Originally posted by Soleran
Wow, weird
I don't think it's weird, if you know your child has a genetic disease, you should research that disease, and make a decision, decide what is best for both you and the baby. For me, it would probably be abortion, depending on the problem/s the baby suffered from.
Originally posted by Nichole
I don't think it's weird, if you know your child has a genetic disease, you should research that disease, and make a decision, decide what is best for both you and the baby. For me, it would probably be abortion, depending on the problem/s the baby suffered from.
Oh that's interesting but why are you make a descision for the baby, did it have a say in the matter anyway?
Originally posted by Soleran
Oh that's interesting but why are you make a descision for the baby, did it have a say in the matter anyway?
well seeing as at the time it was probably incapable of producing more than one type of cell, probably not.the baby wouldn't be capable of having thoughts. what a stupid thing to say.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
That's getting a bit hysterical, somewhat slippery slope fallacious.In IVF, preimplantation screening is often used in cases where the progenitor has or has family history of genetic illness, such as Huntington's.
Yes..its overdramatizing...but where do you draw the line between securing a good life for your child and picking the child you want?
What if your child will have an IQ of 75? What if they wont be athletic, or are prone to obesity?
Sure its easy to say that if your child will die in two years, you'd rather have it die before consciousness. But, not everyone can have a perfect child, and people with disabilities are good people. THe median age of people with CF is somtehing like 36 years? People with downsyndrome can also live quite a while.
Its not hard to push the boundries from one thing (say CF) to another (intelligence, early alzheimers, diabetes).
Genitic counsling can be very good, helping you to prepare for what diseases your child might be prone too. But you cant just abort, abort, abort becuase the child isn't just the way you'd like it.
Originally posted by AllianceI doubt the people who opt for an abortion due to CVS revealing Down's do so frivolously or that those who after preimplantation screening use embryo's lacking the dominant Huntington allele do so due to callousness and vanity.
Yes..its overdramatizing...but where do you draw the line between securing a good life for your child and picking the child you want?What if your child will have an IQ of 75? What if they wont be athletic, or are prone to obesity?
Sure its easy to say that if your child will die in two years, you'd rather have it die before consciousness. But, not everyone can have a perfect child, and people with disabilities are good people. THe median age of people with CF is somtehing like 36 years? People with downsyndrome can also live quite a while.
Its not hard to push the boundries from one thing (say CF) to another (intelligence, early alzheimers, diabetes).
Genitic counsling can be very good, helping you to prepare for what diseases your child might be prone too. But you cant just abort, abort, abort becuase the child isn't just the way you'd like it.
The current prenatal tests deal predominantly with 'simple' genetic disorders more readily detectable by cytogenetics.
For one thing the complexity of the other factors you named, from intelligence to physicality to idiopathic neurological disorders, and our limited understanding of them serves as a barrier to any such testing. For another it assumes that should such testing become available people would actually undergo it.
There is no slippery slope. It does not logically follow that in testing for genetic disorders, a consequence is the eventual testing for genetic variable traits. This isn't Gattaca.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
The current prenatal tests deal predominantly with 'simple' genetic disorders more readily detectable by cytogenetics.
And many of those disorders have treatments. And many of those children will have lifespans well into their late 30's. I'm sure thier lifespans will increase dramatically as more research is done.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
For one thing the complexity of the other factors you named, from intelligence to physicality to idiopathic neurological disorders, and our limited understanding of them serves as a barrier to any such testing. For another it assumes that should such testing become available people would actually undergo it.
Just because there aren't tests now, its not relevant? I dont think so. You are nieve to dismiss such prosepects. Designer babies have been ethical issues in American culture for well over 50 years.
Its a serious issue. Where do you draw the line? And ignorance does not make the need for a line to go away.
Originally posted by AllianceMany of these disorders have treatments which are in essence palliative care. Which disorders are you referring to?
And many of those disorders have treatments. And many of those children will have lifespans well into their late 30's. I'm sure thier lifespans will increase dramatically as more research is done.
Someone with Cystic Fibrosis has an expected lifespan of around 35 years. Someone with Down's Syndrome has an expectancy of around 50. Someone with Huntington's can live a relatively long life and not manifest symptoms until they're around 50.
These people whence born can lead fulfilling lives, despite the debilitating effects and complications of these illnesses, true.
But let's not confuse things; at the stage we are referring to these are not children, they are a zygote, blastula, morula, or foetus.
I have no qualms with someone who tests positive for Huntington's using IVF and preimplantation screening to detect against Huntington's. I have no qualms with a couple in their 40s opting for an abortion after CVS or amniocentesis reveals the foetus has a trisomy 21. These are not my decisions to make, nor my place to judge.
Originally posted by AllianceI didn't say it wasn't relevant, I said that a barrier exists preventing it. Although on the relevance, an ethical debate over the use of genetic screening methods to detect against polygenic traits is premature when the means to do so are not in the immediate foreseeable future.
Just because there aren't tests now, its not relevant? I dont think so. You are nieve to dismiss such prosepects. Designer babies have been ethical issues in American culture for well over 50 years.Its a serious issue. Where do you draw the line? And ignorance does not make the need for a line to go away.
I am being naive. While to be sophisticated and worldly one must engage in prophetic doom-mongering of a slippery slope to the Third Reich. The current use of cytogenetic screening techniques for illnesses, and the potential for parents to opt not to carry these foetuses to term upon the results of these tests; does not imply the development of such screening techniques to be used on polygenic variable traits, nor does it imply that such screening techniques should they exist would be legal, nor does it imply should they be legal that they would be unregulated, nor does it imply should these techniques be readily available in an unregulated fashion that they would be utilised widespread by the public.
The ethical issues of solely the American culture for the past 5 decades are not my concern - this is not an "American issue". The ethics of the scientific community as a whole are robust, and the capacity of the community for self-regulation is inherent.
To whom are you referring as ignorant?
I'm not going to draw some arbitrary line, I'm not a legislator nor a medical practitioner nor a carrier or sufferer of the debilitating disorders one may not wish upon their own children.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
If it's to do with diseases, then I'm not going to pretend I'm in a position to judge. He was going to die of a congenital heart defect if I recall correctly in Gattaca.
I meant generally....why not get the children you want. I mean we don't force everyone to play Russian Roulette either.
Originally posted by Rapscallion
It's Holmes.Brilliant watson.
What son are you talking about now?
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
He had a limited life expectancy if I recall. He outlived it though? Can't remember. Uma is cool.
Yeah, he outlived his life expectancy, which means he most likely died on that spaceship and put everyone at risk...
Movie is freaking sweet though.
Originally posted by Bardock42I think most people would be relatively happy to simply have healthy children.
I meant generally....why not get the children you want. I mean we don't force everyone to play Russian Roulette either.
Originally posted by Bardock42Twas. Then I'd prolly even go see romcoms like that crap recent movie for Uma. She's not really attractive in the classical sense... but she's strangely appealing.
Yeah, he outlived his life expectancy, which means he most likely died on that spaceship and put everyone at risk...Movie is freaking sweet though.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Twas. Then I'd prolly even go see romcoms like that crap recent movie for Uma. She's not really attractive in the classical sense... but she's strangely appealing.
I kinda feel that about her in alot of movies though. Her and Hawke (The but from Gattaca) are no longer together now either! 😱
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
I think most people would be relatively happy to simply have healthy children.
Twas. Then I'd prolly even go see romcoms like that crap recent movie for Uma. She's not really attractive in the classical sense... but she's strangely appealing.
Nowadays, but if you can have the possibility to have smart children, that look like you want them to look...what would be wrong about that...WHAT?
I have to say I don't dig Uma Thurman much...she is a decent actress...but well...to be honest skill is not all I am looking for in actresses...I'm shallow as that.