Pre-natal testing for desirable babies

[traciedantoni]

I'm not sure if that was directed to me or not. If it was, my point about "killing off your child" wasn't a quip with regards to abortion - see the other contentious topic going on right now for my views there. When I said "killing off your child" I was talking about actually killing a living child, not an embryo or fetus. Which is a thing I am not advocating.



So, wait, what? You do support prenatal testing and allowing for selection once the zygote has been created/implanted, you just don't support selection of specific traits? I thought you were saying the exact opposite, that you wouldn't have supported any form of prenatal testing or selection.

What I'm saying is that if someone chooses prenatal testing to see if there are fatal defects and then chooses to terminate, I don't have a problem with that. If someone picks or chooses an embryo based on deaf or hearing or any other trait then I think it's BS. If someone has prenatal testing and the baby is missing a limb and chooses to terminate I think that's BS.

I never said I didn't support prenatal testing once a pregnancy has happened. I just said that I didn't choose to have it when I was pregnant with my son. And even if I had done it, it probably wouldn't have revealed that anything was wrong with him. However, if I did and it did reveal that he was not going to be able to survive on his own without life support, I would have terminated the pregnancy because what's the point of letting him continue to grow only to die once he was born.

Make sense? If not then I'll just shut up and leave this thread alone.

 

[Aleser]

What I'm saying is that if someone chooses prenatal testing to see if there are fatal defects and then chooses to terminate, I don't have a problem with that. If someone picks or chooses an embryo based on deaf or hearing or any other trait then I think it's BS. If someone has prenatal testing and the baby is missing a limb and chooses to terminate I think that's BS.

I never said I didn't support prenatal testing once a pregnancy has happened. I just said that I didn't choose to have it when I was pregnant with my son. And even if I had done it, it probably wouldn't have revealed that anything was wrong with him. However, if I did and it did reveal that he was not going to be able to survive on his own without life support, I would have terminated the pregnancy because what's the point of letting him continue to grow only to die once he was born.

Make sense? If not then I'll just shut up and leave this thread alone.

While I don't think either of us agree, I do think that clears up your opinion. Your previous posts seemed strongly anti-any-intervention, which made your subsequently stating you'd have chosen termination seem really out of the blue.

Thanks for clarifying.

 

[StSapphire]

Really? I'm sorry but that's a ridiculous comment.

It was meant to be, as a method of demonstrating how silly I find the argument of "letting nature take its course". We make choices all the time and given access to technology that allows it, I don't see the difference between choosing who to have a child with, choosing whether to accept or reject candidate embryos or zygotes (especially if doing so during an IVF process when they're literally just fertilized eggs, because the "choosing" process is much much easier than the process of getting an abortion, which is much more invasive and intensive), and choosing what to feed and educate your child with.

You seem to be indicating that it's somehow different, while my opinion is that it really isn't all that different.

 

[StSapphire]

Nice. Really nice.

Not. Way to participate constructively.

Oh come on, sarcasm and gross exaggeration can have their place in conversations. In case it wasn't clear enough - I wasn't actually advocating that anyone do that.

 

[AlleyCat]

Oh come on, sarcasm and gross exaggeration can have their place in conversations. In case it wasn't clear enough - I wasn't actually advocating that anyone do that.

My point exactly. It wasn't constructive, was it?

 

[Aleser]

My point exactly. It wasn't constructive, was it?

Exaggeration can be quite expressive of why you find a particular argument to be failing. "If what you're saying is true, and x ridiculous act adheres to what you're saying, why is that ridiculous act also not part of your belief system" is much more expressive than "dude, you're wrong."

 

[StSapphire]

My point exactly. It wasn't constructive, was it?

Haha, well the way it was received, I suppose not. It was originally intended to be at least minorly constructive simply by means of demonstrating the silliness of the equivalent that I was making reference to (choosing your partner : choosing your genes :: not choosing your partner : not choosing your genes).

But it didn't exactly "strike a chord" so I probably just need to come up with better hyperbole.

 

[StSapphire]

Exaggeration can be quite expressive of why you find a particular argument to be failing. "If what you're saying is true, and x ridiculous act adheres to what you're saying, why is that ridiculous act also not part of your belief system" is much more expressive than "dude, you're wrong."

Oh good, at least it made sense to one person, lol.

 

[AlleyCat]

Exaggeration can be quite expressive of why you find a particular argument to be failing. "If what you're saying is true, and x ridiculous act adheres to what you're saying, why is that ridiculous act also not part of your belief system" is much more expressive than "dude, you're wrong."

If you look above, I wasn't the only one to take offense at that very statement he made.

But, hey, carry on. You two can let this argument get ridiculous. I was actually trying to put a stop to that. Some of us actually honestly stand up for something while others make posts saying that all we're doing is deflecting to another thing just because we don't carry the same stance as you do. Oh well.

 

[Aleser]

If you look above, I wasn't the only one to take offense at that very statement he made.

But, hey, carry on. You two can let this argument get ridiculous. I was actually trying to put a stop to that. Some of us actually honestly stand up for something while others make posts saying that all we're doing is deflecting to another thing just because we don't carry the same stance as you do. Oh well.

... wait, this became a coherent argument at some point?

Jeez, why did nobody send me the memo.

 

[StSapphire]

If you look above, I wasn't the only one to take offense at that very statement he made.

But, hey, carry on. You two can let this argument get ridiculous. I was actually trying to put a stop to that. Some of us actually honestly stand up for something while others make posts saying that all we're doing is deflecting to another thing just because we don't carry the same stance as you do. Oh well.

Yes, yes, I know, I was offensive and ineffective at convincing those who disagree with me, so I need to take another, less tacky, tack, to potentially win you over.

But c'mon, really? You don't like it when things are ridiculous? Don't worry, I know you're not deflecting. That's a different poster's choice of accusation. If you don't agree with me, I usually just think it means that I need to find better, more convincing arguments... or I'm wrong and need to change my own opinion.

 

[traciedantoni]

I guess the bottom line is some people support embryo selection and some do not. Some people on here clearly support it while myself and some others do not.

Obviously people get fired up when speaking of children and creating life. I sure do. I think this thread got thrown off the original point of whether deaf people should choose embryos that are deaf because they want to. I personally don't agree with that but that's just my opinion.

Arguments go on and on when people continually argue their position without trying to see the other person's perspective. Therefore, this thread should probably end unless or until people are willing to agree to disagree.

Just my opinion.

 

[KarissaMann05]

I am not really a fan of embryo selections... but I can understand why parents WANTS to have their own blood and flesh children.

Sometimes I wonder, why not they just adopt some kids? I was originally considered to adopt a kid but maybe not. It seems it is so hard to find a man who will to adopt a kid, to me...

 

[StSapphire]

I guess the bottom line is some people support embryo selection and some do not. Some people on here clearly support it while myself and some others do not.

Obviously people get fired up when speaking of children and creating life. I sure do. I think this thread got thrown off the original point of whether deaf people should choose embryos that are deaf because they want to. I personally don't agree with that but that's just my opinion.

Arguments go on and on when people continually argue their position without trying to see the other person's perspective. Therefore, this thread should probably end unless or until people are willing to agree to disagree.

Just my opinion.

But agreeing to disagree is the same as ending the thread!

As for the original question, was it "should they" or "should they be allowed to"? For the first, I have no place commenting. For the latter, I say sure, why not?

 

[StSapphire]

I am not really a fan of embryo selections... but I can understand why parents WANTS to have their own blood and flesh children.

Sometimes I wonder, why not they just adopt some kids? I was originally considered to adopt a kid but maybe not. It seems it is so hard to find a man who will to adopt a kid, to me...

This is true. I know my girlfriend has discussed it many times with me as a very distant future possibility both because she's uninterested in the pain and hassles of pregnancy and childbirth, and because she's got very high risks for passing along cancer-likelihood-increasing genes, and I was definitely initially opposed, though I honestly can't say why.

 

[KarissaMann05]

This is true. I know my girlfriend has discussed it many times with me as a very distant future possibility both because she's uninterested in the pain and hassles of pregnancy and childbirth, and because she's got very high risks for passing along cancer-likelihood-increasing genes, and I was definitely initially opposed, though I honestly can't say why.

My wishful think is teaching kids at schools that adoption is strongly encouraged... evermore...

I just learned I may not have a child on my own. But I don't really care. There are so many kids need a loving home. I may be somewhat anti-adoption but it is always better to find more solutions.

It kinda of frustrated me that most people tend to say why not you adopt kids, yet people don't want to adopt? Ahhh.....

 

[Beach girl]

Definitely opposed to adoption? If you could explain your reasons why, I'd be interested.

This is something my husband and I discussed, way back when we were thinking about the possibility of having children. It was all theoretical, we weren't "trying" yet, but we were both in our late 30's. I suggested looking into adoption. He was adamantly opposed. No particular reason, just how he felt.

I wasn't even sure I wanted children, period, at all (and eventually that was how it worked out), but I would have been just as happy to adopt a child as to have one born from my own body. Made no difference. Raising a child is raising a child. Same costs, same pleasures, same aggravations. So I wouldn't see my own face in the face of the child; big deal, of my four nephews, one strongly looks like our family, but the other three (two brothers, one cousin) all much more strongly resemble their dads than they do my sisters.

But husband felt very, very strongly, deep-down gut level, that if we didn't have our own, that was the end of it, don't even THINK of adoption.

OK then, certainly not something I would force on a spouse who had such a strong feeling. I just wonder where that strong feeling comes from.

 

[StSapphire]

My wishful think is teaching kids at schools that adoption is strongly encouraged... evermore...

I just learned I may not have a child on my own. But I don't really care. There are so many kids need a loving home. I may be somewhat anti-adoption but it is always better to find more solutions.

It kinda of frustrated me that most people tend to say why not you adopt kids, yet people don't want to adopt? Ahhh.....

I think it's one of those solutions that look great on paper... until you have to think about it yourself, and while you can't quite explain why, most people don't natively consider it "ideal", for themselves.

 

[StSapphire]

Definitely opposed to adoption? If you could explain your reasons why, I'd be interested.

This is something my husband and I discussed, way back when we were thinking about the possibility of having children. It was all theoretical, we weren't "trying" yet, but we were both in our late 30's. I suggested looking into adoption. He was adamantly opposed. No particular reason, just how he felt.

I wasn't even sure I wanted children, period, at all (and eventually that was how it worked out), but I would have been just as happy to adopt a child as to have one born from my own body. Made no difference. Raising a child is raising a child. Same costs, same pleasures, same aggravations. So I wouldn't see my own face in the face of the child; big deal, of my four nephews, one strongly looks like our family, but the other three (two brothers, one cousin) all much more strongly resemble their dads than they do my sisters.

But husband felt very, very strongly, deep-down gut level, that if we didn't have our own, that was the end of it, don't even THINK of adoption.

OK then, certainly not something I would force on a spouse who had such a strong feeling. I just wonder where that strong feeling comes from.

That's how my girlfriend and I were (not even really wanting any right now, but considering it as a future possibility), and at least when she first brought it up, I had the exact same reaction. And I equally have no clue why.

 

[KarissaMann05]

Definitely opposed to adoption? If you could explain your reasons why, I'd be interested.

Because adoption may hurt among child and bio parents. Some adoptees come back to their abusive and/or drug-addicted parents after 18 years. Some birth parents may just change their minds and want to keep their kids but too late. Many reasons of why I personally opposed to adoption.

If you have a time to visit that (Adopters Against Adoption). I visit there sometimes.