Pre-natal testing for desirable babies

[jillio]

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

And just because we have developed the technology does not mean that we, ethically, should use it for certain things.

 

[StSapphire]

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

My argument is that such a technology effectively cannot exist. Such technology even being able to be conceivably created would disprove numerous different well-supported scientific theories of genetics.

However, coming back to reality, what's your opinion on actually possible, real technologies which can have similar implications? If you could screen an IVF zygote (which I'm obviously not saying that they do now, simply that it is possible with technology that actually exists) and select for, say, a 2-5% increase in the likelihood of deafness (which is what scale the factors would be being selected on), a 10-15% increase in the likelihood of developing cancer, or a 30-40% increase in the likelihood of developing green eyes, would you have an issue with that? What about if they were all decreases?

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

Then it would disprove the current theories of genetics. Which, while technically possible, seems unlikely since the science of genetics has many years of research and studies supporting their theories, whereas your imagined scenario has an overactive imagination supporting it.

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.

Right, I'm not saying they do. I'm saying, with the current technology we have, they could. And if they could, why would that be an issue. My main thought is that it would imply that for natural occurrences such as cancer, deafness and green-eyed-ness, any trait could conceivably be "blamed" on the parents. The flaw with that reasoning is that any of those traits which have any sort of genetic component are already the "fault" of the parents, they basically just get to currently claim "oops, sorry, didn't know any better".

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

Yeah, but nobody's talking about now, we're talking about a potential near future when they could.

 

[jillio]

My argument is that such a technology effectively cannot exist. Such technology even being able to be conceivably created would disprove numerous different well-supported scientific theories of genetics.

However, coming back to reality, what's your opinion on actually possible, real technologies which can have similar implications? If you could screen an IVF zygote (which I'm obviously not saying that they do now, simply that it is possible with technology that actually exists) and select for, say, a 2-5% increase in the likelihood of deafness (which is what scale the factors would be being selected on), a 10-15% increase in the likelihood of developing cancer, or a 30-40% increase in the likelihood of developing green eyes, would you have an issue with that? What about if they were all decreases?


Then it would disprove the current theories of genetics. Which, while technically possible, seems unlikely since the science of genetics has many years of research and studies supporting their theories, whereas your imagined scenario has an overactive imagination supporting it.



Right, I'm not saying they do. I'm saying, with the current technology we have, they could. And if they could, why would that be an issue. My main thought is that it would imply that for natural occurrences such as cancer, deafness and green-eyed-ness, any trait could conceivably be "blamed" on the parents. The flaw with that reasoning is that any of those traits which have any sort of genetic component are already the "fault" of the parents, they basically just get to currently claim "oops, sorry, didn't know any better".



Yeah, but nobody's talking about now, we're talking about a potential near future when they could.

Just because they could doesn't mean that, ethically, they should. There are many things that could be done that are not done because they are not ethical and medical professionals have an ethical code to abide by.

 

[Beowulf]

My argument is that such a technology effectively cannot exist. Such technology even being able to be conceivably created would disprove numerous different well-supported scientific theories of genetics.

So man will never fly? Wait, we did and still do!


Then it would disprove the current theories of genetics. Which, while technically possible, seems unlikely since the science of genetics has many years of research and studies supporting their theories, whereas your imagined scenario has an overactive imagination supporting it.

So man will never fly beyond the galaxy? Wait, we already did!
.

.

 

[StSapphire]

Just because they could doesn't mean that, ethically, they should. There are many things that could be done that are not done because they are not ethical and medical professionals have an ethical code to abide by.

Why shouldn't they, though?

It's not unethical to choose healthy food (or food that you happen to like) to feed your child, or any number of other postnatal choices that can strongly affect how the child develops.

 

[jillio]

Why shouldn't they, though?

It's not unethical to choose healthy food (or food that you happen to like) to feed your child, or any number of other postnatal choices that can strongly affect how the child develops.

I will refer you to the AMA's code of ethics. That should explain it all sufficiently.

 

[StSapphire]

So man will never fly? Wait, we did and still do!

That (obviously) doesn't violate the laws of physics, nor did they violate the known laws of physics at the time.

So man will never fly beyond the galaxy? Wait, we already did!

We did? Again, doing that doesn't violate any of the known laws of physics, though I wasn't aware of any objects that have left our galaxy. (I'm not even certain we've gotten anything out of our solar system.)

 

[Beowulf]

That (obviously) doesn't violate the laws of physics, nor did they violate the known laws of physics at the time.



We did? Again, doing that doesn't violate any of the known laws of physics, though I wasn't aware of any objects that have left our galaxy. (I'm not even certain we've gotten anything out of our solar system.)

Bingo. It took imagination.

 

[kokonut]

That (obviously) doesn't violate the laws of physics, nor did they violate the known laws of physics at the time.

We did? Again, doing that doesn't violate any of the known laws of physics, though I wasn't aware of any objects that have left our galaxy. (I'm not even certain we've gotten anything out of our solar system.)

The only footprints we left was established over 100 years ago with the invention of the radio. Our radio signals is out there still moving forward. It still has a few million years to go till reach outside of our own galaxy. Not exactly an object but certainly footprints.

 

[Reba]

So man will never fly beyond the galaxy? Wait, we already did!

Did I miss something?

 

[StSapphire]

Bingo. It took imagination.

Hah, yes, but there's a difference between imagination working within the parameters known as "reality" and imagination working outside of those parameters. One ends up with humans being able to fly. The other ends up with Harry Potter.

The only footprints we left was established over 100 years ago with the invention of the radio. Our radio signals is out there still moving forward. It still has a few million years to go till reach outside of our own galaxy. Not exactly an object but certainly footprints.

Ah, didn't think of that, I was thinking of actual objects. Even still, the galaxy is a big place. Maybe Beowulf meant Solar System?

 

[Beowulf]

Hah, yes, but there's a difference between imagination working within the parameters known as "reality" and imagination working outside of those parameters. One ends up with humans being able to fly. The other ends up with Harry Potter.



Ah, didn't think of that, I was thinking of actual objects. Even still, the galaxy is a big place. Maybe Beowulf meant Solar System?

Eh, the parameters you speak of sure limit what you can do. I have heard of societies that did "impossible" things until an outsider came in and told them that it couldn't be done, and then it stopped. Imagination coupled with belief is not so constricting, and who's to say that people like Harry Potter do not exist? For those who have the imagination, he does, and for those without, he doesn't. Guess who will see him?

 

[jillio]

Eh, the parameters you speak of sure limit what you can do. I have heard of societies that did "impossible" things until an outsider came in and told them that it couldn't be done, and then it stopped. Imagination coupled with belief is not so constricting, and who's to say that people like Harry Potter do not exist? For those who have the imagination, he does, and for those without, he doesn't. Guess who will see him?

Yeppers. Reality is subjective.

 

[kokonut]

Hah, yes, but there's a difference between imagination working within the parameters known as "reality" and imagination working outside of those parameters. One ends up with humans being able to fly. The other ends up with Harry Potter.

Ah, didn't think of that, I was thinking of actual objects. Even still, the galaxy is a big place. Maybe Beowulf meant Solar System?

We have the Voyager probe that has already gone well beyond our solar system. It is still working, too, and in it's 33rd year of operation.
Voyager - The Interstellar Mission

 

[Jiro]

My argument is that such a technology effectively cannot exist. Such technology even being able to be conceivably created would disprove numerous different well-supported scientific theories of genetics.

However, coming back to reality, what's your opinion on actually possible, real technologies which can have similar implications? If you could screen an IVF zygote (which I'm obviously not saying that they do now, simply that it is possible with technology that actually exists) and select for, say, a 2-5% increase in the likelihood of deafness (which is what scale the factors would be being selected on), a 10-15% increase in the likelihood of developing cancer, or a 30-40% increase in the likelihood of developing green eyes, would you have an issue with that? What about if they were all decreases?



Then it would disprove the current theories of genetics. Which, while technically possible, seems unlikely since the science of genetics has many years of research and studies supporting their theories, whereas your imagined scenario has an overactive imagination supporting it.



Right, I'm not saying they do. I'm saying, with the current technology we have, they could. And if they could, why would that be an issue. My main thought is that it would imply that for natural occurrences such as cancer, deafness and green-eyed-ness, any trait could conceivably be "blamed" on the parents. The flaw with that reasoning is that any of those traits which have any sort of genetic component are already the "fault" of the parents, they basically just get to currently claim "oops, sorry, didn't know any better".



Yeah, but nobody's talking about now, we're talking about a potential near future when they could.

but.... IVF technology... it seems so sci-fi. Conceiving a child outside human body? Inconceivable! (no pun intended )

 

[StSapphire]

Eh, the parameters you speak of sure limit what you can do. I have heard of societies that did "impossible" things until an outsider came in and told them that it couldn't be done, and then it stopped. Imagination coupled with belief is not so constricting, and who's to say that people like Harry Potter do not exist? For those who have the imagination, he does, and for those without, he doesn't. Guess who will see him?

I'm sorry, but, what?

The parameters I'm listing limit what you can do because reality limits what you can do. I'm not limiting you to my imagination, I'm limiting you to "things that are real".

As for "who's to say that people like Harry Potter don't exist"... uh, science. Belief without evidence isn't "profound" or "deep" or anything else. It's simply gullibility. I'm not talking about "being able to imagine HP as existing", obviously almost anyone can do that. I'm talking about actually, in real life, existing.

However, the entire point of science is to be able to best model how reality actually is. If you could actually find and demonstrate science, then guess what? We'd realize some of the laws of science were, at best, slightly off, and at worse, absolutely wrong. And then we'd get to work on figuring out how it really works.

Yeppers. Reality is subjective.

No. It isn't. You're a damned doctor, you should know better. Reality itself is objective. Our understanding of it is imprecise, which is why you have things like the scientific method and the like. But the actual reality that drives our perceptions of reality is objective.

Repeat after me:

If the world contains magic,
I desire to believe that the world contains magic;
If the world does not contain magic,
I desire to believe that the world does not contain magic;
Let me not become attached to beliefs I may not want.

What is true is already so.
Owning up to it doesn't make it worse.
Not being open about it doesn't make it go away.
And because it's true, it is what is there to be interacted with.
Anything untrue isn't there to be lived.
People can stand what is true,
for they are already enduring it.

We have the Voyager probe that has already gone well beyond our solar system. It is still working, too, and in it's 33rd year of operation.
Voyager - The Interstellar Mission

Huh, I thought I'd read something saying that we'd lost contact with the Voyager crafts a while ago. Guess I was wrong, lol.

but.... IVF technology... it seems so sci-fi. Conceiving a child outside human body? Inconceivable! (no pun intended )

:roll: :sure:

My point isn't that it 100% absolutely could never happen. I already stated that our current knowledge of developmental biology could be wrong. However, arguing over hypotheticals that, at our current levels of knowledge are physically impossible, is stupid and pointless, especially when the subject at hand has an alternative version that is both possible and potentially able to even be in use today.