|
duck monster posted:The thing is though. My friend wouldn't exchange her daughter for the world. this is just how people are. the hypothetical woman who did not keep the kid and then had a different kid later without problems being asked "do you want to go back in time and trade this kid for the first one" would also say no
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2021 09:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 6, 2024 19:45 |
|
|
duck monster posted:I'm not suggesting that. I'm not talking at the level of individual choice here other than to relate an annecdote. I'm talking as a society that the decision to abort becomes less complicated if women are guaranteed that they wont have to raise the child in miserable poverty. I am vehemently opposed to taking away a womans choice to chose. Sorry it it came across that way but I know what you are saying and I know you arent meaning to say anything like taking away right to choose etc. I’m just saying the argument can feel out of left field. A: if my child was diagnosed as having X then I would want to terminate as it would be a struggle B: have you considered that society should help so it isn’t as much of a struggle? This is kind of what I’m getting at. I know it may not be intentional but mixing in some of the posts about this being “eugenics” (which is obviously a stupid, bad take but hey people will get stupid about this stuff) and it can accidentally come across as a bit patronising for people. Just to make it clear I 100% know from your previous posting this isn’t what you are getting at though so ✌️
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2021 10:27
|
|
|
teacup posted:Sorry it it came across that way but I know what you are saying and I know you arent meaning to say anything like taking away right to choose etc. I’m just saying the argument can feel out of left field. People are talking a lot about how society should help more with the care of the disabled, which is definitely true, but for the parents there's still a huge opportunity cost to raising a severely disabled kid vs a mostly healthy one, even with social support. Obviously bad things can always happen, but I think most parents have kids hoping those kids will grow up to become independent and have kids of their own etc. With something like Downs syndrome you know that's not going to happen from the beginning. Also in the context of increased social support, can you call yourself a responsible citizen if you knowingly bring into the world a child you know you can't care for, and that will require an exceptional amount of societal resources and never be able to live independently?
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2021 17:04
|
|
|
Pick posted:To be honest, I think it's kind of bizarre people even want to ban providing sex-selection services. Sure, it sucks when one gender is preferred or prioritized, but forcing people to gamble on having a child they know that they want less doesn't sound great for the child either. You can't mandate loving a child. I think discriminating for sex selection crosses the line into eugenics. You can't even make a utility or care argument, its purely aesthetics. If a parent is abusive towards a child because of prejudice against a gender, then they should be prosecuted.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2021 17:44
|
|
|
It's no more eugenics than the fact that people (generally) choose who they reproduce with. The idea that you have some notion of your preferred outcome is baked in.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2021 17:46
|
|
|
Pick posted:It's no more eugenics than the fact that people (generally) choose who they reproduce with. The idea that you have some notion of your preferred outcome is baked in. This doesn't pass the smell test for me. Randomization factors including gene selection, and by extension sex selection, are an absolute fundamental part of our evolved mechanisms to preserve genetic diversity, promote mutations, and maintain stable populations. Anything that subverts that process is Eugenics by definition, no matter how you look at it. You can argue that decisions that select against individuals who would not have been part of the gene pool anyways is not eugenics, but anything else certainly qualifies, for me at least.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2021 17:55
|
|
|
Aramis posted:This doesn't pass the smell test for me. That is essentially my thoughts. Not to mention, you see significant social issues in test cases like China. The after-effects of the One Child policy and the common occurrence of female abortions, has created a generation of stunted manchildren. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_emperor_syndrome
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2021 17:59
|
|
|
Aramis posted:This doesn't pass the smell test for me. Again, now you've drawn a line that suggests anything other than random sperm allocation is suspect.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2021 18:01
|
|
|
Pick posted:Again, now you've drawn a line that suggests anything other than random sperm allocation is suspect. No. I'm drawing a line between processes that are fundamentally randomized at the biochemistry level, and processes over which we've had agency over throughout the evolution process. There is room for a reproductive system that has both random components and conscious decisions-based parts. I'm arguing that sex selection is unequivocally in the first category. edit: randomized is not the technically correct term here, I'm aware of this. But that's completely beside the point. Aramis fucked around with this message at 18:11 on Jan 19, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2021 18:04
|
|
|
As soon as humanity realized how sexual reproduction works, that distinction arose.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2021 18:11
|
|
|
Here's a concrete example of why the distinction is important: You can select a partner with big burly muscles to increase the odds that your offsprings will have big burly muscles as well. However, it's important from a genetic diversity standpoint and from a continued evolution standpoint that this selection does not guarantee that your offsprings will necessarily inherit the trait. There are biochemistry processes at play here that have been tuned so that the trait-passing odds are juuuust right to maintain population health. Messing with these low-level processes or intentionally messing with the distribution of trait selection for a large swath of the population is Eugenics. There is nothing special about the sex trait that excludes it from that process. Aramis fucked around with this message at 18:21 on Jan 19, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2021 18:18
|
|
|
The right of people to manage the resource of their own body is absolute. The issue is how to ensure that people have the full range of moral choices available, and determining what constitutes a moral basis for decision-making and helping to communicate it. Conversely, it is eugenics to insist that the population cannot have information to make their own choices, in the interests of logic like "Randomization factors including gene selection, and by extension sex selection, are an absolute fundamental part of our evolved mechanisms to preserve genetic diversity, promote mutations, and maintain stable populations."
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2021 18:21
|
|
|
This a personal issue for me. My little sister is severly mentally handicapped due to a extremely rare random mutation plus she is also severly autistic. Forever 1, years old in adult body, always making loud high pitched noises. Riven with seizures that almost killed her many times when i was growing up. My family lives in a corner of the world that offers a substantial aid to families with special needs children. It was never enough, but much more then we would have gotten anywhere else in the world. The state probably spent something like 2 million USD every year to help us cope, on top of regular welfare services. So in a very real way we were actually quite Lucky. But it was still a complete nigthmare and it destroyed us as a family. My father could not cope and he became nasty and abusive. Later my parentes got divorce. He has always done as little as possible for my sister. My mother had several physcotic breakdowns from the extreme stress she was living under. My elder siblings left home very young as it had become impossible to continue to exist under the same roof. We were living in a pressure cooker. My older siblings have had their own problem with addiction and abusive partners but are doing ok now. My childhood ended when i was 5 and my Sister was born. I have almost no memories from before i was 14, but those i have failed to repress are painful. I left to live with my father after the divorce, tough my mother begge to stay and help. But god help me i could not endure another day, i would have killed myself had i been forced to stay. I was basically used as free labor and otherwise neglected, all our energy had to go to my sister. Today i am a nervous depressed wreck of a person who will never get over my childhood. At least i wont have to worry about starting a family lol. I have seen many families with children like my Sister that coped better, and a few that were actually worse. I have worked as a caregiver in a living facility that had adults with downs who lived up to the stereotype of almost always happy and carefree. So i know that there is another side to this, and that it does not have to be so bad for the child or for the family. But what i lived through was the nigthmare version, not the happy tv-friendly version and ours was hardly the only family to fall apart like that. My banal observation is that society should do everything possible to help special needs children. But also that all women have the rigth to know every potensial health risk facing their fetus should it be carried to term, be it downs or what ever. A rigth to choose is worthless unless its the rigth to make a informed choice. If that means children are no longer born with certain syndromes that may be regrettable but to deny the mother information under the guise of so called humanism is cruel. It is really no different from the maniacs who tell abuse at women visiting abortion clinics. I see it all the time from Christian orgs in my country (they never suceed but they never stop trying either) trying to restrict abortion. They pretend to care about the mentally handicapped and preventing eugenics, but these are just weapons they use in their anti-women agenda. I spit on them and their false compassion.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2021 18:44
|
|
|
Pick posted:The right of people to manage the resource of their own body is absolute. Well, if you are going to argue that designer babies are a fundamental individual right against which long-term social consequences cannot be considered, regardless of how much social harm it would cause, then there's very little to say beyond: I disagree. Edit To clarify: My position is that it's important that people don't have ALL the information and choice, not that they don't have any information at all. I interpret you objecting to this as advocating that every single possible piece of information and choice be available, hence me equating your position to designer babies. Aramis fucked around with this message at 19:09 on Jan 19, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2021 18:54
|
|
|
Pick posted:The right of people to manage the resource of their own body is absolute. Pick posted:Conversely, it is eugenics to insist that the population cannot have information to make their own choices Famethrowa posted:The after-effects of the One Child policy and the common occurrence of female abortions, has created a generation of stunted manchildren.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2021 19:02
|
|
|
As a parent, I have 4 children and every one of them was screened using the same blood test that is described in the above articles and there were no abnormalities. When my first child was born the test was not generally available but I paid for it. My wife and I told ourselves, when we did discuss these issues, that the testing was "just to know" and that we were not going to terminate the pregnancy no matter the issue. I don't know if this was true or not. Of course, we were not pressed with the reality of an abnormal test so... Given the issues we have with 4 "genetically normal" children, I cannot imagine what parents who are raising children with chronic disease or Downs go through on a day to day basis. I have some I idea as I see a cystic fibrosis clinic once every month (adults) and the amount of care that goes into children with this disease is immense. There are many only children with CF. I imagine all parents do what must be done and try their best to raise their children safely and happily. I would say that having met many children and people with Down's syndrome in particular, that they are the kindest and most sweetly genuine people on this earth. I would also say that, not that it is my place to judge or assign value, they are a net positive to society despite the many medical issues which inevitably occur during their lives, as they absolutely wonderful to be around and bring joy and happiness to those around them. The smile from a person with Down's syndrome is one of the few things that can crack my black cynical heart. I would encourage anyone and everyone to spend time and develop a friendship with a child or adult with down's syndrome. There is a lot about human behavior that "genetically normal" humans could learn from people with down syndrome. As a physician, the saddest day of my professional life was the day that a patient I was caring for with Down's syndrome died. She had been under my care previously for pneumonia and unfortunately needed to have a tracheostomy placed. Despite this, every day I went to her room to speak with her was a complete joy, she loved her family and they her and she always had interesting things to say. She was a talented artist and drew wonderful pictures of those people in her orbit. Her mother said proudly that raising her was the privilege and joy of her life. She needed to be discharged to a rehab facility after a long ICU stay. While she was there she became unhooked from the ventilator, was unable to figure out how to reconnect, and had a cardiac arrest that left her brain dead. Her family brought her back to the hospital and after we determined that she was in fact brain dead, she was transitioned to comfort care and died with her family holding her hand and singing. Afterwards I went in a closet and ugly cried for about 30 minutes, which I have never done before or since. Even today, many years later, thinking about that day makes me tear up. It isn't our place to put value on a human life, and economic variables are a very crude measure of humanity and individuals value to society. People who are looking for that "one perfect" child are likely to be disappointed but caring for people with disability or chronic illness is no joke.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2021 19:23
|
|
|
Aramis posted:Well, if you are going to argue that designer babies are a fundamental individual right against which long-term social consequences cannot be considered, regardless of how much social harm it would cause, then there's very little to say beyond: I disagree. I feel like this argument isn't entirely distinguishable from evangelicals (or is similar with extra science sounding steps) who argued that allowing abortion would also likewise lead to nebulous "social consequences". The idea that there must be some amount of randomization feels like an appeal to nature argument. I think it should be kept in mind that we don't know what those long term consequences are, the science hasn't be conducted yet to know what they would be. Putting aside that the technology for "designer babies" and its subsequent commercialization is also probably inevitable, capitalism is not going to let a means of profit go unexploited.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2021 19:29
|
|
|
Aramis posted:There are biochemistry processes at play here that have been tuned so that the trait-passing odds are juuuust right to maintain population health. Wait, isn't controlling who can and can't have abortions in an effort to "maintain population health" just eugenics again but different this time?
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2021 19:36
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:I feel like this argument isn't entirely distinguishable from evangelicals (or is similar with extra science sounding steps) who argued that allowing abortion would also likewise lead to nebulous "social consequences". The idea that there must be some amount of randomization feels like an appeal to nature argument. You are quoting my interpretation of OP's position that social consequences don't factor in. There is nothing nebulous about the risks associated with reduced genetic diversity, the consequences of which is a well-trodden and still active field of study.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2021 19:59
|
|
|
Aramis posted:You are quoting my interpretation of OP's position that social consequences don't factor in. There is nothing nebulous about the risks associated with reduced genetic diversity, the consequences of which is a well-trodden and still active field of study. I think the assumption here, that it would lead to reduced genetic diversity, is what's nebulous. In a hypothetical future universe where some people are like, "I want my daughter to have cat ears" (cough Elon Musk) and someone else is like "I want my son to have purple hair" I would be surprised if this meant less instead of more genetic diversity.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2021 21:58
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:I think the assumption here, that it would lead to reduced genetic diversity, is what's nebulous. In a hypothetical future universe where some people are like, "I want my daughter to have cat ears" (cough Elon Musk) and someone else is like "I want my son to have purple hair" I would be surprised if this meant less instead of more genetic diversity.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2021 23:31
|
|
|
Cefte posted:You may well live to be surprised - the model for widespread availability of genetic intervention is growing in a soil near you, and the infinitesimal diversity added by people trying to make a true blue rose is drowned in a sea of patented monocultures. I may be, I'm not ruling it out, but I feel like this is a problem that as described very well probably has a technical solution, versus the bioethics issues that require more societal consensus.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2021 23:45
|
|
|
I just caught this thread and looked but didn't see it: has anyone discussed James Rachels' On Active and Passive Euthanasia"? I ask because part of its thesis is explicitly on how children with Down Syndrome were euthanised post-birth in a way that was viewed as "acceptable" by refusing to fix a simple stomach issue and putting the infants on basuc care until they withered away and died. This was practiced for decades and I'm still not sure whether it still is.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2021 23:51
|
|
|
One thing I've been struggling to express properly reading some of these posts has really been bothering me, and I've realized that I'm not going to get it perfect, and I don't think anyone here has meant any ill will, but I feel like I have to say it: disabled people are not a tool for you to learn what love is, or something to be fawned over as wonderful, innocent creatures here to remind us all of how lucky we are. "They" are not "they", disabled people are "we" because disabled people's lives have value not because of any differences, but because of a shared humanity. I think if you're going to bring someone into this world knowing, without a doubt, they're going to have a profound disability and possibly a shorter life -- a mortality they will have to grapple with because they are fundamentally human, a resentment of that which they cannot do -- because it might be a growth experience for you personally, that's kind of hosed up. There is more than enough suffering in this world. People are born with disabilities that can't be screened for, people become disabled due to random events, children get terminal cancers. If you want an inspirational story and a good cry, find it elsewhere than knowingly bringing a severely disabled child into this world, and if you want something pure and innocent, go adopt a dog.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2021 03:30
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:I think the assumption here, that it would lead to reduced genetic diversity, is what's nebulous. In a hypothetical future universe where some people are like, "I want my daughter to have cat ears" (cough Elon Musk) and someone else is like "I want my son to have purple hair" I would be surprised if this meant less instead of more genetic diversity. Raenir Salazar posted:I may be, I'm not ruling it out, but I feel like this is a problem that as described very well probably has a technical solution, versus the bioethics issues that require more societal consensus.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2021 10:57
|
|
|
I feel like having anxiety that genetic testing to screen out Down syndrome will be a slippery slope to Elon musk making everyone cat girls and that somehow causing the extinction of vital dumpy potato people is a little out there
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2021 12:06
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:If you're in the process of paying for purple hair, what do you think the likelihood is of you not already having paid for your child to otherwise fit the beauty ideals of the society you live in? Elon Musk probably doesn't want a dumpy-looking sack of potatoes with cat ears for a daughter, he wants a sexy-cute catgirl like in his Japanese animes. Anime is probably a pretty good model for this; everyone looks the same except for hair/eye color. you just described a significant portion of the plot of gundam seed
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2021 12:13
|
|
|
Lid posted:I just caught this thread and looked but didn't see it: has anyone discussed James Rachels' On Active and Passive Euthanasia"? I ask because part of its thesis is explicitly on how children with Down Syndrome were euthanised post-birth in a way that was viewed as "acceptable" by refusing to fix a simple stomach issue and putting the infants on basuc care until they withered away and died. This was practiced for decades and I'm still not sure whether it still is. Interesting essay, but I think he misses something. In plain black and white, passive vs. active euthanasia have the same motives and outcome, so they are identical. The process he's describing doesn't read as passive, though; it's plausible deniability; enough of a smokescreen to override normal taboos. Someone who let an otherwise healthy Downs child die of neglect would be just as guilty as someone who administered the needle. The bowel condition almost seems like an excuse in that case. And now I have an idea for a scene in a very dark comedy where a mother, smiling, lays her newborn to rest on their belly.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2021 17:27
|
|
|
I don't see a problem with parents making their kids healthier, attractive and smarter is iffier but could potentially be handled fine, but taller could easily turn into an absurd arms race of progressively taller generations, where a hundred years from now everyone is basically a giant by today's standards.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2021 17:31
|
|
|
Japanese average height went up by over 4 inches in 4 generations, although it's still below global average. Taller people (or at least men) are perceived as having greater authority, so there would be some advantage up until the point where you get musculoskeletal problems. The problem (a problem) with pre-emptive genetic screening/engineering (designer genes?) is that it separates the "haves" from the "have-nots." We have enough reasons to discriminate against each other; we don't need to add DNA to that mix.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2021 19:01
|
|
|
Cicero posted:I don't see a problem with parents making their kids healthier, attractive and smarter is iffier but could potentially be handled fine, but taller could easily turn into an absurd arms race of progressively taller generations, where a hundred years from now everyone is basically a giant by today's standards.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2021 19:05
|
|
|
Cobalt-60 posted:The problem (a problem) with pre-emptive genetic screening/engineering (designer genes?) is that it separates the "haves" from the "have-nots." We have enough reasons to discriminate against each other; we don't need to add DNA to that mix. Cefte posted:There's a physical limit for bipeds with legs articulated like humans, after which tripping gives you enough angular momentum to fracture your cervical spine.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2021 19:19
|
|
|
Cobalt-60 posted:Japanese average height went up by over 4 inches in 4 generations, although it's still below global average. Taller people (or at least men) are perceived as having greater authority, so there would be some advantage up until the point where you get musculoskeletal problems. Anyway, you're not wrong about us basically being giants compared to previous generations. It's probably less apparent in the US, but you can definitely feel it moving around in oldish farm houses in Europe. Cefte posted:There's a physical limit for bipeds with legs articulated like humans, after which tripping gives you enough angular momentum to fracture your cervical spine. Cicero posted:I think it's pretty inevitable. Even if your nation decides maybe it's not a great idea and outlaws it, how long will those principles last when people see other, rival countries making all their kids into geniuses or whatever? Probably the best route is just making sure that it's reasonably equitable in terms of access. I guess this is slightly diverging from the topic of the thread, but I kinda feel like that's illustrative too. The question of "Will we allow people to design for traits?" is one which is brought up as a battleground on this topic, but how often is the question of designing against traits? If the former is largely what's being discussed, hasn't the line in the sand already moved well past any kind of limit on trying to prevent various "handicaps/genetic diseases" from manifesting themselves? As if the consensus was that that was a given, the question is whether we should go beyond that and try to build better, rather than merely "fix".
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2021 22:07
|
|
|
Also, if you make it illegal, actually rich people will get it done for their embryos in another country, and then are you gonna put the parents in prison for it when they come back? The optics for that, at least for clearly beneficial modifications, would be absolutely terrible, if it's even legally feasible (I have no idea how that kind of law works).
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2021 22:27
|
|
|
Medical treatments in general are expensive and not available to everyone but it always seems like the idea all genetic treatment will be only for the ultra rich is just because it's like that in movies. The thing this thread was about is genetic screening for down syndrome, the article was about a country making the test available to every single pregnant woman. There isn't a rule that every single genetic test or screening or treatment is ultra expensive and exclusive except that it's worked like that in movies because it makes good stories.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2021 22:46
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Medical treatments in general are expensive and not available to everyone but it always seems like the idea all genetic treatment will be only for the ultra rich is just because it's like that in movies. But go off, Owlofcreamcheese, and tell us how everyone except you is getting their ideas from movies, I haven't had my fill of irony for today.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2021 23:16
|
|
|
Cefte posted:No, some people are extrapolating the current legislative environment around designer babies and factoring in the current efficacy of legislative penalties around the ultra-rich. The test itself apparently costs about 150 dollars to preform. There is a literary trope about worlds like gattaca and brave new world, but there is nothing actual about genetic screening that costs prohibitively much.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2021 23:30
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:The test itself apparently costs about 150 dollars to preform. Yet. Remember that the only exceptional thing about Martin Shikreli is that he said the quiet part loud.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2021 23:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 6, 2024 19:45 |
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:The test itself apparently costs about 150 dollars to preform. To double down on ridiculing your attempt to police what the thread is allowed to discuss, here's the first article: quote:For those with the money, the possibilities of genetic selection are expanding. The leading edge is preimplantation genetic testing (PGT) of embryos created through in vitro fertilization, which altogether can cost tens of thousands of dollars. Labs now offer testing for a menu of genetic conditions—most of them rare and severe conditions such as Tay-Sachs disease, cystic fibrosis, and phenylketonuria—allowing parents to select healthy embryos for implantation in the womb. Scientists have also started trying to understand more common conditions that are influenced by hundreds or even thousands of genes: diabetes, heart disease, high cholesterol, cancer, and—much more controversially—mental illness and autism. In late 2018, Genomic Prediction, a company in New Jersey, began offering to screen embryos for risk of hundreds of conditions, including schizophrenia and intellectual disability, though it has since quietly backtracked on the latter. The one test customers keep asking for, the company’s chief scientific officer told me, is for autism. The science isn’t there yet, but the demand is. Putting aside your attempt to equivocate between gene editing and antenatal ultrasound, the actual conversation, about the intersection between legislative regulation and grey-market evasion of the same by those with sufficient social or financial capital, or, if you will, privi lege, you managed to both quote and completely ignore. Because it's not sterile techno-fetishism, is it?
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2021 00:02
|
|