I realized why your comment bothered me so much: I am kind of an antinatalist myself, so for me having children is always dooming them in some way, especially nowadays when our civilization is on the brink of collapsing, but I don’t judge these people to be more selfish than the usual. People with Li Fraumeni Syndrome have a 50% chance to pass down the mutation to their offspring, it’s no certainty, and the article is clearly showing current technology can detect cancer earlier so people can act upon it. You are calling these people, who have cancer or mostly certainly will, selfish, when you don’t have the faintest idea of what it means to live in their shoes. If it is selfish or not, that is something for their children to decide, not you. Passing shallow moral judgment on the reproductive decisions of disabled/sick people is very dehumanizing, not to say it’s one of the core elements of eugenics ideology. It’s not hard to see how your standing would enable a more extreme view arguing that people with Li Fraumeni Syndrome should be sterilized.

This. You might have to clear up some space before installing pacman-contrib though.

paccache -rk1 once in a while and you’re good, maybe even create a hook

You know what is fatal 100% of the time? Living at all.

Reproduction is not about logic anyway, it’s just a very common and fundamental feature of life. People who are disabled or fatally ill also have ordinary dreams, desires and human rights. Framing the issue as “these people are dooming their progeny” makes it seem like their own lives are worthless because they will die young, as if the value of human life rested on longevity. It’s quite frivolous to assume we can understand the desire to have kids of people with such diagnoses.