Pre-natal testing for desirable babies

[Aleser]

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- :roll:

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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- :roll:

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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?

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]

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]

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*

 

[StSapphire]

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

She's not. I thought she said in another thread that she didn't support abortions at all.

[edit] Apparently I was wrong, sorry BG.

 

[kokonut]

I see it as a double standard, hypocrisy even, when it comes to abortion in this instance such as "My body, my choice!" But to do a 180 when it comes to accepting or rejecting an embryo on the basis of what they're looking for as being "wrong," even "unethical" which is a hoot because it's still abortion, doesn't exactly pass the smell test.

 

[StSapphire]

I see it as a double standard, hypocrisy even, when it comes to abortion in this instance such as "My body, my choice!" But to do a 180 when it comes to accepting or rejecting an embryo on the basis of what they're looking for as being "wrong," even "unethical" which is a hoot because it's still abortion, doesn't exactly pass the smell test.

Well of course there's a difference, unless you also think that killing a home intruder in self defense is exactly the same thing is plotting out and assassinating that same person.

 

[Aleser]

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*

I'm all for PGD and/or prenatal dx in the case of serious abnormalities. Frankly, I think parents are all sorts of fcked up if they just "take a chance" with having a kid with Tay Sachs or something really horrible despite knowing they're at risk, or refuse prenatal testing that can reveal other conditions incompatible with life... and do think that abortions should be practiced for such conditions. Carrying a child you know will die horribly is not for the sake of that child, it is for the sake of maintaining the fantasy of parenthood you had, and that is wrong. I am absolutely a believer that the most loving parenting choice someone can possibly make with the diagnosis of a catastrophic fetal illness is to let that otherwise wanted child, and all their hopes and dreams for it, go.

But PGD in the case of non-lethal conditions is much more murky grounds. Now its some kinds of disabled people, but soon it could be many kinds of disabled people (autism speaks, for example, is actively funding research for a prenatal test for autism- their explicit goal is to eradicate a neurological difference that in no way impacts health or lifespan), and not too long after that- what if the ability to screen out gay embryos or fetuses came long?

PGD has the "slippery slope" thing attached to it, big time. And of course, what I think is too far down the slope is not what another person thinks.

 

[Beach girl]

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

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.

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

You are misinterpreting. I am in favor of abortions being legal, up to a certain point. As I understood it, I thought you were too.

Given that, it follows that I don't feel I have the moral right to pick and choose what reasons should be ok and what reasons shouldn't, when it comes to another person. (Obviously I have that right for myself.)

If a Jewish couple discovers that their baby will have Tay-Sachs, if a woman discovers that the baby will have Down's, if it is determined that the baby will have any sort of serious physical disability, is that more wrong to abort that child than a woman choosing to abort because "it's inconvenient right now" or some other reason?

Personally I think abortions for reason of sex selection are abhorrent, unless there is some other correlated reason (hemophilia being more prevalent in boys, for instance).

But at the same time, it's inescapable that if the law permits abortion *for any reason* up to a certain point in gestation, plenty of people will make that choice for their own reasons, even if it is a reason you personally would not agree with and a choice you would not make in the same situation.

That's pretty much the nature of the beast; people will make their own choices. Period. I thought that was pretty much what the fight was all about: allowing women to make their own choices, regardless of other people's moral judgments.

 

[shel90]

You are misinterpreting. I am in favor of abortions being legal, up to a certain point. As I understood it, I thought you were too.

Given that, it follows that I don't feel I have the moral right to pick and choose what reasons should be ok and what reasons shouldn't, when it comes to another person. (Obviously I have that right for myself.)

If a Jewish couple discovers that their baby will have Tay-Sachs, if a woman discovers that the baby will have Down's, if it is determined that the baby will have any sort of serious physical disability, is that more wrong to abort that child than a woman choosing to abort because "it's inconvenient right now" or some other reason?

Personally I think abortions for reason of sex selection are abhorrent, unless there is some other correlated reason (hemophilia being more prevalent in boys, for instance).

But at the same time, it's inescapable that if the law permits abortion *for any reason* up to a certain point in gestation, plenty of people will make that choice for their own reasons, even if it is a reason you personally would not agree with and a choice you would not make in the same situation.

That's pretty much the nature of the beast; people will make their own choices. Period. I thought that was pretty much what the fight was all about: allowing women to make their own choices, regardless of other people's moral judgments.

I edited my post and answered your question about my stance on abortions.

 

[Beach girl]

She's not. I thought she said in another thread that she didn't support abortions at all.

No, I didn't say that. Although "support abortions" is not exactly the phrasing I would choose, I am in favor of abortions being legal up to a certain point.

 

[StSapphire]

No, I didn't say that. Although "support abortions" is not exactly the phrasing I would choose, I am in favor of abortions being legal up to a certain point.

Sorry, edited my post after I saw that I was wrong. I'm bad at occasionally mixing up people, I apologize.

 

[Babyblue]

I would not want to pick and choose what baby I want.

 

[StSapphire]

I would not want to pick and choose what baby I want.

Would you pick and choose what to feed you baby, how to clothe it, how to educate it, etc?