NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=391264&in_page_id=1770&ico=Homepage&icl=TabModule&icc=NEWS&ct=5

Looks like you can abort a baby that you think might be at risk for many diseases - autism, cystic fibrosis, etc.

We wouldn't want any handicapped or "challenged" children being born in our perfect world, would we?

The Daily Mail is overreacting, as usual. Just because they can screen for certain diseases doesn't mean that they will, and it certainly doesn't mean that all foetuses with genetic diseases will be aborted.

To add to that, I see no problem with allowing foetuses with genetic diseases to be aborted, as long as it is a decision taken by the mother. We already allow mothers to abort because pregancy poses a health risk to her, because she has been raped, or even because she just doesn't want a baby. Why on Earth should it be illegal to abort foetuses with genetic diseases simply because they have a genetic disease? To suggest such is ludicrous.

The same story, but from the BBC. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/5079802.stm)
(FYI the Daily Mail isn't the world's most reliable source of unbiased, factual information.)

I see no reason to dislike this technology; it's not like it affects any significant proportion of pregnancies. Even if it did? Meh.

Doesn't IVF involve the destruction of spare embryos anyway? If so, you might as well deliberately choose the best ones than leave it to chance.

Daily Mail as usual sees a stick and grabs the wrong end of it.

To many people it smacks of the type of Eugenic "cleansing" undertaken in Nazi Germany and the US prior to the devlopment of modern genetics.

There is also the slippery slope argument - what's allowed to day is compulsory tomorrow.

But I've seen a young cousin cough out her lungs to cystic fibrosis. I've seen a child so retarded as to be classified an uneducable vegetable. If we can prevent just those two horrors in the future, we should.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=391264&in_page_id=1770&ico=Homepage&icl=TabModule&icc=NEWS&ct=5

Looks like you can abort a baby that you think might be at risk for many diseases - autism, cystic fibrosis, etc.

We wouldn't want any handicapped or "challenged" children being born in our perfect world, would we?
you post this as if it were a BAD thing

what a great breakthrough it is for couples facing either childlessness or the 50/50 chance of having a baby with a terrible genetic disease.

do we really WANT to bring babies with cystic fibrosis into the world? this is IVF, what sense would it make to force parents to flip a coin in chosing which embryo to implant when they can rule out the ones with terrible genetic problems?

you post this as if it were a BAD thing

what a great breakthrough it is for couples facing either childlessness or the 50/50 chance of having a baby with a terrible genetic disease.

do we really WANT to bring babies with cystic fibrosis into the world? this is IVF, what sense would it make to force parents to flip a coin in chosing which embryo to implant when they can rule out the ones with terrible genetic problems?

I can't wait for the day when they can test you for other genetic potentials.

You know, like intelligence potential, sports potential, etc.

Then, if you want your kids to make it in the world, you'll pay money to give them a head start. You'll pay the 20,000 dollars for the selection, rather than take chances on having an "average" kid.

Of course, since the poor won't have the money to do this, they'll be relegated to a permanent underclass.

I can't wait for the day when they can test you for other genetic potentials.

You know, like intelligence potential, sports potential, etc.

Then, if you want your kids to make it in the world, you'll pay money to give them a head start. You'll pay the 20,000 dollars for the selection, rather than take chances on having an "average" kid.

Of course, since the poor won't have the money to do this, they'll be relegated to a permanent underclass.

That's one thing, and yes, that's a future I wouldn't care to be a part of. Sparing a child some 5 years of life or so of coughing their lungs up and being in constant pain, and their families the grief that is associated with it is another thing entirely.

I can't wait for the day when they can test you for other genetic potentials.

You know, like intelligence potential, sports potential, etc.

Then, if you want your kids to make it in the world, you'll pay money to give them a head start. You'll pay the 20,000 dollars for the selection, rather than take chances on having an "average" kid.

Of course, since the poor won't have the money to do this, they'll be relegated to a permanent underclass.My thoughts exactly. They'll take over from our immigrant class (It's a European phenomenon).

I can't wait for the day when they can test you for other genetic potentials.

You know, like intelligence potential, sports potential, etc.

Then, if you want your kids to make it in the world, you'll pay money to give them a head start. You'll pay the 20,000 dollars for the selection, rather than take chances on having an "average" kid.

Of course, since the poor won't have the money to do this, they'll be relegated to a permanent underclass.

Nix. That's the beauty of Genetic Engineering - unlike surgery, it obeys standard market rules. Including economies of scale.

Sure, for the first couple of years the rich will be the only ones able to afford it. But the cost will drop, drop, drop - until it's probably just a couple grand. Who wouldn't pay that much for a perfect baby?

That's one thing. Sparing a child some 5 years of life or so of coughing their lungs up and being in constant pain, and their families the grief that is associated with it is another thing entirely.
What about curing cystic fibrosis instead?

What about curing cystic fibrosis instead?

That'd be nice, but is it even possible?

Then, if you want your kids to make it in the world, you'll pay money to give them a head start. You'll pay the 20,000 dollars for the selection, rather than take chances on having an "average" kid.
Remember the NHS. That would pay for this treatment.

Besides, plenty of useless people wind up making their fortunes as a management consultant; many intelligent people wind up burned-out and destitute. Genetics ain't all.
Sadly, perhaps.

What about curing cystic fibrosis instead?

Nothing, but it probably isn't possible. The faulty gene that causes the buildup of mucus and fibres is bodywide - I seriously doubt it can be cured ex vivo.

That'd be nice, but is it even possible?
There are retroviral treatments here in the US that are showing promise.

Just because it's not curable now doesn't mean it will never be curable.

Nothing, but it probably isn't possible. The faulty gene that causes the buildup of mucus and fibres is bodywide - I seriously doubt it can be cured ex vivo.

That's what I thought...

Personally, no, I don't want any imperfections in the human race. Quite simply, we rose to pre-eminence through a continual process of survival of the fittest, and whilst its more violent excesses may be reprehensible in civilised society, eugenics, if used for the correct reasons, is not.

and whilst its more violent excesses may be reprehensible in civilised society, eugenics, if used for the correct reasons, is not.

And they call me a monster....

And they call me a monster....

No, they call you a right wing nutjob. I haven't seen anyone call you a monster yet. As for eugenics I fail to see a problem, it's controlled evolution. Why should we allow our species to stagnate simply because those with bad genes breed prolifically?

To see supposedly sensible people embrace the monstrosity of eugenics saddens me greatly. However that sadness is matched by my determination to never allow such an evil theory to gain influence in society.

To see supposedly sensible people embrace the monstrosity of eugenics saddens me greatly. However that sadness is matched by my determination to never allow such an evil theory to gain influence in society.
I know I'm going to get it for asking this, but:

What's wrong with eugenics anyway?
Surely reducing undesirable traits (like stupidity, as the Issue says, or more seriously nasty genetic diseases) nice and quietly, without having to go around killing people, is a good thing? So long as it's optional what's the problem?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=391264&in_page_id=1770&ico=Homepage&icl=TabModule&icc=NEWS&ct=5

Looks like you can abort a baby that you think might be at risk for many diseases - autism, cystic fibrosis, etc.

We wouldn't want any handicapped or "challenged" children being born in our perfect world, would we?
Ending inherited diseases would be a modern miracle.

And Compulsive Depression - I agree, but when people start on Eugenics, they have a tendency to go a bit far, sadly.

Anyway, I'm all for eliminating inherited diseases. That'd be lovely.

Looks like you can abort a baby that you think might be at risk for many diseases - autism, cystic fibrosis, etc.

We wouldn't want any handicapped or "challenged" children being born in our perfect world, would we?
Just three more generations, and we'll have the reactionary gene bred out, too.

:p

Ending inherited diseases would be a modern miracle.

And Compulsive Depression - I agree, but when people start on Eugenics, they have a tendency to go a bit far, sadly.

Anyway, I'm all for eliminating inherited diseases. That'd be lovely.

What's an inherited disease? Crooked teeth? Height more than one standard deviation below current average? Freckles? Prone to acne? Big feet? Knobby looking legs? Prone to obesity? Tone deaf?

Finally a cure for red hair and left handedness.

The thing is all the brainy people who met in silicon valley are spawning a load of Autistic and Asperger kids who aren't particularly 'fit' for anything except target practice.

Eugenics will be implemented by civil servants. Think about that for a moment.

The ideal human would be a hybrid with the computational abilities of the Chinaman and the Oxygen processing powers of a South American Andes indian. Don't leave much room left for whitey. Peru will rule the universe.

What's an inherited disease? Crooked teeth? Height more than one standard deviation below current average? Freckles? Prone to acne? Big feet? Knobby looking legs? Prone to obesity? Tone deaf?
An inherited disease is something like Cystic Fybrosis, Huntington's and some types of Asperger's which you can get simply by being born, which is rather unfortunate.

Why would I consider the other stuff an inherited disease?

What's an inherited disease? Crooked teeth? Height more than one standard deviation below current average? Freckles? Prone to acne? Big feet? Knobby looking legs? Prone to obesity? Tone deaf?

Up to the parents. But my opinion is that freckles doesn't prevent you living a successful life in society. Some awful conditions do prevent you living a good life where you're seccum to a life of pain and misery.

The hypothetical child doesn't exist yet so when you're born would you like to be paralized and ill 90% of your life or would you like to be healthy. If you really think we should keep the worst diseases humans have because its natural or the will of God than you're sick. Simple.

An inherited disease is something like Cystic Fybrosis, Huntington's and some types of Asperger's which you can get simply by being born, which is rather unfortunate.

Why would I consider the other stuff an inherited disease?
Because voters will want the state to pay for making their kids perfect.

Because voters will want the state to pay for making their kids perfect.

And you want kids with Cystic Fybrosis and Huntington's disease?
We live in a liberal enough society, voters won't take away people choice, and if they ever do thats when we complain.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=391264&in_page_id=1770&ico=Homepage&icl=TabModule&icc=NEWS&ct=5

Looks like you can abort a baby that you think might be at risk for many diseases - autism, cystic fibrosis, etc.

We wouldn't want any handicapped or "challenged" children being born in our perfect world, would we?
For things like cystic fibrosis, there is a fine line between a desire for obsessive perfection and consideration for life.

Genetic Disease babies should die off anyway, superpremies as well...If they can't be alive on their own, there is a genetic problem that we cannot allow to pass on.

The world is supposed to be perfect. Nature continually strives for perfection, although it actually cannot ever get perfection. There are always improvements to be made.

Because voters will want the state to pay for making their kids perfect.
The only way i could see that happening if there's some precedent for cosmetic eugenics happening on something like a large scale, say abroad and even then it's unlikely anyone would make it a platform. Otherwise people aren't going to vote to put further strain on the NHS budget for none life threatening diseases.

And they call me a monster....

What is wrong with the element of choice. How many parents want the burden of a handicapped child?

The only way i could see that happening if there's some precedent for cosmetic eugenics happening on something like a large scale, say abroad and even then it's unlikely anyone would make it a platform. Otherwise people aren't going to vote to put further strain on the NHS budget for none life threatening diseases.
If you found out that the rich people in the UK were traveling abroad to get designer babies that, odds on, would be more athletic and intelligent than anything you could produce by chance (on the average), would you want to have that "right" as well? Knowing that your children would be at an even more severe disadvantage than merely being less well off to start?

What's an inherited disease? Crooked teeth? Height more than one standard deviation below current average? Freckles? Prone to acne? Big feet? Knobby looking legs? Prone to obesity? Tone deaf?
Fragile X Syndrome, Lesch-Nyhan, neurofibromatosis and such would be genetic defects that I'd consider to be a reason for an abortion.

As long as the government makes sure its only used to stop genetic dieases, sure.

If you found out that the rich people in the UK were traveling abroad to get designer babies that, odds on, would be more athletic and intelligent than anything you could produce by chance (on the average), would you want to have that "right" as well? Knowing that your children would be at an even more severe disadvantage than merely being less well off to start?
Well you probably would, but where's the money going to come from? From the taxpayers pockets. And if the NHS is going to start giving these procedures as a matter of course, everyone is going to want one, and so in one stroke you've doubled, trebbled, quadrupled, whatever the cost of each baby born every year, because if people are getting free designer babies they're going to want the whole works, every single negative gene removed. And that would either drive up the taxes impossibly or destroy the NHS. No party is going to run with that.

What is wrong with the element of choice. How many parents want the burden of a handicapped child?
It's not just that. Handicap is really a light term for some of these illnesses. It isn't just a burden for the caregiver, it is also a problem for the person themselves.

I saw some people from the "handicapped" class at school that really shouldn't be alive, not because I am a horrible person or they don't deserve to live but because their malformities were so severe.

You can have an abortion for any reason or for no reason at all.

It's not just that. Handicap is really a light term for some of these illnesses. It isn't just a burden for the caregiver, it is also a problem for the person themselves.

I saw some people from the "handicapped" class at school that really shouldn't be alive, not because I am a horrible person or they don't deserve to live but because their malformities were so severe.
If they even reach the status of a person. Severe cases of Fragile X for example absolutely inhibit the development of the brain - one could say that those will never reach the ability to become a person.

If they even reach the status of a person. Severe cases of Fragile X for example absolutely inhibit the development of the brain - one could say that those will never reach the ability to become a person.
I'm using a person in a manner as a species. Because "human being" and "homosapien" while big and smart sounding, don't go well in the sentence.

This is just another tragic example of England hoping to some day recapture the World Cup in soccer. Sad really.

germans tried it in olympics before WW2... etiopians kicked their asses. Genetics is not all, training creates übersoldats not that :eek:
It must be worked on, cheapened and used as a standart to make new generations healthier, we must give them all we can because we already fucked up the planet.

You can have an abortion for any reason or for no reason at all.
Yes, you can, and I could care less who has an abortion.

What I feel will create a permanent underclass is intentional genetic design of humans.

Of course, since the poor won't have the money to do this, they'll be relegated to a permanent underclass.

That's something I have to admit I have been worried about occuring.

Though I have always wondered that if were to come about, what colour skin would the "overclass" have?

And you want kids with Cystic Fybrosis and Huntington's disease?

Children don't get Huntington's disease.

man this topic is as old as the world is!!
it is going about,i know..
this is rather old,but still working.

Normally I wouldn't care. It's IVF. Lots of eggs have already been fertilised and you have to choose just one. Makes sense to screen out hereditary diseases.

However, in this case their screening for Autism. Now the article says there is no clearly identified gene that causes Autism. We just know that autism is more prevalent in males, hence UCH only wants to select female zygots (embryos? I don't know). Added to this only 10 % of cases are hereditary. I assume this means that in only 10% of cases a parent has autism.

Hence, it seems stupid to be screening in this case. The chance is too small to warrant screening I believe.

That's one thing, and yes, that's a future I wouldn't care to be a part of. Sparing a child some 5 years of life or so of coughing their lungs up and being in constant pain, and their families the grief that is associated with it is another thing entirely.

Yes, instead of the child leading a less-than-perfect life they can simply be murdered in a laboratory. That's much better. [/sarcasm]

What I feel will create a permanent underclass is intentional genetic design of humans.
Intentional genetic design might not be far off from aborting babies with life crippling illnesses, but there damn sure is a difference.

So why is it desirable to have people suffering from incurable diseases?

Why is it morally superior to be able to point to a child with downs syndrome and say “Look at that! I made sure a perfectly healthy zygote was destroyed so he was born with downs syndrome! Yay me!”?

I see nothing wrong with selecting a set of genes that lack severe problems. As far as smaller changes go, it is impractical for everyone to choose based on hair or eye color (not to mention we are not going on total genetic engineering – just choosing from a selection of those natural combinations of the parents genes, so no Chinese couples producing blond children here).

Even if we were to allow parents to pick and choose certain traits, whats wrong with that?
Is it somehow nobler to be a dwarf? Are they better off? Are the blind or deaf better people? What is wrong with preventing a child being born with a brain that will never develop? Why should we choose a child that will know nothing but pain and suffering for a few years and then die when it could have been perfectly healthy?

It used to be that people looked forward to a future free from crippling diseases – now we have people crying out in horror at the prospect of that very same future.

The problem with this thread is that human life is not inherently precious just because it is human life, regardless of what your whatever tells you.

Yes, instead of the child leading a less-than-perfect life they can simply be murdered in a laboratory. That's much better. [/sarcasm]

Can't destroy something that isn't alive old chum.

The problem with this thread is that human life is not inherently precious just because it is human life, regardless of what your whatever tells you.

we may all go back to school then.even marx would agree with it
We can do better

If/when I ever get married and have children, the first thing I will do is do genetic testing on myself and my bride. As I am Ashkenazi Jewish, I have an unfortunate predisposition towards carrying the genes for Tay-Sachs, Cystic Fibrosis, Niemann-Pick Disease, various types of cancer and others.

Since I dont want to potentially have children that suffer through life, if my genetic screening efforts show that me and my bride have a chance of having such deformed children, I would honestly consider IVF to screen them out. That, or doublechecking with an amniocentesis (sp?) when she was pregnant, and thinking long and hard about whether or not to keep a child that would be born only to die accomplishing nothing.

*Anyone* who would, knowing beforehand, give birth to a child with Tay-Sachs Disease needs to honestly think about getting their priorities straight, because what kind of life is it to suffer and die before your fifth birthday?

Well you probably would, but where's the money going to come from? From the taxpayers pockets. And if the NHS is going to start giving these procedures as a matter of course, everyone is going to want one, and so in one stroke you've doubled, trebbled, quadrupled, whatever the cost of each baby born every year, because if people are getting free designer babies they're going to want the whole works, every single negative gene removed. And that would either drive up the taxes impossibly or destroy the NHS. No party is going to run with that.

Well... ultimately, it would be cost-effective. With a nation of super-babies we could quite easily dominate World markets within a generation. An army of super-smart billionaires would repay the investment to fiddle with their genes pretty quickly.

If/when I ever get married and have children, the first thing I will do is do genetic testing on myself and my bride. As I am Ashkenazi Jewish, I have an unfortunate predisposition towards carrying the genes for Tay-Sachs, Cystic Fibrosis, Niemann-Pick Disease, various types of cancer and others.

Since I dont want to potentially have children that suffer through life, if my genetic screening efforts show that me and my bride have a chance of having such deformed children, I would honestly consider IVF to screen them out. That, or doublechecking with an amniocentesis (sp?) when she was pregnant, and thinking long and hard about whether or not to keep a child that would be born only to die accomplishing nothing.

*Anyone* who would, knowing beforehand, give birth to a child with Tay-Sachs Disease needs to honestly think about getting their priorities straight, because what kind of life is it to suffer and die before your fifth birthday?


imagine you have an asocial genetic darwinist malfunction,,
giving birth to an anarchist generation,won't please every(any)body...

imagine you have an asocial genetic darwinist malfunction,,
giving birth to an anarchist generation,won't please every(any)body...

Excuse me?

I'm sorry, but what you said there made no sense, care to clarify? :)

Also, embryos are not people. Seeing as there is no such thing as genetic predisposition to character, (don't try to disuade me of this, I believe it as a matter of faith), then any embryo that would develope in the same womb and receive the same parenting after birth, then the character of the child would be identical whether or not gene screening is used.

Also, as embryos are not people, I see no problem in selecting from them which one will grow, as the same selection process would take place in nature anyway. I do however think we must legislate to ensure that people do not abuse this to create superhuman designer babies, because, as many have said, there is a danger that this would lead to a new class stratification of society.

Also, as embryos are not people, I see no problem in selecting from them which one will grow, as the same selection process would take place in nature anyway. I do however think we must legislate to ensure that people do not abuse this to create superhuman designer babies, because, as many have said, there is a danger that this would lead to a new class stratification of society.

So having some really smart and healthy individuals is a bad thing?

What next? Should we smash the hands of really good pianists because some people don’t have much dexterity? Cause brain damage in some because not everyone is as smart? Poke everyone’s eyes out because some cant see?

There is nothing wrong with having people be as intelligent, beautiful, and healthy as possible. A ‘natural hierarchy of men’ already exists; all this would do is expand the upper levels. Just because everyone won’t be the best, doesn’t mean we shouldn’t make the attempt to make as many people as good as possible.

Excuse me?

I'm sorry, but what you said there made no sense, care to clarify? :)
it wasn't bakoenin,it was just sarcasm

If/when I ever get married and have children, the first thing I will do is do genetic testing on myself and my bride. As I am Ashkenazi Jewish, I have an unfortunate predisposition towards carrying the genes for Tay-Sachs, Cystic Fibrosis, Niemann-Pick Disease, various types of cancer and others.

Since I dont want to potentially have children that suffer through life, if my genetic screening efforts show that me and my bride have a chance of having such deformed children, I would honestly consider IVF to screen them out. That, or doublechecking with an amniocentesis (sp?) when she was pregnant, and thinking long and hard about whether or not to keep a child that would be born only to die accomplishing nothing.

*Anyone* who would, knowing beforehand, give birth to a child with Tay-Sachs Disease needs to honestly think about getting their priorities straight, because what kind of life is it to suffer and die before your fifth birthday?

I am also an Ashkenazi Jew and have been screened for Tay-Sachs (I am clear, thank God). This disease is a little different to many of the other genetic diseases listed, as death is certain for the child with the condition. The psychological damage to parents and siblings of such children is immeasurable.

I hate to say this, because it sounds a little naive, but doctors are charged to act ethically - it is hardly ethical to select children for issues of height, athletic ability, etc etc. Frankly, this is taking the debate to an extreme that renders it ridiculous. Reducto ad absurdam? Don't forget, GENETIC SCREENING OF EMBRYOS ALREADY GOES ON. This is just an advanced method. Also, this is screening of embryos, and so is not about abortion as they select the embryos to transplant beforehand, which is the whole point really. They are not considered 'alive' yet, in the medical sense.

Many things have no clear genetic coding in any case, or at least none we know of. There is no 'gay gene' for example, so most of the silly things people are wondering about are irrelevant.

Oh nevermind, this whole debate is a little silly anyway. I'll throw something out then for general interest. Aldous Huxley wrote the science fiction novel 'Brave New World' portraying a distopian society of eugenically engineered children and baby production lines. Not so much fiction in his case, the entire Huxley family was heavily involved in the eugenics movement in Britain, and were active in it right into the 70s at least!

I'm not trying to be funny here guys but as Jews doesn't the notion of genetic screening set off alarm bells?

There was a case in England a few years back of a deaf couple who wanted to screen for a deaf child. Is that appropriate?

The problem with this thread is that human life is not inherently precious just because it is human life, regardless of what your whatever tells you.

Oddly, that's the argument that I use to justify genocide... the exact same argument.

I'm not trying to be funny here guys but as Jews doesn't the notion of genetic screening set off alarm bells?

There was a case in England a few years back of a deaf couple who wanted to screen for a deaf child. Is that appropriate?

They wanted their child to be able to hear the alarm bells.

They wanted to screen so that the child would be deaf, they didn't want one who could hear. It's differently abled you see.

PS Nice one

So having some really smart and healthy individuals is a bad thing?

What next? Should we smash the hands of really good pianists because some people don’t have much dexterity? Cause brain damage in some because not everyone is as smart? Poke everyone’s eyes out because some cant see?

There is nothing wrong with having people be as intelligent, beautiful, and healthy as possible. A ‘natural hierarchy of men’ already exists; all this would do is expand the upper levels. Just because everyone won’t be the best, doesn’t mean we shouldn’t make the attempt to make as many people as good as possible.

The difference is that the 'natural hierarchy of men' is just that, natural. It places no attention upon class, creed or race. So that the generation's best pianist is just as likely to be a poor, female asylum seeker (given the opurtunity of course) as an upper-class brat with pushy parents.

This random distribution of talent enables a family of low social class to occassionally leap forward in standing, while those without talent in the upper classes fall back. Creating a _healthy_ circulation within the class system. I am not naive, I recognise that a class system must exist, but I also recognise that it is within our power to make it as fluid, and as non-severe, as possible.

Within a society where wealthy parents can design superbabies, there would be no class circulation (contrary to normal market rules, as elite families become richer geneticists would simply increase their price, rather than lower it and lose their elite brand). Without class circulation society stagnates. Revolution becomes desirable. The proles at the bottom view superiority as an obimination. The talented are culled, and we enter a new Dark Age.

Hardly a successful 'attempt to make as many people as good as possible'.

They wanted to screen so that the child would be deaf, they didn't want one who could hear. It's differently abled you see.

PS Nice one

Screening so your child will not have a horrible life being sick or retarded is completely different from screening so your child can be more like you and not enjoy advantages that you cant.

The difference is that the 'natural hierarchy of men' is just that, natural. It places no attention upon class, creed or race. So that the generation's best pianist is just as likely to be a poor, female asylum seeker (given the opurtunity of course) as an upper-class brat with pushy parents.

This random distribution of talent enables a family of low social class to occassionally leap forward in standing, while those without talent in the upper classes fall back. Creating a _healthy_ circulation within the class system. I am not naive, I recognise that a class system must exist, but I also recognise that it is within our power to make it as fluid, and as non-severe, as possible.

Within a society where wealthy parents can design superbabies, there would be no class circulation (contrary to normal market rules, as elite families become richer geneticists would simply increase their price, rather than lower it and lose their elite brand). Without class circulation society stagnates. Revolution becomes desirable. The proles at the bottom view superiority as an obimination. The talented are culled, and we enter a new Dark Age.

Hardly a successful 'attempt to make as many people as good as possible'.

Oooh. My point exactly.

The difference is that the 'natural hierarchy of men' is just that, natural. It places no attention upon class, creed or race. So that the generation's best pianist is just as likely to be a poor, female asylum seeker (given the opurtunity of course) as an upper-class brat with pushy parents.

This random distribution of talent enables a family of low social class to occassionally leap forward in standing, while those without talent in the upper classes fall back. Creating a _healthy_ circulation within the class system. I am not naive, I recognise that a class system must exist, but I also recognise that it is within our power to make it as fluid, and as non-severe, as possible.

Within a society where wealthy parents can design superbabies, there would be no class circulation (contrary to normal market rules, as elite families become richer geneticists would simply increase their price, rather than lower it and lose their elite brand). Without class circulation society stagnates. Revolution becomes desirable. The proles at the bottom view superiority as an obimination. The talented are culled, and we enter a new Dark Age.

Hardly a successful 'attempt to make as many people as good as possible'.

I think this here is the most likely scenario. It's all gonna end in tears.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=391264&in_page_id=1770&ico=Homepage&icl=TabModule&icc=NEWS&ct=5

Looks like you can abort a baby that you think might be at risk for many diseases - autism, cystic fibrosis, etc.

We wouldn't want any handicapped or "challenged" children being born in our perfect world, would we?
Would we? Not really.

Oddly, that's the argument that I use to justify genocide... the exact same argument.
No, irrelevant.

So why is it desirable to have people suffering from incurable diseases?

Why is it morally superior to be able to point to a child with downs syndrome and say “Look at that! I made sure a perfectly healthy zygote was destroyed so he was born with downs syndrome! Yay me!”?

I see nothing wrong with selecting a set of genes that lack severe problems. As far as smaller changes go, it is impractical for everyone to choose based on hair or eye color (not to mention we are not going on total genetic engineering – just choosing from a selection of those natural combinations of the parents genes, so no Chinese couples producing blond children here).

Even if we were to allow parents to pick and choose certain traits, whats wrong with that?
Is it somehow nobler to be a dwarf? Are they better off? Are the blind or deaf better people? What is wrong with preventing a child being born with a brain that will never develop? Why should we choose a child that will know nothing but pain and suffering for a few years and then die when it could have been perfectly healthy?

It used to be that people looked forward to a future free from crippling diseases – now we have people crying out in horror at the prospect of that very same future.

It's the fact that all human life is precious, whether the child is born or still an 'embryo'/'foetus' or whatever. Eliminating disease is indeed a worthy aim, but doing so by killing any children who carry that disease (or, as in some of these cases, have a particular gene that means they MAY or MAY NOT carry that disease) is a morally bankrupt way of doing it.

To many people it smacks of the type of Eugenic "cleansing" undertaken in Nazi Germany and the US prior to the devlopment of modern genetics.

There is also the slippery slope argument - what's allowed to day is compulsory tomorrow.

But I've seen a young cousin cough out her lungs to cystic fibrosis. I've seen a child so retarded as to be classified an uneducable vegetable. If we can prevent just those two horrors in the future, we should.

Totally agree with you...I guess that makes me anti-abortion no more....

Eventually, embryo screening will give way to embryo modification. Diseases will be 'corrected' and desired attributes will be inserted.

Personally, I'm all for it.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=391264&in_page_id=1770&ico=Homepage&icl=TabModule&icc=NEWS&ct=5

Looks like you can abort a baby that you think might be at risk for many diseases - autism, cystic fibrosis, etc.

We wouldn't want any handicapped or "challenged" children being born in our perfect world, would we?
Meh. Aborting a pregnancy because you don't feel able to care for the future child is a responsible and reasonable choice.

Meh. Aborting a pregnancy because you don't feel able to care for the future child is a responsible and reasonable choice.

No using contraception so you don't fall pregnant because you don't feel able to care for the future child is a responsible and reasonable choice. Abortion is murder.

Eventually, embryo screening will give way to embryo modification. Diseases will be 'corrected' and desired attributes will be inserted.

Personally, I'm all for it.
you know the problem is not the corrected problem,but the desire to fool nature,
It will not work.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=391264&in_page_id=1770&ico=Homepage&icl=TabModule&icc=NEWS&ct=5

Looks like you can abort a baby that you think might be at risk for many diseases - autism, cystic fibrosis, etc.

We wouldn't want any handicapped or "challenged" children being born in our perfect world, would we?
You say that like it's a bad thing.

The ideal human would be a hybrid with the computational abilities of the Chinaman and the Oxygen processing powers of a South American Andes indian. Don't leave much room left for whitey.
If "whitey" doesn't have any advantages why do they control the world?

If "whitey" doesn't have any advantages why do they control the world?

Whitey has had many advantages in the way of geographical area, temperate climate, livestock, relatively high resistence to disease.

Just not many on a genetic level. Genes aren't everything.

No using contraception so you don't fall pregnant because you don't feel able to care for the future child is a responsible and reasonable choice.
Yes, that is also a responsible choice. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

And no, abortion is not murder, because murder is the unlawful killing of another human being. Since abortion is a lawful medical procedure that may or may not end the life of something that may or may not be a human being, it does not qualify as murder.

Meh. Aborting a pregnancy because you don't feel able to care for the future child is a responsible and reasonable choice.
Agreed, but this isn't aborting a pregnancy; it's not starting an IVF pregnancy with an embryo likely to suffer various diseases.
Why it is "bad" to deliberately choose a healthy embryo from all the potential candidates rather than pick one at random isn't explained.

No using contraception so you don't fall pregnant because you don't feel able to care for the future child is a responsible and reasonable choice. Abortion is murder.

No. Murder is a legal term. Abortion, where legal, cannot be murder, by definition.

How can you carry on an argument when you don't even know the meaning of words?

Agreed, but this isn't aborting a pregnancy; it's not starting an IVF pregnancy with an embryo likely to suffer various diseases.
Why it is "bad" to deliberately choose a healthy embryo from all the potential candidates rather than pick one at random isn't explained.

Exactly. It's not as if all viable embryos are inserted, after all. This process just means that an IVF child with this screening process is more likely to be healthy than an IVF without. THE SAME NUMBER of embryos are used or discarded anyway.

I've read through this thread with great interest. Firstly let me say that I am a geneticist and I am working on the genetic basis to susceptibilty to infectious diseases, before that I was involved in gene therapy for duchenne muscular dystrophy.

It saddens me that the first thing that people focus when this kind of discovery is made is eugenics and designer babies. We have a lot to thank (not) science fiction, the nazis, and films like the island and gattacca for.

As a geneticist I couldn't give a fig about what colour eyes a baby will be born with. I couldn't care less about the ethnic origin of the patient, they're sick and they need and deserve help, end of story.

Many medicines create as many problems as they do cure/remit the underlying cause of illness, especially those for complex and hereditary diseases. It's pure logic to stop a thing at its source, make sure that first cell doesnt have a ticking time bomb of pain and misery to pass on to all its daughter cells. And thats what we all want to stop, its the reason that we went to school for longer than anyone else did, its why we dont chase the money and become managers, lawyers etc.

So I say, we need good ethical legislation so that no-one works towards the designer baby, ethnic cleansing aims (I'm sure there are whackos out there - even though I am yet to meet any). But please let us work towards a world where no child is born knowing roughly how long they have to live, and that their death will be filled with hospital rooms, blood and mucus, painful treatments that only extend their misery, and drugs. Let us free the parents from having to watch their child slowly waste away into a heap of decayed muscle fibre while the child still grimly tries to smile (I have seen this and it almost destroyed me, and the child wasn't even mine). I don't understand why abortion (of a foetus or selection of a healthy embryo) is unacceptable but consigning a child to 5, 10, 18 years (depending on disease) of a slow tortorous death is.

I'm going to get off my soap box now, but please keep what I have stated in mind when the journalists have another slow week and decide to slam the hard working scientists that bring you these kind of breakthroughs.

Also, embryos are not people. Seeing as there is no such thing as genetic predisposition to character, (don't try to disuade me of this, I believe it as a matter of faith), then any embryo that would develope in the same womb and receive the same parenting after birth, then the character of the child would be identical whether or not gene screening is used.

Have you ever met a family with more than one child? All children are different. Even those born and raised in the same family.

I don't know much about IVF so I can't really speak about embryo selection. I would need to understand it better. I do however have strong opinions on genetic testing and abortion. Abortion is wrong. I don't expect many here to agree with me, but that is my belief. However, I find genetic testing of pregnant women a good thing when possible. Parents who learn through an ultrasound that their child has a birth defect, are better able to prepare for the birth of that child. I prefer to have time to plan and prepare than to be surprised.

snip

*claps*

I heartily concur.

No. Murder is a legal term. Abortion, where legal, cannot be murder, by definition.

How can you carry on an argument when you don't even know the meaning of words?

Homicide is a legal term. Murder is murder. Are you a bit emotional on this topic? I'll stop discussing it if you're going to be upset.

I noticed Aspergers came up under the list of negatives that people might consider writing off an embryo for. As a dude with Aspergers I heartily concur.

If I can find some way of making sure my kids or my brothers kids don't grow up like me then by the gods I shall embrace it.

And hell. Humanity needs a little more darwinism around here anyway.

Haha, he said good legislation.

Homicide is a legal term. Murder is murder. Are you a bit emotional on this topic? I'll stop discussing it if you're going to be upset.

"Murder" is also a specific legal term. What you mean is "Killing". This would also be incorrect, however, as the zygotes are demonstrably not alive.

Agreed, but this isn't aborting a pregnancy; it's not starting an IVF pregnancy with an embryo likely to suffer various diseases.
Why it is "bad" to deliberately choose a healthy embryo from all the potential candidates rather than pick one at random isn't explained.
Yeah, I don't much get why that would be bad. Seems to make perfect sense to me; you try NOT to produce children who have serious illnesses, because it is generally agreed that most parents would prefer that their children not suffer any more than is absolutely necessary.

Homicide is a legal term. Murder is murder. Are you a bit emotional on this topic? I'll stop discussing it if you're going to be upset.
Why do you assume somebody is emotional just because they point out that you used a word wrong? Project much?

I do not see the problem with eugenics. If abortion leads to a world where people suffer from fewer mental and physical handicaps, then so mote it be.

"Murder" is also a specific legal term. What you mean is "Killing". This would also be incorrect, however, as the zygotes are demonstrably not alive.

Murder is the predetermined deliberate killing of a human.

If zygotes are dead that's all very well. If unhindered they have the potential to become tax paying voters.

I don't see what part 'laws' have in any of this.