You are attempting to complicate a very simple concept.
Perhaps, but we must 'complicate' things, and think of ramifications, because someone else certainly will, if we don't first.
I'm not avoiding you at all. Why are you so defensive?
Because I couldn't get a straight answer out of you, it did not seem like you were reading my posts...
I think I get you now, not that it matters anymore, but I still feel a reduncancy here. Also my question about supported life still has not been answered.
I don't know of anyone who is going to choose to IVF a baby that will die within hours anyway, so it is a bit pointless to me. Also, it wouldn't matter much anyway, if they could do it, because the baby is still going to die anyway.
Someone would surely complain if the 'cutoff' is by hours that if the baby is expected to live at least one year, they should be able to have it. The scenario is a bit absurd, yes, but that's how things tend to work. If the limit is one year, someone will want to slip by with slightly less than a year, because it is 'close enough' and others will want to do away with ones lasting say two years, because that is also 'close enough'. Then if they manage to get away with that, someone will want to stop it at three years, then four, and so on.
But now I can say I agree, at least, including your previous statement about genetic counseling. As long as there are regulations in place to prevent child abuse, I'm ok with it. (and things like this -do- happen not as much as this country, but... many children have been raised for the sole purpose of exploitation...)
My answers have been very straight and very specific. One does not have the opportunity to "choose" an embryo with genetic defects incompatible with life, because those embryos that would not survive are already screened out. The problem is, they are attempting to screen out embryos, as well, with any form of genetic "defect", in particular,those defects that are not incompatible with life, but simply deviate from the norm, i.e. deafness.
I don't exactly get your point, First you say that a couple should not be allowed to select a deaf embryo because it is moving backwards genetically, and then you argue about the cut off line for the designation "incompatible with life." Are you against all IVF, or do you think it is acceptable to destroy deaf embryos and not allow a parent the choice, but think they should be allowed the choice of choosing an embryo that is incompatibile with life? You have brought issues into the topic that are totally unrelated in an attempt to support the evolutionary theory you originally proposed that was flawed.
The whole purpose of IVF is to allow a woman to become pregnant, and carry to term a child that will survive. IVF is a procedure to facillatate conception and gestation for a woman that has difficulty in these specific areas. An embryo that is incompatible with life is contradicitory to the entire process, as the large majority of embryos that are this genetically flawed will result in a miscarraige. In the rare case that they do complete gestation, the largest portion of those will result in still births, with death occurring in utero. The whole concept is totally contradicitory to the purpose of IVF. Incompatible with life is medical terminology that is widely accepted, and it means exactly what it states. Incompatible with life. There are no hidden meanings there, no implications at all. The topic of life support is not even an issue in the definition of incompatible with life. One has to survived at some point in order to be placed on life support.
The whole point of the issue, and the fight these parents are undertaking, is that deafness is not incomptible with life, and therefore, embryos that carry a genetic form of deafness should not be destroyed simply because they are deaf. That is what the British government is proposing to do. These parents are fighting against that proposal. This is no less eugenics than A.G. Bell's proposal that ALL deaf individuals be sterilized to promote the concept of the well born. His genetic theories were terribly flawed, as is the practice of destroying deaf embryos based on no other criteria other than deafness.
The fact of the matter is, the largest proportion deafness is
not caused by genetic transmission. Therefore, your argument would be better based in the ethics of what to do with a deaf infant after it is born. If we find it acceptable to destroy deaf embryos simply because they are deaf, what should we do with a deaf infant after birth? Are they to be considered less viable than a hearing infant? Waht about deaf adults? Are they considered to be subhuman, and not deserving of the same rights as hearing adults? Do we relegate deaf individuals to second class citizenry simply because they are deaf?
That is the issue here. The enitre question is if a parent is allowed to choose a hearing embryo, why is it that a deaf couple cannot choose a deaf embryo? What exactly is it about deafness that would place a deaf embryo in the category of being incompatible with life. Your oringinal position was that a deaf couple should not be able to choose a deaf embryo through IVF based ont he fact that deafness is a genetic regression. Your theory of regression is flawed. You then moved on to the fact that no embryos should be destroyed because incompatible with life is too broad a definition. Incompatibile with life is not broad and, in fact, is very specific. We are discussing the ethics as applied to IVF only, not natural conception and birth. You have gone way off topic with issues that do not even apply to the process of IVF.
So let's go back to the oringinal questions. Should a deaf couple be prevented from selecting a deaf embryo? Should deaf embryos be destroyed? If a hearing couple is permitted to select an embryo based on hearing status, then why isn't a deaf couple afforded the same right?
And I have been reading your posts. I have been giving straight forward answers, as well. You have simply done a 180 degree turnaround in your position.
