is subjective. To him it was a serious manner.

 

[Alpha Centauri]

I would love my wife less, not the child.



Exactly, genes didn't matter. It was meaningless. Whatever extra bond you thought you had from sharing genetic markers only existed in your head.

18 years of conditioning your mind to love a human being unconditionally does not mitigate the drive and psyche of a person preferring to raise a child of their own.

You state that the extra bond only existed in my head in this hypothetical. You would be correct. If you deconstruct every emotion, feeling, moral compass, and drive, it can be whittled down to "it's in your head."

You aren't really straight, it's in your head.
You aren't really gay, it's in your head.
You aren't really brave, it's in your head.
You don't really love your mother, it's in your head.
You don't really hate your rapist, it's in your head.

Everything that we are and do, comes from this "head".

 

[Oscar]

Lol that's fucked up.

My gf's brother has autism, idgaf. Still knocking her up someday.

 

[killer rin]

On one hand I can see where the guy is coming from. If he really values wanting to have his own children, then dating someone with worse than average genes can be a deal breaker. On the other hand, Adoption is always an option... but even that can be a pain in the add and the kid wont really be "his" kid. So it leaves you in an awkward place.

Really in this case, I'd just say that I hoped that he talked to her about it and tried to figure out a solution instead of just going WebMD on the disease and saying 'nope'. Stuff like how common the disease is in the family and if its something that can be detected early enough to make a decision about abortion so they could try again later.

Wtf what a piece of shit it's 2015 we can choose genes and shit

Give it another 15-30 years. Were close... but not quite there yet.

 

[jdouglas]

I, too, think good genes can be attractive on a woman. Some good genes will really give a girl a nice butt, and slim the figure. You can pass down some good genes to the next generation.

 

[OldAsUrSock]

He just wants what is best for his kids and that is to have as few defects as possible . He isn't pulling a Hitler.

 

[Fink]

I'm on the side that this wouldn't be a deal breaker for me.

But he should not have lied just to make her feel better. If this is something that will make or break a relationship with the girl, she should know so she can weed out any other incompatible partners early on.

 

[Who]

/There have been plenty of cases of people with fucked up genes that have broke free from their lineage and have given birth to perfectly healthy offspring. I think that not wanting to be with somebody with a serious genetic deficiency is kinda cruel but understandable.

Not wanting to be with somebody after finding out somebody in their family has bad genes... That's just plain cruel.

Also i will note that if she is perfectly normal and her whole family is fucked up, if anything that means to me she has extraordinary genes...

I'm no geneticist but hey sounds good right?

 

[Jackpot]

18 years of conditioning your mind to love a human being unconditionally does not mitigate the drive and psyche of a person preferring to raise a child of their own.

You state that the extra bond only existed in my head in this hypothetical. You would be correct. If you deconstruct every emotion, feeling, moral compass, and drive, it can be whittled down to "it's in your head."

You aren't really straight, it's in your head.
You aren't really gay, it's in your head.
You aren't really brave, it's in your head.
You don't really love your mother, it's in your head.
You don't really hate your rapist, it's in your head.

Everything that we are and do, comes from this "head".

You've made quite a leap in your analogies. My example proves that the genetic link, the fact that underpins the extra bond, is false yet you love them no less. Ergo this extra bond added nothing to the relationship and didn't really exist.

An accurate analogy would be:

You aren't really straight, the woman you are with is actually a man and had nothing that distinguished her (him) from not being a man and you still love them, it was in your head.

 

[shanshan310]

I kind of feel like the bad partner in this situation. While nothing too serious, I kind of feel shitty for wanting kids when all I bring to the table are Colour blindness, anxiety and aspergers from my relatives, when my partner's family is all quite healthy. I have thought about adoption as an option, thought it'd also be nice to have children I gave birth to.

 

[Random Painted HIghway]

This thread makes me feel really competitive. I find it odd to not factor genetic predispositions of offspring into who you choose as your mate. And that goes far beyond abnormalities and birth defects. Meaning intelligence, weight, height, etc. not weighted to the extent of personality, ambition, etc, but probably a good 60-40 or so split. Whatever you personally achieve in life, you ought to set your children up for the best future possible for themselves and that includes mitigating your own weight/height/intelligence inadequacies by partnering with someone who does not have the same issues.

 

[FunkyMunkey]

I'm not arguing that there isn't an inherent want for humans to pass on thier DNA. I'm arguing that saying something is "natural" means that's ok and gets a free pass. (Protip: that's where the racism comes in). You grasped this in your first sentence, and then lost it all-together here.

I agree that just because something is natural doesn't mean it gets a free pass, I thought calling the guy a dick in my previous post would help get the point across. He can be both a dick, and explain his reasoning as though he wants a lesser chance to have disabled children and lost his attraction to her because of it.

Protip: Racism is still not an accurate comparison to make.

Moreover, you seemed to have shifted between calling it a genetic need or "programming" to a choice or preference. They are not the same and they don't change just to fit your argument or beliefs. A genetic need isn't something we switch off or on. We either cognitively fight against it, or go with it. Capisce?

Ok? You are acting like all humans are the same. They aren't. There is a genetic programming to mate and pass on our information AND there are personal preferences people have. Both of those things exist. Overall, there is generally an urge to pass on genetic information. There are some who feel it strongly and some not at all.

Things that are inherent to many (ie natural) can coexist along with actual preferences for a partner. Or, in that hypothetical, you can want your own children AND love another person's kids at the same time.

Is there a genetic drive to have your own children and spread your own genes? Absolutely. Not arguing that at all. Is it "OK" to do something, because it's a genetic drive, natural, or human nature? That's where I say, no, I don't think something should be defended just because it's a genetic drive and that's what I'm arguing.

He's an asshole. His decision to reject a successful relationship based a genetic want to his own children does not preclude him from being a prick any more than a genetic predisposition to form groups makes racism OK.

Except, once again, that comparison is fucking asinine. Both are conscious decisions to avoid having children with certain physical traits, but one is avoiding having offspring of a certain RACE or COLOR, and the other is avoiding having offspring with DISABILITIES (who may live a short and hard life because of them). You really, really can't grasp this and it's becoming abundantly clear.

Also, you need to read up on the difference between a "genetic predisposition" to form groups and a "societal" one. Arguing there is something in our DNA to be racists is a load of shit. The urge to reproduce on the other hand, can be traced back millions of years through evolution. Racism cannot. Humans and our ancestors tended to group with others like us (appearance) for safety and survival. Racism as far as discriminating and ostracizing others, is taught, not in our genes.

If it makes it any easier, let's take the possibility of disabled children out of the equation. If he decided to end a long-term successful relationship on the basis that she could no longer have children due to cancer, or an accident, or just plain how she was born, would also make him a asshole.

Yes, it would. But guess what? Evolution (and reproduction) doesn't care who is and isn't an asshole.

Not the same at all. Sexual attraction already existed there. They were already in a relationship. People don't get "dumped" for being too short or too tall, or bald, or any of those things. They're selectively rejected without proceeding to a stage in a relationship where children's genetic makeup is even considered.

Very different situation there.

What about sexual attraction existing before and then finding out the guy wears a toupee? Or sexual attraction before and finding out the person has diabetes from a past of being overweight? Or sexual attraction existing before and finding out the guy wears hidden heels in his shoes to be taller? People make snap judgements all the time when meeting people if they are sexually desirable or not, and can flip that preference to a Yes or a No quickly depending on anything.

You don't wait to make sexual selections years into a relationship or when you're thinking about children. You make sexual selections immediately, and it evolves or devolves depending what more you find out about them.

How is that a reach? People have sought to genetically purge the disabled and deformed to prevent their genes from spreading. People have made laws making it illegal to marry different races to prevent their genes from mixing.

At what point does it make it ok to discriminate? What's normal? Being absolutely serious here. You're saying that it's distinct. Explain to me where that line actually separates, where it's ok to discriminate, and where it's not. Why is it ok to discriminate on the possibility of having disabled children? Why is it not ok to discriminate having mixed-race kids?

At what point is it ok to discriminate on the basis of a person's genes?

People have been sexually discriminating since forever. There is no arbitrary line in the sand you're trying to draw. I think your problem is you are trying desperately to somehow quantify sexual selection and draw a parallel to racism and all other forms of discrimination, when you can't.

If I'm generally not attracted towards people in a wheelchair, for instance, does that make me a bigot? No. What about not finding really short people sexy? No. Can I choose to alter my own mind's definition of what I find attractive, on a whim? No. Just like you don't choose between liking men and/or women. It's the same thing.

This man finding out about a disabled person in her family was a deal breaker. As in he actually may have been turned off (in his mind) to her because of it. His brain released less happy chemicals about her because of it. For some it's not a deal breaker. For some, skin color, height, disabled family members, all doesn't matter. Different sexual selections for different people.

That last portion, well, that's a textbook example of a slippery slope. No one made that argument and if you genuinely think I'm making that argument, you didn't read carefully enough. If you're trying to change MY argument instead of debating it properly, well, shame on you. Challenge yourself to address it directly, instead of making these slippery slope rebuttals.

Slippery slope? Me? You made the gigantic leap from avoiding having disabled kids to being racist, I reached an extra inch further than you did. If you disagree with that notion then your original proposition falls apart completely.

You need to separate what I (and others) are saying. We aren't saying sexual selection is OK or not OK. Just that it exists and accounts for literally every single human who chooses their mate to have offspring with. But this IS sexual selection and is no different than choosing a mate of the same/different race, short/tall, hair/no hair, alcoholism/cancer/diabetes running in the family, etc etc. If someone isn't turned on by short people, that is sexual selection. Or people of a different race? Sexual selection (NOT racism, completely different). Or people who have disabilities in their family? Sexual selection.

To sum it up, what your brain decides is or isn't sexually appealing is completely different than racism. I can try to avoid having children who are wheelchair bound their whole lives while also treating wheelchair bound people fairly with respect and dignity. Someone's brain might see a partners family with disabilities and be turned off, while also treating people with disabilities fairly with respect and dignity. Someone's brain might not fire chemicals signifying sexual attraction to people of other races, but they still treat people of different races equally. Do you see the difference?