Pre-natal testing for desirable babies

kokonut · 06-30-2011, 11:59 PM

Quote:

Imagine being pregnant and taking a simple blood test that lays bare the DNA of your fetus. And suppose that DNA could reveal not only medical conditions like Down syndrome, but also things like eye color and height. And the risk for developing depression or Alzheimer's disease. And the chances of being gay.

So far that's still science fiction. But scientists have been taking some baby steps in that direction. And some ethics experts say it's time to start talking now about what that could mean for parents and society.

And that include the possibility of the deafness gene, too.

Wanting desirable babies while getting rid the of the undesirable ones, hmmm?

But, wait, there's more!

Quote:

Skotko points out that people use their own personal perspective in deciding what they want for their children. Some couples who are deaf from a genetic condition already use current technology to avoid having children with normal hearing. "It's their lens by which they view the world, and they want a child who views the world through that same lens," he said.

Could prenatal DNA testing open Pandora's box? - Yahoo! News

And just when you thought it was over.....old news become new news with today's news.

Quote:

DEAF parents should be allowed to screen their embryos so they can pick a deaf child over one that has all its senses intact, according to the chief executive of the Royal National Institute for Deaf and Hard of Hearing People (RNID).

Deaf demand right to designer deaf children - Times Online

Aborting human embryos that don't meet the parents' criteria.

**Jiro** · 07-01-2011, 12:20 AM

so... what's your stance on it?

**Bottesini** · 07-01-2011, 09:16 AM

Hitler was doing something similar years ago. People who don't learn from history...

kokonut · 07-01-2011, 09:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bottesini

Hitler was doing something similar years ago. People who don't learn from history...

Does that mean DEAF parents should not be allowed to screen their embryos so they can pick a deaf child?

**Bottesini** · 07-01-2011, 09:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kokonut

Does that mean DEAF parents should not be allowed to screen their embryos so they can pick a deaf child?

It means eugenics is wrong.

**Beowulf** · 07-01-2011, 09:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kokonut

Does that mean DEAF parents should not be allowed to screen their embryos so they can pick a deaf child?

That's the risk you take.

kokonut · 07-01-2011, 09:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bottesini

It means eugenics is wrong.

Ok, if I understand, then that means it goes both ways between Deaf and hearing parents on selecting a desirable trait?

**Jiro** · 07-01-2011, 09:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kokonut

Ok, if I understand, then that means it goes both ways between Deaf and hearing parents on selecting a desirable trait?

this is a rather very poor way of doing this. have you no shame?

btw - don't shrug too hard. you'll cause a genetic defect.

drphil · 07-01-2011, 09:43 AM

The above has been discussed many times. At the present time- reality is:90- 95% of ALL babies born "deaf' have HEARING PARENTS. Remember the conference at Milan-1880 "banning the use of ASL" with consequence all deaf persons should be taught to speak. The above was discussed as well. The supposed solution: 2 deaf persons should NOT be allowed to married without being "sterilized". This is what I understand- I personally wasn't there- not old enough!

Perhaps a simple test is not exactly predictive- to say the least.

Implanted A B Harmony activated Aug/07

Aleser · 07-01-2011, 10:32 AM

Genetic conditions which lead to deafness (as opposed to acquired ones) can already be diagnosed not only during pregnancy, but before the pregnancy exists via pre-implantation genetic diagnosis.

The science to select a deaf embryo or a hearing embryo, if you are a carrier for a genetic condition which causes deafness, is already here.

The science to diagnose acquired deafness will never be here.

It is not a past-tense ethical debate, but quite a present one.

**shel90** · 07-01-2011, 10:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

this is a rather very poor way of doing this. have you no shame?

btw - don't shrug too hard. you'll cause a genetic defect.

traciedantoni · 07-01-2011, 11:30 AM

So, if given the choice, Deaf parents would choose a deaf embryo over a hearing one? Why? That stings. If my mom did that then I wouldn't exist.

How about just love your baby no matter what you get? I always said even though I am hearing if I had a deaf baby it would be no difference. The fact that I am already fluent with ASL probably helps my perspective but still. You're supposed to love your baby no matter what you get.

Aleser · 07-01-2011, 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by traciedantoni

So, if given the choice, Deaf parents would choose a deaf embryo over a hearing one? Why? That stings. If my mom did that then I wouldn't exist.

How about just love your baby no matter what you get? I always said even though I am hearing if I had a deaf baby it would be no difference. The fact that I am already fluent with ASL probably helps my perspective but still. You're supposed to love your baby no matter what you get.

People want reflections of themselves.

A lot of things could have led to you not existing. If you spend too much time considering them, your head may esplode.

**shel90** · 07-01-2011, 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by traciedantoni

So, if given the choice, Deaf parents would choose a deaf embryo over a hearing one? Why? That stings. If my mom did that then I wouldn't exist.

How about just love your baby no matter what you get? I always said even though I am hearing if I had a deaf baby it would be no difference. The fact that I am already fluent with ASL probably helps my perspective but still. You're supposed to love your baby no matter what you get.

Some people are just narcissistic and assholes by wanting designer babies to use them as a reflection of themselves.

Luckily, most of us arent like that.

traciedantoni · 07-01-2011, 11:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aleser

People want reflections of themselves.

That's true but don't parents want their children to have easier lives than they had? Not that being hearing is better but it's definitely easier. Last year my mom and I went on a deaf cruise and I tried being deaf for a week. I started at the airport and pretended to be deaf. Trying to write down my orders for food and communicate with airport people frustrated me so much that by end of day 2 I gave up. My mom appreciated that I tried to see how hard it is to be deaf in a hearing world so back to my question: wouldn't deaf parents want their kids to have an easier life than they had? Therefore, picking a deaf child just to have a reflection of oneself seems selfish. It would be no different than parents with dwarfism choosing to have dwarf babies knowing full well that life is going to be much harder than it is already.

jmo.

**shel90** · 07-01-2011, 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by traciedantoni

That's true but don't parents want their children to have easier lives than they had? Not that being hearing is better but it's definitely easier. Last year my mom and I went on a deaf cruise and I tried being deaf for a week. I started at the airport and pretended to be deaf. Trying to write down my orders for food and communicate with airport people frustrated me so much that by end of day 2 I gave up. My mom appreciated that I tried to see how hard it is to be deaf in a hearing world so back to my question: wouldn't deaf parents want their kids to have an easier life than they had? Therefore, picking a deaf child just to have a reflection of oneself seems selfish. It would be no different than parents with dwarfism choosing to have dwarf babies knowing full well that life is going to be much harder than it is already.

jmo.

So, do you think hearing parents picking a hearing child over a deaf child is right?

I wouldnt be heartbroken if I had a deaf child but I would never put myself in the position of having to choose.

Aleser · 07-01-2011, 11:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by traciedantoni

That's true but don't parents want their children to have easier lives than they had? Not that being hearing is better but it's definitely easier. Last year my mom and I went on a deaf cruise and I tried being deaf for a week. I started at the airport and pretended to be deaf. Trying to write down my orders for food and communicate with airport people frustrated me so much that by end of day 2 I gave up. My mom appreciated that I tried to see how hard it is to be deaf in a hearing world so back to my question: wouldn't deaf parents want their kids to have an easier life than they had? Therefore, picking a deaf child just to have a reflection of oneself seems selfish. It would be no different than parents with dwarfism choosing to have dwarf babies knowing full well that life is going to be much harder than it is already.

jmo.

By that line of thinking, why don't black parents in a white-majority country entrenched in white privilege (like the US, where I live) choose to have white babies? It shouldn't matter that the baby doesn't look like them, right, because they're just picking what is likely to be the easiest configuration for their child.

After all, white babies will have a lot more privileges in life than black babies will. You have to admit, life is harder for black people in white majority countries than it is for white people.

See where this goes?

Despite knowing deaf people, you are an outsider to deafness. Your one week experiment in no way reflects the actual experiences of deaf people.

Choosing one embryo over another isn't choosing some different life course for one child, it is choosing to create a different child. They are not "choosing for their child to be deaf", they are choosing to have a deaf child- and there's a pretty big difference between those two things!

traciedantoni · 07-01-2011, 11:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aleser

Despite knowing deaf people, you are an outsider to deafness. Your one week experiment in no way reflects the actual experiences of deaf people.

Choosing one embryo over another isn't choosing some different life course for one child, it is choosing to create a different child. They are not "choosing for their child to be deaf", they are choosing to have a deaf child- and there's a pretty big difference between those two things!

I don't just "know" deaf people, I was raised by them. I had to interpret for my mom EVERYWHERE we went for as long as I can remember. Earliest memory of it goes back to when I was 6. Why did I have to do that? Because it was easier for my mom to have me help her than to constantly have to ask for paper and something to write with.

I see what you're saying about choosing to have a deaf child. Still seems selfish to me. I resort back to my original comment. No designer babies, no choosing embryos. Leave it to nature and love what you get. Period.

**shel90** · 07-01-2011, 11:55 AM

[quote=traciedantoni;1854918]I don't just "know" deaf people, I was raised by them. I had to interpret for my mom EVERYWHERE we went for as long as I can remember. Earliest memory of it goes back to when I was 6. Why did I have to do that? Because it was easier for my mom to have me help her than to constantly have to ask for paper and something to write with.

I see what you're saying about choosing to have a deaf child. Still seems selfish to me. I resort back to my original comment. No designer babies, no choosing embryos. Leave it to nature and love what you get. Period.[/quote]

Right...but the scientists are allowing that options and they are wrong.

traciedantoni · 07-01-2011, 11:58 AM

Shel- I agree. The scientists are wrong and the people who participate in it are wrong.

Aleser · 07-01-2011, 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by traciedantoni

I don't just "know" deaf people, I was raised by them. I had to interpret for my mom EVERYWHERE we went for as long as I can remember. Earliest memory of it goes back to when I was 6. Why did I have to do that? Because it was easier for my mom to have me help her than to constantly have to ask for paper and something to write with.

I see what you're saying about choosing to have a deaf child. Still seems selfish to me. I resort back to my original comment. No designer babies, no choosing embryos. Leave it to nature and love what you get. Period.

If you believe that choosing to have a deaf child is cruel, why do you not agree with choosing to have a hearing child? After all, that's a guarantee you wont have a child who might need to -learn how to write with a pen and paper-

I'm not saying that I agree with preimplantation genetic diagnosis for all conditions. I'm saying you're not seeing the big picture: you are not qualified to determine, in a parent's eyes, which child they should choose to create.

It can be done. Should or shouldn't be done, it can be done and it is done.

Beach girl · 07-01-2011, 12:14 PM

Shel90, I thought you were in favor of allowing women to have abortions, no questions asked, it's the woman's individual decision, no one else's right to make moral judgments about her, etc., etc.

So if a woman decides she doesn't want to have the particular baby she is pregnant with, because it has Down's syndrome, is deaf, has a physical deformity of some kind - isn't it making a moral judgment to say she shouldn't "choose" not to have that baby?

I read recently that there are many fewer babies with Down's being born these days, because most are now aborted if the test comes back positive for that.

**shel90** · 07-01-2011, 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beach girl

Shel90, I thought you were in favor of allowing women to have abortions, no questions asked, it's the woman's individual decision, no one else's right to make moral judgments about her, etc., etc.

So if a woman decides she doesn't want to have the particular baby she is pregnant with, because it has Down's syndrome, is deaf, has a physical deformity of some kind - isn't it making a moral judgment to say she shouldn't "choose" not to have that baby?

I read recently that there are many fewer babies with Down's being born these days, because most are now aborted if the test comes back positive for that.

Creating designer babies is different from abortion. What are you talking about?

As for my stance on abortion...I am not crazy about it and I wont get one but I wont make it illegal for others just because I wont get one myself. I know that many women get raped, or their health are in danger, are too poor, or too young but to abort for the reason of designer babies, no, I dont like it but it is their right.

I was referring to genetic manipulation.

Aleser · 07-01-2011, 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beach girl

Shel90, I thought you were in favor of allowing women to have abortions, no questions asked, it's the woman's individual decision, no one else's right to make moral judgments about her, etc., etc.

So if a woman decides she doesn't want to have the particular baby she is pregnant with, because it has Down's syndrome, is deaf, has a physical deformity of some kind - isn't it making a moral judgment to say she shouldn't "choose" not to have that baby?

I read recently that there are many fewer babies with Down's being born these days, because most are now aborted if the test comes back positive for that.

Choosing not to have a baby for any number of personal reasons is one thing. Choosing to abort a previously wanted pregnancy because the child is a member of a minority is eugenics.

There's a difference. Some people believe both are acceptable, but some people believe that there's a line to be drawn between the two.

Beach girl · 07-01-2011, 12:22 PM

That "line" is pretty damn thin. If you think abortion should be legal and the woman's choice, then what difference should it make if the woman's choice is not one you personally would agree with? Isn't that in fact the whole argument, that the pregnant woman is a free moral agent to decide the fate of her own pregnancy?

Aleser · 07-01-2011, 12:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beach girl

That "line" is pretty damn thin. If you think abortion should be legal and the woman's choice, then what difference should it make if the woman's choice is not one you personally would agree with? Isn't that in fact the whole argument, that the pregnant woman is a free moral agent to decide the fate of her own pregnancy?

Its thin to you. To me,

"I choose not to have any baby right now"

and

"I choose not to have this baby as an act of eradicating this minority from existence"

are two extremely different statements.

Do I believe abortion should be legal for eugenic purposes? Absolutely. Do I believe it is -right- to eradicate minorities? No.

traciedantoni · 07-01-2011, 12:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aleser

If you believe that choosing to have a deaf child is cruel, why do you not agree with choosing to have a hearing child? After all, that's a guarantee you wont have a child who might need to -learn how to write with a pen and paper-

Let me be clear since you are obviously confused by my prior comments: my position is that choosing which embryo to create is wrong. Period. Deaf picking Deaf. Hearing picking hearing. Whatever.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aleser

I'm not saying that I agree with preimplantation genetic diagnosis for all conditions. I'm saying you're not seeing the big picture: you are not qualified to determine, in a parent's eyes, which child they should choose to create.

I am absolutely qualified to state my opinion BECAUSE i am a parent who has had a child born with MANY problems and ultimately died as a result of his problems. I CHOSE not to have any prenatal testing to screen for problems because I knew I was going to keep the baby no matter what any tests revealed. It's called just love your baby no matter what.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aleser

It can be done. Should or shouldn't be done, it can be done and it is done.

Yup you're right. Doesn't make it right though and people should stand up to stop it.

StSapphire · 07-01-2011, 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bottesini

It means eugenics is wrong.

Well, yes, but more because Eugenics is simply bad science. People are much much more than simple DNA, and people who think things like that DNA is a switch that turns on and off certain things about a person (like gayness, eye color, deafness, etc) simply don't understand developmental biology very well.

Quote:

Originally Posted by traciedantoni

So, if given the choice, Deaf parents would choose a deaf embryo over a hearing one? Why? That stings. If my mom did that then I wouldn't exist.

If your mom had chosen a different preschool for you, "you" wouldn't exist (as in, the person you are right now), either. Heck, for that matter, there's a distinct possibility that if your mom had taken a different route coming home from the hospital, "you" wouldn't exist, either, simply because of chaos theory.

Quote:

Originally Posted by traciedantoni

How about just love your baby no matter what you get? I always said even though I am hearing if I had a deaf baby it would be no difference. The fact that I am already fluent with ASL probably helps my perspective but still. You're supposed to love your baby no matter what you get.

I agree. I still don't necessarily see how "choosing" a baby with certain genes is any different than, say, "choosing" what you feed your baby or "choosing" what school to send your child to.

Quote:

Originally Posted by shel90

Right...but the scientists are allowing that options and they are wrong.

See above. We already let people choose all sorts of other things that drastically impact who someone is as an adult. We let parents choose the food their children eat, the clothes they wear, the schools they go to.

For that matter, you're allowed to choose who you have children with. Indirectly, that's already choosing genes.

If those aren't wrong, why is this wrong?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beach girl

Shel90, I thought you were in favor of allowing women to have abortions, no questions asked, it's the woman's individual decision, no one else's right to make moral judgments about her, etc., etc.

So if a woman decides she doesn't want to have the particular baby she is pregnant with, because it has Down's syndrome, is deaf, has a physical deformity of some kind - isn't it making a moral judgment to say she shouldn't "choose" not to have that baby?

If they catch it early, I say go for it. Mind you, most of the people worrying about all of this don't understand genetics and developmental biology very well, and don't understand that the tests that come back don't even really say "Your baby is deaf!" or "Your baby has Down's syndrome!" they more likely say "Your baby is slightly more likely than average to potentially develop deafness!" or "Your baby is slightly more likely than average to potentially develop Down's syndrome!" You could just as well test for genetic markers for cancer. It doesn't mean that the baby will be born all cancerous, it just means there's a higher than average likelihood that they may develop cancer at some point during their life. DNA isn't magic.

**shel90** · 07-01-2011, 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beach girl

That "line" is pretty damn thin. If you think abortion should be legal and the woman's choice, then what difference should it make if the woman's choice is not one you personally would agree with? Isn't that in fact the whole argument, that the pregnant woman is a free moral agent to decide the fate of her own pregnancy?

Eugenics is a scary thing. I am suprised that you are in favor of it.

StSapphire · 07-01-2011, 12:29 PM

As an added note - this should be fun, I'm apparently the only person here who doesn't think this is just a terrible awful practice.

*braces for impact*

07-01-2011, 12:20 AM	#2 (permalink)
Jiro Aparecium Deletrius Legil Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: The Soprano State Posts: 60,512	so... what's your stance on it? __________________ - Don't forget to buy Jiro's Special Edition Sunglasses for $19.95

07-01-2011, 09:16 AM	#3 (permalink)
Bottesini Joe's Friend Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: With Owl Sock Posts: 37,524 Blog Entries: 1	Hitler was doing something similar years ago. People who don't learn from history... jillio likes this.

07-01-2011, 09:43 AM	#9 (permalink)
drphil Registered User Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Toronto Ontario Posts: 4,115	The above has been discussed many times. At the present time- reality is:90- 95% of ALL babies born "deaf' have HEARING PARENTS. Remember the conference at Milan-1880 "banning the use of ASL" with consequence all deaf persons should be taught to speak. The above was discussed as well. The supposed solution: 2 deaf persons should NOT be allowed to married without being "sterilized". This is what I understand- I personally wasn't there- not old enough! Perhaps a simple test is not exactly predictive- to say the least. Implanted A B Harmony activated Aug/07 __________________ Get Real:Implanted Sunnybrook/Toronto -Advanced Bionics-Harmony activated Aug/07

07-01-2011, 10:32 AM	#10 (permalink)
Aleser Registered User Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 965	Genetic conditions which lead to deafness (as opposed to acquired ones) can already be diagnosed not only during pregnancy, but before the pregnancy exists via pre-implantation genetic diagnosis. The science to select a deaf embryo or a hearing embryo, if you are a carrier for a genetic condition which causes deafness, is already here. The science to diagnose acquired deafness will never be here. It is not a past-tense ethical debate, but quite a present one. jillio likes this. __________________ "She thinks... she can make people do what she wants or needs, what is right, by the sheer force of her own talent, not by forcing them... she can teach them and persuade them... that they'll catch it from her. This is still faith in their rationality, in the omnipotence of reason. The mistake? Reason is not automatic. Those who deny it cannot be conquered by it. Do not count on them."

07-01-2011, 11:30 AM	#12 (permalink)
traciedantoni Registered User Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Baltimore Posts: 35	So, if given the choice, Deaf parents would choose a deaf embryo over a hearing one? Why? That stings. If my mom did that then I wouldn't exist. How about just love your baby no matter what you get? I always said even though I am hearing if I had a deaf baby it would be no difference. The fact that I am already fluent with ASL probably helps my perspective but still. You're supposed to love your baby no matter what you get. Babyblue and KristinaB like this.

Today
Deafness	Sponsored Links __________________ This advertising will not be shown in this way to registered members. Register your free account today and become a member on AllDeaf.com

07-01-2011, 11:55 AM	#19 (permalink)
shel90 Let It Snow!!!! Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: A place where crabs are popular Posts: 40,294 Blog Entries: 3	[quote=traciedantoni;1854918]I don't just "know" deaf people, I was raised by them. I had to interpret for my mom EVERYWHERE we went for as long as I can remember. Earliest memory of it goes back to when I was 6. Why did I have to do that? Because it was easier for my mom to have me help her than to constantly have to ask for paper and something to write with. I see what you're saying about choosing to have a deaf child. Still seems selfish to me. I resort back to my original comment. No designer babies, no choosing embryos. Leave it to nature and love what you get. Period.[/quote] Right...but the scientists are allowing that options and they are wrong. __________________ "Wine improves with age. The older I get, the better I like it." --- Anonymous

07-01-2011, 11:58 AM	#20 (permalink)
traciedantoni Registered User Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Baltimore Posts: 35	Shel- I agree. The scientists are wrong and the people who participate in it are wrong.

07-01-2011, 12:14 PM	#22 (permalink)
Beach girl Registered User Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: northern Virginia in winter; NC in summer Posts: 3,760	Shel90, I thought you were in favor of allowing women to have abortions, no questions asked, it's the woman's individual decision, no one else's right to make moral judgments about her, etc., etc. So if a woman decides she doesn't want to have the particular baby she is pregnant with, because it has Down's syndrome, is deaf, has a physical deformity of some kind - isn't it making a moral judgment to say she shouldn't "choose" not to have that baby? I read recently that there are many fewer babies with Down's being born these days, because most are now aborted if the test comes back positive for that.

07-01-2011, 12:22 PM	#25 (permalink)
Beach girl Registered User Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: northern Virginia in winter; NC in summer Posts: 3,760	That "line" is pretty damn thin. If you think abortion should be legal and the woman's choice, then what difference should it make if the woman's choice is not one you personally would agree with? Isn't that in fact the whole argument, that the pregnant woman is a free moral agent to decide the fate of her own pregnancy?

07-01-2011, 12:29 PM	#30 (permalink)
StSapphire Registered User Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 1,527	As an added note - this should be fun, I'm apparently the only person here who doesn't think this is just a terrible awful practice. braces for impact

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode