Pre-natal testing for desirable babies

[jillio]

I think that Bott is thinking of X-linked dominant inheritence. In that case, fathers cannot pass the mutation to their sons. Mothers with the mutation have a 50% of affected offspring of both genders. There's also X-linked recessive inheritence.

Ah, thanks! I didn't consider that, but was simply addressing the question as stated.

 

[sallylou]

Embyos are screened before they are implanted.

X-linked inheritance is complicated, isn't it?

 

[Bottesini]

I think that Bott is thinking of X-linked dominant inheritence. In that case, fathers cannot pass the mutation to their sons. Mothers with the mutation have a 50% of affected offspring of both genders. There's also X-linked recessive inheritence.

Yes I was. I have enjoyed my life a lot. I am very grateful that was not available when I was born.

 

[jillio]

Embyos are screened before they are implanted.

For chromosomal abnormalities, not for things like blue eyes and blond hair.

But you are correct. They are screened for a variety of chromosomal and genetic abnormalities because an embryo with these abnormalities is much more likely to be spontaneously aborted. In IVF, they do everything in their power to insure a viable pregnancy, to the degree of implanting multiple embryos due to the high risk of spontaneous abortion.

 

[Beach girl]

So where do you draw the line? Creating a baby artificially always carries with it some idea of selection. Creating a child from donor eggs or sperm carries with it an even stronger idea of selection: people choose from a list of characteristics of the possible donors that might include intelligence, height, athletic ability, musical ability, and so forth. Hair and eye color are often specified, since many people prefer to find someone who physically is similar to themselves or to their mate.

Is that a "designer baby?" Should those methods be allowed?

On the other side of the equation, aborting a baby for reasons that suit the mother's moral compass carries the idea of selection. Some mothers abort the pregnancy for social reasons; she's too young, too old, has too many children, can't afford it, can't stand the baby's father anymore, wants to finish her education, wants to start a new job, something along those lines.

Some mothers abort for physical reasons: the child is a threat to her health; is deformed, has Down's syndrome, has other serious physical conditions that the mother does not want to cope with, has a condition "incompatible with life." Or for sex selection reasons.

If abortions are allowed at all, and if women are presumed to be capable of operating under their own moral agency, then does a doctor have the right to say "No, I don't like that reason; I will not do an abortion on you." Is that over-riding the woman's right to choose?

 

[jillio]

So where do you draw the line? Creating a baby artificially always carries with it some idea of selection. Creating a child from donor eggs or sperm carries with it an even stronger idea of selection: people choose from a list of characteristics of the possible donors that might include intelligence, height, athletic ability, musical ability, and so forth. Hair and eye color are often specified, since many people prefer to find someone who physically is similar to themselves or to their mate.

Is that a "designer baby?" Should those methods be allowed?

On the other side of the equation, aborting a baby for reasons that suit the mother's moral compass carries the idea of selection. Some mothers abort the pregnancy for social reasons; she's too young, too old, has too many children, can't afford it, can't stand the baby's father anymore, wants to finish her education, wants to start a new job, something along those lines.

Some mothers abort for physical reasons: the child is a threat to her health; is deformed, has Down's syndrome, has other serious physical conditions that the other does not want to cope with, has a condition "incompatible with life." Or for sex selection reasons.

If abortions are allowed at all, and if women are presumed to be capable of operating under their own moral agency, then does a doctor have the right to say "No, I don't like that reason; I will not do an abortion on you." Is that over-riding the woman's right to choose?

Again, you are referring to those procedures used to treat fertility problems. That is not the issue with creation of designer babies.

A doctor can refuse to perform a procedure based on his belief that it is not medically necessary.Since abortion in the first trimester is basically service on demand, the reason behind the request for abortion is irrelevent. However, he cannot select those patients for whom he will provide services based on any criteria that involves a belief system. The fact is, abortion is legal, it is an issue that is to be determined between physician and patient, and Roe v Wade asserted the right to privacy of those decisions.

 

[Beach girl]

Again, you are referring to those procedures used to treat fertility problems. That is not the issue with creation of designer babies.

What exactly are "designer babies," then, if not babies created specifically to meet the parents' desires, through the various measures we have available today?


A doctor can refuse to perform a procedure based on his belief that it is not medically necessary.Since abortion in the first trimester is basically service on demand, the reason behind the request for abortion is irrelevent. However, he cannot select those patients for whom he will provide services based on any criteria that involves a belief system. The fact is, abortion is legal, it is an issue that is to be determined between physician and patient, and Roe v Wade asserted the right to privacy of those decisions.

So if it's service on demand, no one has a right to make a moral judgment about anyone else's choice, right? Be it sex selection or any other reason?

 

[jillio]

So if it's service on demand, no one has a right to make a moral judgment about anyone else's choice, right? Be it sex selection or any other reason?

So who is? I fully support right to choose. But first trimester abortion being used for sex selection is not as likely as you may think. Sonogram cannot detect sex at that stage of development, and it would require extensive and expensive testing to determine sex of the fetus within the first trimester, and even that could be in error due to hormonal changes occurring during pregnancy. Other characteristics that may be used to create a "designer baby" would be even less ameniable to detection in the first 3 months of gestation.

And, keep in mind, anything after the first trimester is no longer service on demand, but must be demonstrated to have medical necessity.

 

[Jiro]

10 year old "Prada queens" have absolutely zero to do with anything we have been talking about. Much less anything either kokonut or I would support.

I think I'm safe in speaking for kokonut in that way.

why? because it's not relating to genetic manipulation? the very concept is exactly same. The parents "modified" their children because medical technology exists today to allow them to do so.

Now with pre-natal testing.... parents will be able to "modify" their fetus.

So then are you against IVF and similar manipulations in order to create children? To "design" children, as it were?

(That was to jillio.)

as Jillio said - IVF is nothing like pre-natal testing nor genetic manipulation. They cannot "select" certain traits to make baby like ordering a custom-made product. IVF is a medical procedure for those with fertility issue. It is exactly same as natural procreation. Doctors simply inject sperms into vagina and then hope for best.

"similar manipulation" - You must be referring to a woman flipping thru catalogs to find a suitable sperm for her egg. There's nothing wrong with it - just as much as there's nothing wrong with online dating where you can simply type in your specific parameter that you look for in mate. This is nothing like genetic manipulation because there is no actual manipulation with sperm, egg, or gene when procreating a child. You simply hope for best with no guarantee.

In genetic manipulation - there's almost a guarantee that you will get what you ordered. That is crossing the line, in case you're wondering where do we draw a line in this issue.

 

[Aleser]

as Jillio said - IVF is nothing like pre-natal testing nor genetic manipulation. They cannot "select" certain traits to make baby like ordering a custom-made product. IVF is a medical procedure for those with fertility issue. It is exactly same as natural procreation. Doctors simply inject sperms into vagina and then hope for best.

No. That would be "vaginal insemination", or sometimes doctors perform "intrauterine insemination" (injecting the semen high up to hopefully better the chances of pregnancy).

IVF is when eggs are extracted from the mother, or from a donor, and semen is given from the father or from a donor, and the eggs are fertilized outside of the body.

The zygotes (fertilized eggs) which have an undesirable condition, such as some genetic diseases, can be disposed of. The zygotes which are desirable are then transferred into the uterus itself.

 

[Aleser]

So who is? I fully support right to choose. But first trimester abortion being used for sex selection is not as likely as you may think. Sonogram cannot detect sex at that stage of development, and it would require extensive and expensive testing to determine sex of the fetus within the first trimester, and even that could be in error due to hormonal changes occurring during pregnancy. Other characteristics that may be used to create a "designer baby" would be even less ameniable to detection in the first 3 months of gestation.

And, keep in mind, anything after the first trimester is no longer service on demand, but must be demonstrated to have medical necessity.

That's not completely true. Here in the US, SOME clinics only perform voluntary abortions up to 12 weeks, but some clinics also perform up to 16+ weeks. And if you go on up to Canada, a lot of clinics perform 16+ weeks.

By 14 weeks, an experienced ultrasound tech who determines sex has about a 90% chance of being right. Of course, not all ultrasound techs are experienced enough to make a call this early, and not all experienced techs can make a call due to visualization issues: but it IS possible to find out the sex well before the legal limit on abortion.

Is it possible that someone could obtain a sex-selective abortion in the US? Yes.

Is it probable, or happening all the time? No, probably not.

 

[Jiro]

No. That would be "vaginal insemination", or sometimes doctors perform "intrauterine insemination" (injecting the semen high up to hopefully better the chances of pregnancy).

IVF is when eggs are extracted from the mother, or from a donor, and semen is given from the father or from a donor, and the eggs are fertilized outside of the body.

for correction.

The zygotes (fertilized eggs) which have an undesirable condition, such as some genetic diseases, can be disposed of. The zygotes which are desirable are then transferred into the uterus itself.

From what I read - this practice is highly controversial and is not available at many centers.

Either way - IVF is primary used to assist couples with fertility issue... not genetic manipulation. Genetic Manipulation in IVF procedure should be banned.

 

[StSapphire]

If a boyfriend wasn't open to adoption that was a deal breaker for me. Discussed it with my husband before we married.

Any particular reason, or just because?

To me, there's a difference between screening for serious medical issues and screening for other reasons. Personally, I don't like sex selection except in the case of X-linked genetic problems.

What's the difference, and how do you define "serious medical issues"? Especially given increasing tolerance for biological differences among people (such as deafness or blindness, to mention something situationally appropriate) and newer and better medical procedures and technologies making fewer and fewer diseases and medical issues as "serious" as they would have been in older times.

Nor do I. Practically speaking, how would you implement that in law? Or would you?

In a book I read recently about adoption ("Baby, We Were Meant for Each Other") the author said that Asia is missing 90 million girl babies that you would expect should have been born, but who have been aborted due mainly to China's one-child policy. 90 million. The mind boggles.

I read about this too. Societal-wide problems like this are the main concern that I personally have with allowing genetic selection and manipulation. The processes used aren't the problem and shouldn't be attacked, but on a practical level, homogenizing the gene pool is a very poor survival strategy for any given society and species.

And before you ask, nope, I haven't thought of a solution to that problem yet. The subject doesn't come up very often, so I've not thought about problems like this nearly as much as other things.

IVF does not include gene manipulation and is not used to increase the probability of certain characteristics in the offspring. It is not used to create "designer children". IVF and the manipulation used to create children that comply with parental desires for specific characteristics are two very different subjects.

Yet!

Science is a fun tool that way - IVF currently is used for treating infertility problems. However, the process itself is a perfect starting point for genetic selection and genetic manipulation, because the actually invasive process (implantation) happens after the selection, rather than prior to the selection (as would be the case with selective abortions).

So bringing up IVF gets down to the moral conundrum of genetic selection/manipulation by allowing for a process that itself isn't immoral (unless you're an extremist who thinks there's a magical spirit that is conjured up the instant any sperm and egg form a zygote.

as Jillio said - IVF is nothing like pre-natal testing nor genetic manipulation. They cannot "select" certain traits to make baby like ordering a custom-made product. IVF is a medical procedure for those with fertility issue. It is exactly same as natural procreation. Doctors simply inject sperms into vagina and then hope for best.

I think this was corrected, but no. They form the zygote in a lab, and can do some genetic testing on the created zygote long before implantation, so selection and manipulation is certainly possible.

In genetic manipulation - there's almost a guarantee that you will get what you ordered. That is crossing the line, in case you're wondering where do we draw a line in this issue.

Not even close. Developmental biology is a hugely complex field, and there is absolutely no "guarantee" than any particular combination of genes will get you any specific trait or sets of traits. The most it will do is increase the likelihood of certain traits developing, which can just as easily be done by much more traditional parenting techniques such as food choice selection (feed your baby significantly more beef than other meats, and I guarantee that will have some sort of effect on how their personality and any number of other traits develop; it's just highly unethical to design scientific experiments which have proper controls to determine what actions have what effects down the road, so it's all a bit of a crapshoot. Genetics is like that, too.

 

[GrendelQ]

There have been studies that indicate that there is a gender difference at play here. Not only do men feel the strong need to have a child from their own genetic background or none at all, they also have more difficulty accepting a child with any form of birth defect or disability. Has to do with the way men are socialized to unconsciously equate their masculinity with the ability to produce children similar in characteristics, and that producing a child with any form of birth defect or disability is a negative statement on their masculinity.

Fortunately, most spousal selection doesn't require medical manipulation, although our laws have a way to go.

 

[Jiro]

Not even close. Developmental biology is a hugely complex field, and there is absolutely no "guarantee" than any particular combination of genes will get you any specific trait or sets of traits. The most it will do is increase the likelihood of certain traits developing, which can just as easily be done by much more traditional parenting techniques such as food choice selection (feed your baby significantly more beef than other meats, and I guarantee that will have some sort of effect on how their personality and any number of other traits develop; it's just highly unethical to design scientific experiments which have proper controls to determine what actions have what effects down the road, so it's all a bit of a crapshoot. Genetics is like that, too.

we're not talking about now but when genetic engineering comes to that point where you can order what you want in child, that's crossing the line.

 

[StSapphire]

we're not talking about now but when genetic engineering comes to that point where you can order what you want in child, that's crossing the line.

That's my point. That's science fiction, and isn't how genetics works. Unless you can also seal them in a hyperbaric chamber and selectively apply exactly the right stimuli for certain traits to develop, then it's never going to be a guarantee. You're basically arguing against either a false concept of how genetics works, or against a technology that will never be created.

 

[Jiro]

That's my point. That's science fiction, and isn't how genetics works. Unless you can also seal them in a hyperbaric chamber and selectively apply exactly the right stimuli for certain traits to develop, then it's never going to be a guarantee. You're basically arguing against either a false concept of how genetics works, or against a technology that will never be created.

I said "almost a guarantee". and I am arguing against creation of this technology but it'll happen anyway.

 

[Beowulf]

That's my point. That's science fiction, and isn't how genetics works. Unless you can also seal them in a hyperbaric chamber and selectively apply exactly the right stimuli for certain traits to develop, then it's never going to be a guarantee. You're basically arguing against either a false concept of how genetics works, or against a technology that will never be created.

If a technology gets so impossibly complex, the end result could be how we imagine it to be, you know? That's frightening.

 

[jillio]

That's not completely true. Here in the US, SOME clinics only perform voluntary abortions up to 12 weeks, but some clinics also perform up to 16+ weeks. And if you go on up to Canada, a lot of clinics perform 16+ weeks.

By 14 weeks, an experienced ultrasound tech who determines sex has about a 90% chance of being right. Of course, not all ultrasound techs are experienced enough to make a call this early, and not all experienced techs can make a call due to visualization issues: but it IS possible to find out the sex well before the legal limit on abortion.

Is it possible that someone could obtain a sex-selective abortion in the US? Yes.

Is it probable, or happening all the time? No, probably not.

Exactly. Highly improbable.

When determining sex for a fetus that is going to be carried to term (routinely done), the physician waits until the 18th week or later to increase accuracy. Prior to that, the chance of error is too great.

 

[jillio]

Any particular reason, or just because?



What's the difference, and how do you define "serious medical issues"? Especially given increasing tolerance for biological differences among people (such as deafness or blindness, to mention something situationally appropriate) and newer and better medical procedures and technologies making fewer and fewer diseases and medical issues as "serious" as they would have been in older times.



I read about this too. Societal-wide problems like this are the main concern that I personally have with allowing genetic selection and manipulation. The processes used aren't the problem and shouldn't be attacked, but on a practical level, homogenizing the gene pool is a very poor survival strategy for any given society and species.

And before you ask, nope, I haven't thought of a solution to that problem yet. The subject doesn't come up very often, so I've not thought about problems like this nearly as much as other things.



Yet!

Science is a fun tool that way - IVF currently is used for treating infertility problems. However, the process itself is a perfect starting point for genetic selection and genetic manipulation, because the actually invasive process (implantation) happens after the selection, rather than prior to the selection (as would be the case with selective abortions).

So bringing up IVF gets down to the moral conundrum of genetic selection/manipulation by allowing for a process that itself isn't immoral (unless you're an extremist who thinks there's a magical spirit that is conjured up the instant any sperm and egg form a zygote.



I think this was corrected, but no. They form the zygote in a lab, and can do some genetic testing on the created zygote long before implantation, so selection and manipulation is certainly possible.



Not even close. Developmental biology is a hugely complex field, and there is absolutely no "guarantee" than any particular combination of genes will get you any specific trait or sets of traits. The most it will do is increase the likelihood of certain traits developing, which can just as easily be done by much more traditional parenting techniques such as food choice selection (feed your baby significantly more beef than other meats, and I guarantee that will have some sort of effect on how their personality and any number of other traits develop; it's just highly unethical to design scientific experiments which have proper controls to determine what actions have what effects down the road, so it's all a bit of a crapshoot. Genetics is like that, too.

They can screen the zygote for genetic abnormality, but they do not screen for the probability of desired characteristics in the potential child such as eye color, hair color, intelligence potential, etc. And sex is not an issue, either.

Could they dispose of all zygotes determined to be likely to produce a certain sex? Sure. Is it routinely done? No.