NationStates Jolt Archive

These people make me sick. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16299656/)

First off, I have nothing against the concept of designer babies. It's one thing to want what's best for your children, making them smarter, stronger, disease resistant, more attractive... but our medical system is struggling to help disabled people coexist with the world, and we're deliberately creating more disabled people?!

The idiocy of these parents astounds me. Kudos to that woman for adopting a dwarf baby, whom probably nobody else would adopt, but someone who wanted to deliberately bring a deformed person into the world needs to be tarred and feathered.

These people make me sick. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16299656/)

First off, I have nothing against the concept of designer babies. It's one thing to want what's best for your children, making them smarter, stronger, disease resistant, more attractive... but our medical system is struggling to help disabled people coexist with the world, and we're deliberately creating more disabled people?!

The idiocy of these parents astounds me. Kudos to that woman for adopting a dwarf baby, whom probably nobody else would adopt, but someone who wanted to deliberately bring a deformed person into the world needs to be tarred and feathered.

Hey, I know! Let's give our child a handicap so he has something to overcome! It'll make him a better person!

Fuckwits. Fuckwits all of them. You don't intentionally give a child a birth defect. That is just wrong.

Stupid people + what they believe is magic = US.

“You cannot tell me that I cannot have a child who’s going to look like me,” Cara Reynolds said. “It’s just unbelievably presumptuous and they’re playing God.”

How is it "playing God" to oppose this kind of stuff?

Selfish, arrogant, vain, self-important bastards, the lot of them.

Docs who do this need to be stripped of their medical licenses and sent to prison.

All I was thinking when I read that article was that those people shouldn't be called dwarves until they grow beards, and can clearly demonstrate bad tempers and alcohol tolerance.

That is all.

All I was thinking when I read that article was that those people shouldn't be called dwarves until they grow beards, and can clearly demonstrate bad tempers and alcohol tolerance.

That is all.
Don't forget "Lali-ho!"

Docs who do this need to be stripped of their medical licenses and sent to prison.

I don't think prison. But otherwise I agree.

What part of 'first do no harm' do these people not understand?

What part of 'first do no harm' do these people not understand?

I guess the do not harm part.

Hey, I know! Let's give our child a handicap so he has something to overcome! It'll make him a better person!

Fuckwits. Fuckwits all of them. You don't intentionally give a child a birth defect. That is just wrong.

Actually my handicaps did make me a better person, but I would never wish what I have on other people. They don't need to go through the same shit.

That's horrible. I'd never wish for my child to have the disability I have. They'd probably commit suicide before the age 12.

That's horrible. I'd never wish for my child to have the disability I have. They'd probably commit suicide before the age 12.

I came close to it a few times myself.

When I came around the age of 12 my parents watched me like a hawk because they had read stories of a pandemic of sorts, of kids with my disability going into a huge depression stage and killing themselves. They thought I was safe until around 17 when the depression actually started, and I did try to kill myself twice, but I'm over that now. Scary. :eek: I still get small bouts of depression every so often, for no reason that I can think of.

I've got a question about the article.

Were these people just angry that the doctors were screening out potentially genetically defective embryo's, or were they specifically asking for a defective embryo?

I also note that it focused upon deaf and dwarfism mutations. Though these are definitely difficulties, and I wouldn't wish them upon a kid, they certainly aren't as horrible as giving the kid down's syndrome or parkinsons or something like that.

I feel that if one of these doctors was asked to give a kid a mutation like that, s/he would decline to do so.

Actually my handicaps did make me a better person, but I would never wish what I have on other people. They don't need to go through the same shit.
Ohreally. You're handicapped? This is something I did not know.

And you're right. People can be good people without needing something to overcome before they can be a good person. And just because you overcome a disability doesn't make you a fantastic person either.

Just something about the whole idea of "designer babies" strikes me as utterly wrong, whether for the benefit or detriment of the child. Kinda seems like a prelude to eugenics on a massive scale, biased toward the rich...

I know a deaf couple, the womans parents arent deaf, but the guy is from an all deaf family. They have a hearing baby, and his family wont have any contact with it, because its not like them, and not part of their 'culture'.

I can understand its good to see the positives in any disability. Hell, people in wheelchairs get to sit around all day, but Denying that theyre disabled, thats just stupid. But being in denial to the extent that you deliberately make others disabled, jesus thats awful. THeres another thread about parent licenses. These people wouldnt get one.

I prefer to disable my children the old fashioned way: emotional scarring through public embarrassment.

All time stupidest thing I have ever read on this forum. Ever. Who would do that?

2030:

Instances of children murdering their parents shot up 120% this year, with many of the murderers being dwarves, autistic people, and those with cerebral palsy. The cerebral palsy people somehow killed them with the power of there minds.

Thank you, and that's the news. I'm Katie Couric 2.0

You know, there is a certian mental disorder that causes the parent(s) of a child to intetionaly make, or keep, the child sick just so they have some one to watch over and care for. Talk about maternal instict going to the extreme.

Medical science should be used to cure and improve, not to cripple or destroy. Morally repugnant on all levels.

Some doctors have denounced the practice; others question whether it’s true. Blogs are abuzz with the news, with armchair critics saying the phenomenon, if real, is taking the concept of designer babies way too far.

:p

I'm not sure I have a problem with designer dwarf babies. I find it weird, but not necessarily bad. Most of the problem seems to come from societal prejudices rather than any medical condition. However, I'm not sure the child would thank their parents in the long run.

Creating babies that are specifically deaf? I find that despicable. It cannot be called love in any way or form. It's pure malice - 'if we can't hear, then neither can you'. If the couple truly loved their child then they would want them to have the best in life. That includes getting the chance to experience things that they, the parents, did not.

That's if this phenomenon really does exists, as is questioned by some.

I support anything that makes more midget girls. But, if they're going to genetically screen to make sure that the child is a midget, they had best screen to make sure it's a hot-ass midget bitch. :D

Just something about the whole idea of "designer babies" strikes me as utterly wrong, whether for the benefit or detriment of the child. Kinda seems like a prelude to eugenics on a massive scale, biased toward the rich...I agree. I see no objective difference between making the baby have blue eyes and making it a dwarf, and therefore fail to see how someone can say that the dwarf is by definition "harmed". Perhaps it's their own prejudices shining through?

I support anything that makes more midget girls. But, if they're going to genetically screen to make sure that the child is a midget, they had best screen to make sure it's a hot-ass midget bitch. :D

QFT w00t! Hot midget babes!:p

So, I can create a child with my diability, eh? Can I also get one with the same emotional trauma as me, only built-in from birth? :rolleyes:

I agree. I see no objective difference between making the baby have blue eyes and making it a dwarf, and therefore fail to see how someone can say that the dwarf is by definition "harmed". Perhaps it's their own prejudices shining through?

Dwarfism has various health issues relating to it. Blue eyes doesn't.

Quote:
"In PGD, before implantation, a cell from a days-old embryo is removed to allow doctors to examine it for genetic defects. The entire procedure can cost more than $15,000 per try."

I'm wondering if the science is not being misunderstood here. If I understand correctly, this is a screening procedure, not a "Frankenstien-builder". The procedure allows a determination to be made as to what the existing charasteristics of a fertilized embryo are; it does not add or remove characteristics. If the would-be parents are not saitisfied with the profile of the embryo, they can discard it. If someone desired a characteristic that may only occur in a small minority of embryoes, then it may take many such screenings to identify an embryo with such a characteristic. As the article says, it's expensive. Only very rich people would have the resources to conduct such a search. So I wonder: with what likelihood is deafness or dwarfism carried on to successive generations? If it's anything less than 50%, trying to select for such a characteristic may be prohibitively expensive. But of course, the super-rich may do whatever they whim anyway, regardless of ethical standards, financial liabilities, or even laws.

Quote:
"In PGD, before implantation, a cell from a days-old embryo is removed to allow doctors to examine it for genetic defects. The entire procedure can cost more than $15,000 per try."

I'm wondering if the science is not being misunderstood here. If I understand correctly, this is a screening procedure, not a "Frankenstien-builder". The procedure allows a determination to be made as to what the existing charasteristics of a fertilized embryo are; it does not add or remove characteristics. If the would-be parents are not saitisfied with the profile of the embryo, they can discard it. If someone desired a characteristic that may only occur in a small minority of embryoes, then it may take many such screenings to identify an embryo with such a characteristic. As the article says, it's expensive. Only very rich people would have the resources to conduct such a search. So I wonder: with what likelihood is deafness or dwarfism carried on to successive generations? If it's anything less than 50%, trying to select for such a characteristic may be prohibitively expensive. But of course, the super-rich may do whatever they whim anyway, regardless of ethical standards, financial liabilities, or even laws.

Being rich should be illegal.... though it would never work out :(

Being rich should be illegal.... though it would never work out :(

Who was that French philosopher who said, "Behind every great fortune, there is a crime"...? Ah, the sound of truth....truth and brutality.

Being rich should be illegal.... though it would never work out :(

At the very least, there ought to be a big tax on conspicuous consumption items.

Are they actually handicapping their children, or ensuring that they have handicapped children. Because to my mind there's a world of difference between
a)ensuring a healthy embryo develops a disability,

and

b)ensuring it's a "disabled" embryo that forms the child

A is definitely wrong. B however, I don't really have a problem with anymore than choosing for any other reason. They're not doing any harm, the embryo will already produce a disabled chid. If the parents wish to have a particular embryo live because it's disabled rather than a different embryo that isn't, then what is wrong with that? Disabled people have the same rights as non-disabled people, so why is it wrong to make sure on is born rather than a non-disabled child. Is it "better" for an able embryo to produce a child than one with disabilities?

“You cannot tell me that I cannot have a child who’s going to look like me,” Reynolds said. “It’s just unbelievably presumptuous and they’re playing God.”I think it's just mean to deliberately choose a child with a disability, especially if you don't have the disability yourself and don't have a clue what it's like to live with it. But from that quote, it sounds like doctors were screening out all the embryos that would produce dwarfism, and I guess that if you're a 'dwarf' (the politically correct term, I think, is 'little person') then it might be pretty offensive if you, as a little person, feel perfectly content as you are and that you are not disabled. A child of average size might cause them difficulties, especially if their home is designed for people of smaller stature. A 'tall' child may use their stature to gain advantage over their parents. It might be fairly awkward for the parents, I admit. If that particular form of dwarfism would do nothing but create a child of smaller stature, well I wouldn't heavily object. However, people have to adapt to children who are different from them all the time. It's part of being a good parent. So having a child with a dwarfism wouldn't necessarily guarantee a more comfortable life. This branch of science is always a tricky one.

I agree. I see no objective difference between making the baby have blue eyes and making it a dwarf, and therefore fail to see how someone can say that the dwarf is by definition "harmed". Perhaps it's their own prejudices shining through?

Dwarfism caries with it potential medical conditions. They are not the same at ALL

that's just messed up, not because the kid will have a hard life so much, but that there are major health risks to go along with all of these "lifestyles". I have a friend who has a form of dwarfism and she is at major risk for cancer because of the way her body works. Why would you make a child like that?


I would like to point out that I am NOT against disabled people having the right to reproduce, I just think it's stupid to try to make your kid disabled. (does that make sense?)

all of that aside, if hubby and I ever adopted I would want to adopt a child that has the same disease that the girls and I do for two reasons

1. they would probably have trouble finding anyone to take the kid
2. we could take better care of them than just about anyone else, because we know the disease and what needs to be done to be healthy.

Midgets are just evil. That's why god made them that way. He knew they were going to be evil, so he made them short and deformed to punish them, make them easier to pick out from the rest of humanity, and to limit the ammount of evil that they can do.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16304431/

'Nuff said. These people are selfish pricks who do not deserve to have children.

1. There's nothing wrong with having a child who looks like you

2. There's nothing wrong with giving birth to a child who has one or more deformities

BUT

3. However, there's something seriously fucked up about deliberately causing a child to have deformities so they can look like you - it's akin to finding an already-born healthy child and smashing his/her head against a pavement [sidewalk], especially if you claim you want to be accepted by the rest of the society, as deliberately giving a child deformities suggests you don't consider so-called 'normal' people to be good enough for you - and there's something seriously fucked up about claiming other people are playing God when they speak out against YOU playing God with childrens' lives. This story makes me sick and I predict lots of future child abuse lawsuits.

I'm not sure I have a problem with designer dwarf babies. I find it weird, but not necessarily bad. Most of the problem seems to come from societal prejudices rather than any medical condition.

I agree. I see no objective difference between making the baby have blue eyes and making it a dwarf, and therefore fail to see how someone can say that the dwarf is by definition "harmed". Perhaps it's their own prejudices shining through?

From the article:
"Their newborn daughter died last year from a devastating dwarfism-related disease called homozygous achondroplasia."
Their choice to have an unhealthy baby resulted in her suffering and dieing. They made a choice to make a newborn suffer.

I have a hard enough time with so-called "designer babies" whose parents deliberately screen out all defects and can turn them into super-genius athletes, since the whole process sounds expensive and serves to further the gap between the rich and poor. But that's a tale for another day.

Deliberately wanting a handicapped child or otherwise uber-different child is absolutely insane. This practice should be banned, point-blank. Kids have enough trouble growing up, what with drugs, alcohol, tobacco, enormous pressure to get into college, date rape drugs, parents who are either overprotective or apathetic, double-income families, dads who are constantly on business trips, massive fears of conditions related to this or that, the list goes on and on. To create something that makes them "special" artificially is outrageous. Be it deafness, dwarfism, crippled legs, stupidity (though that's been passed down through generations the old-fashioned way), or Down's syndrome, passing that on to one's kids on purpose through means other than natural ones is immoral, unethical, and deserving of being run over by a pack of rabid wildebeests. Kids have it hard enough without having total shitheads for parents.

Honestly, I don't have a strong reaction to this. People bring children into the world under many different circumstances. Some people are wackos, or can't afford shit, or are 13 years old, and have baby after baby after baby. They don't get forcibly sterilized or anything like that. Some people drink or do drugs while they're pregnant, and they bring disabled and addicted babies into the world. Sometimes they get in trouble for that, but it happens.

Seems like people have a right to create their own children by many means, including choosing a specific partner or donor, engaging in certain behaviors before and during the pregnancy, taking drugs to increase their chances of conceiving, weeding out unhealthy embryos, having abortions, etc. I think a dwarf couple having a dwarf child naturally is pretty damned common, and all they have to do is shell out thousands of dollars to figure out which embryo will already grow up to be a dwarf. It's not like they're introducing chemicals into their body during pregnancy to stunt the growth of their children, which some people already do and is much more criminal as far as I'm concerned.

At least we know that couple would love their baby and provide a good home and upbringing for it. That's what's important, isn't it?

Their choice to have an unhealthy baby resulted in her suffering and dieing. They made a choice to make a newborn suffer.

Lots of people do. You don't eat right before your pregnancy, don't get enough folate, your baby will be born basically without a head. It's tragic, but it hasn't been outlawed.

You know, there is a certian mental disorder that causes the parent(s) of a child to intetionaly make, or keep, the child sick just so they have some one to watch over and care for. Talk about maternal instict going to the extreme.

It's called Munchausen By Proxy.

It's called Munchausen By Proxy.

...and it actually has more to do with getting the attention that goes along with having a sick kid. Everybody thinks you're a saint, you have the support of all the medical people around you all the time, you get to feel all good about yourself for being altruistic and sacrificing most of your life to caring for the kid, etc. People who do this have a very low level of attachment with their children, so it's sort of the opposite of true parental instincts.

1. There's nothing wrong with having a child who looks like you

2. There's nothing wrong with giving birth to a child who has one or more deformities

BUT

3. However, there's something seriously fucked up about deliberately causing a child to have deformities so they can look like you - it's akin to finding an already-born healthy child and smashing his/her head against a pavement [sidewalk], especially if you claim you want to be accepted by the rest of the society, as deliberately giving a child deformities suggests you don't consider so-called 'normal' people to be good enough for you - and there's something seriously fucked up about claiming other people are playing God when they speak out against YOU playing God with childrens' lives. This story makes me sick and I predict lots of future child abuse lawsuits.

They aren't CAUSING their child's deformity, they're choosing to give birth to a child that is already going to be deformed. It's kind of the opposite of aborting a deformed child and trying again for a healthy one. I don't think either is particularly awful.

Say good-bye to the Digital Age! Welcome the Genetic Age where people give their offspring deformities, women give birth to other womens' babies, and children are just commodities.

and children are just commodities.
Like how it was for the rest of human history? They've only not been commodities for about a hundred years.

Like how it was for the rest of human history? They've only not been commodities for about a hundred years.
Well, I guess it's back to normal.

I honestly don't see this as being much worse than screening for eye color. I think screening embryos for anything other than serious health problems is stupid to begin with, but if you're choosing a favorite embryo anyway, who are outsiders to dictate that you must prefer a tall child to a short one? The disabilities mentioned in the article are not intrinsically painful or life-threatening. Many people with these so-called disabilities lead happy, fulfilled lives. If parents were trying to select for an embryo that had some terrible, crippling disease, I would agree wholeheartedly that this was unethical, but dwarfism and hearing difficulties just aren't so bad as to warrant the outrage people have been displaying in this thread. I disagree with these parents' choices, but I hardly think they're terrible, cruel parents simply for preferring to have a child that in some way deviates from the norm.

From the article:
"Their newborn daughter died last year from a devastating dwarfism-related disease called homozygous achondroplasia."
Their choice to have an unhealthy baby resulted in her suffering and dieing. They made a choice to make a newborn suffer.

I suggest you reread the article, as you seem not to have understood the chronology involved.

From the article:
"Their newborn daughter died last year from a devastating dwarfism-related disease called homozygous achondroplasia."
Their choice to have an unhealthy baby resulted in her suffering and dieing. They made a choice to make a newborn suffer.No, the choice to make the newborn suffer would be to deliberately inflict the newborn with homozygous achondroplasia. Given that not all dwarves have it, simply wanting to have a dwarf child doesn't mean they want the children to have it.

These people make me sick. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16299656/)

First off, I have nothing against the concept of designer babies. It's one thing to want what's best for your children, making them smarter, stronger, disease resistant, more attractive... but our medical system is struggling to help disabled people coexist with the world, and we're deliberately creating more disabled people?!

The idiocy of these parents astounds me. Kudos to that woman for adopting a dwarf baby, whom probably nobody else would adopt, but someone who wanted to deliberately bring a deformed person into the world needs to be tarred and feathered.

This is a great reason to screen people wanting to be parents.

No, the choice to make the newborn suffer would be to deliberately inflict the newborn with homozygous achondroplasia. Given that not all dwarves have it, simply wanting to have a dwarf child doesn't mean they want the children to have it.
But they should know that it would make them susceptible to disability related diseases.

No, the choice to make the newborn suffer would be to deliberately inflict the newborn with homozygous achondroplasia. Given that not all dwarves have it, simply wanting to have a dwarf child doesn't mean they want the children to have it.

But it is by far the most common type of dwarfism ... thats like saying that we are going to put the baby on a drop tank at a circus ... sure the baby might NOT fall in (but thats unlikly) and sure if the baby falls in it may be able to handle staying alive children often are good at swimming

But I would still lock up the fucker that put his child in that situation

No, the choice to make the newborn suffer would be to deliberately inflict the newborn with homozygous achondroplasia. Given that not all dwarves have it, simply wanting to have a dwarf child doesn't mean they want the children to have it.

Quite the opposite, in fact. The article states that they're screening specifically to avoid having another child with homozygous achondroplasia. They simply wish to have a healthy dwarf child rather than a healthy "normal"-sized child.

Sounds like Munchausen By Proxy for the rich.


EDIT:Beaten to it.

So, I can create a child with my diability, eh? Can I also get one with the same emotional trauma as me, only built-in from birth? :rolleyes:

Yes, and now you can also choose to emasculate your child while he's still in the womb, therefore making it so he will never question what you tell him to do, plus he will only have sex for the purpose of providing you with grandchildren. You can do this to the females too.

Yes, and now you can also choose to emasculate your child while he's still in the womb, therefore making it so he will never question what you tell him to do, plus he will only have sex for the purpose of providing you with grandchildren. You can do this to the females too.

Ah, the power! :rolleyes: :headbang:

It's called Munchausen By Proxy.

Damn! Beat me to it.

Anyway, this is seriously sick. These people are basically saying that they own their child, and can do with them as they wish like property. No one has the right to control another person like this, because no one can own a human being. This is wrong and it'ss evil, and the "parents" and scumbag doctor should be punished for this.

But they should know that it would make them susceptible to disability related diseases.Certainly, in the same way that a black baby would be susceptible to the diseases that most often affect black people, such as sickle-cell anemia.

But it is by far the most common type of dwarfism ... thats like saying that we are going to put the baby on a drop tank at a circus ... sure the baby might NOT fall in (but thats unlikly) and sure if the baby falls in it may be able to handle staying alive children often are good at swimming

But I would still lock up the fucker that put his child in that situationI'd think that a dwarf woman having a normal-sized baby would result in more health problems for the both of them than a dwarf woman having a dwarf baby.

Anyway, this is seriously sick. These people are basically saying that they own their child, and can do with them as they wish like property. No one has the right to control another person like this, because no one can own a human being. This is wrong and it'ss evil, and the "parents" and scumbag doctor should be punished for this.Would you say the same thing about a parent who selected for blue eyes or intelligence?

I'd think that a dwarf woman having a normal-sized baby would result in more health problems for the both of them than a dwarf woman having a dwarf baby.

One can also argue that deaf parents could make a deaf baby a lot happier than a hearing one.
But should they be allowed to deliberately create it ?