Support NeoGAF

[Mr-Joker]

If it turns out that my child would have down syndrome, I would okay aborting it.

Now I am not saying that because "ew down syndrome" but rather that I don't think that I would be capable of looking after a child with down syndrome, especially as they get older.

I mean deaf people are specifically trying to have deaf kids. It's already an issue, albeit with groups so small I don't think most people have paid attention. It'd be far more problematic if we had straight or gay parents trying to have straight or gay kids, probably, or if you could control stuff like black parents wanting the lightest-skin kid, or selecting for intelligence, et al.

I am deaf and I don't agree in trying to have kids that are deaf, all they are doing is placing barriers for the kids.

 

[Nivash]

I think this issue will always come to a point where we have to ask "where is the line" as human suffering is subjective when it comes to medical disorders and can be different from person to person.

I'd love to have gone through life without being atopic (asthma, eczema, hay fever, etc) but I can't condone genetic manipulation to prevent these treatable conditions. On the other hand, I have seen the massive disruptions to life experienced by people with even relatively innocuous conditions and have no desire to say what people can and cannot live with due to living life generally fit and healthy in the scheme of things

I'm sorry, but I just have to ask about the bolded: why on Earth not? I'm atopic as well and I'd pay a small fortune if there was a possibility to do away with it for good. I don't think it adds anything to my life, it just detracts. So why exactly are you opposed to eliminate it? Is it specifically because of the genetic manpulation or would you oppose being able to cure it as well? I'm not judging you or anything, I'm genuinely curious of why you have taken that stance.

 

[Doc_Drop]

I'm sorry, but I just have to ask about the bolded: why on Earth not? I'm atopic as well and I'd pay a small fortune if there was a possibility to do away with it for good. I don't think it adds anything to my life, it just detracts. So why exactly are you opposed to eliminate it? Is it specifically because of the genetic manpulation or would you oppose being able to cure it as well? I'm not judging you or anything, I'm genuinely curious of why you have taken that stance.

Oh it would be a very large burden to me to get rid of. I would love it.

However, if genetic manipulation/coding gets to the point where we are eliminating generic atopic conditions then I think we've gone too far (unless it's akin to something like an MMR vaccine that is standardised). But to me, at that point you may as well start picking eye colour, hair types, etc. It feels like too much meddling (to me at least)

 

[injurai]

Hypothetically speaking, I think it's a good thing. I think there is an imperative to pursue it. I do think it is a challenging and dangerous task to undertake. It will be expensive so the few will get access to it first. I don't think this is a reason to not pursue it, but it will be the reality of it. Eventually it will be cheap and commoditized.

I think slippery slope arguments apply. Once it's out there, there is always the option for abusing it. But I think the good could out do the harm in the long run.

 

[Hatty]

I don't see why you wouldn't want to eliminate genetic disorders if it can be done. The only argument that I've seen that has had any validity is how this treatment will only be available to the wealthy widening the gap between rich and poor even more. few ridiculous arguments that I have seen are about the "erasure" of disabled culture or something like that, which is strange to me

 

[Nealand Liquor]

The OP did not the go the direction I thought it would when I saw the title.

For me I feel there is a big difference between advocating the termination of a fetus with genetic disorders and advocating the elimination of said disorders through genetic engineering. I feel it is morally wrong to abort a fetus simply because of a genetic disorder; However I feel genetic engineering is the morally right thing to do. Ask anyone with a disorder what they would prefer and I am sure nobody would be surprised by the answer.

 

[Nivash]

Oh it would be a very large burden to me to get rid of. I would love it.

However, if genetic manipulation/coding gets to the point where we are eliminating generic atopic conditions then I think we've gone too far (unless it's akin to something like an MMR vaccine that is standardised). But to me, at that point you may as well start picking eye colour, hair types, etc. It feels like too much meddling (to me at least)

But isn't that different? Eye color, hair type etc are just aesthetic, they don't impact health and functionality. For me, my atopy makes it difficult to exercise because of the asthma (which has negative health impacts of its own), makes pollen-heavy days close to excruciating and wrecks my skin with rashes that itch, crack and require topical steroids just to keep in check. I wouldn't wish it on anyone and if I knew as a prospective parent that I could prevent my future child from getting it I'd jump on the opportunity.

One is clearly a medical condition, the other normal variation. I mean it's not as if medical science has a massive issue with telling one from the other most of the time - we generally understand why conditions are unintended and cause suffering. I don't see why preventing the condition should lead to a slippery slope towards designer babies, it's just correcting an accidental error in our genetic makeup.

 

[ameleco]

I'm torn on this. On one hand you can fix all developmental problems, which is fine, but then how far does it go? Do we consider less intelligence to be a flaw? Less athletic ability? Weight? Sexual orientation? I really am not sure where I stand on that outside of the general get rid of genetic diseases where possible side.

 

[SMattera]

The OP did not the go the direction I thought it would when I saw the title.

For me I feel there is a big difference between advocating the termination of a fetus with genetic disorders and advocating the elimination of said disorders through genetic engineering. I feel it is morally wrong to abort a fetus simply because of a genetic disorder; However I feel genetic engineering is the morally right thing to do. Ask anyone with a disorder what they would prefer and I am sure nobody would be surprised by the answer.

Have you ever had to care for someone with a severe disability? Do you know anyone personally that is severely disabled?

I don't have any close friends that have relatives with the disorder, but the people I have met and read interviews with are equally happy or sometimes even more so because someone they know and love is "different". The argument I've seen made today that their existence helps us on a societal level in understanding and feeling compassion for many other kinds of differences.

What exactly do you expect them to say? I wish my loved one was never born?

Life is hard enough as it is. Severe disabilities are a tragedy.

 

[SoRuffShoNuff]

Me and my wife have the prenatal visit where they test for downs syndrome and other genetic disorders this week and I have never been more nervous in my life.

 

[Striek]

iI'm torn on this. On one hand you can fix all developmental problems, which is fine, but then how far does it go? Do we consider less intelligence to be a flaw? Less athletic ability? Weight? Sexual orientation? I really am not sure where I stand on that outside of the general get rid of genetic diseases where possible side.

Slippery slope is the only real concern here. People have different values.

I personally would say yes to changing all of those. When the technology is more mainstream it'll become known as cruelty to not help your child be as healthy and happy as possible. Antivax 2.0.

 

[Epsilon-delta]

Slippery slope is the only real concern here. People have different values.

I personally would say yes to changing all of those. When the technology is more mainstream it'll become known as cruelty to not help your child be as healthy and happy as possible. Antivax 2.0.

I agree. To quote the geneticist from Gattaca:

We want to give your child the best possible start. Believe me, we have enough imperfection built in already. Your child doesn't need any more additional burdens. Keep in mind, this child is still you. Simply, the best, of you. You could conceive naturally a thousand times and never get such a result.

 

[SuperBowser]

The tests themselves carry their own risks and no test is perfect. There will always be false negatives. There' are also so many genetic disorders that we don't screen for and it would never be cost effective to try and screen for.

I don't see how this will be a viable option for many decades yet. And, of course, this assumes every woman would want to abort their baby if they found it had a genetic abnormality.

 

[Alandrus Sun]

True, and you can even say that this IS overcoming the adversity and learning from it. Like in TNG Geordi's Visor is technology that the perfect society they encountered lacked, here the genetic alteration itself is technology that we'd develop more strongly to overcome. The one thing I would say as a negative in this way is we'd be universally countering all of these issues with only a single technological/societal advancement, rather than the diversity of learning we would do in the course of countering Downs, Blindness, ADD, etc separately.

Well, in TNG that society took things a bit further than simply eliminating genetic disabilities.

 

[Doc_Drop]

But isn't that different? Eye color, hair type etc are just aesthetic, they don't impact health and functionality. For me, my atopy makes it difficult to exercise because of the asthma (which has negative health impacts of its own), makes pollen-heavy days close to excruciating and wrecks my skin with rashes that itch, crack and require topical steroids just to keep in check. I wouldn't wish it on anyone and if I knew as a prospective parent that I could prevent my future child from getting it I'd jump on the opportunity.

One is clearly a medical condition, the other normal variation. I mean it's not as if medical science has a massive issue with telling one from the other most of the time - we generally understand why conditions are unintended and cause suffering. I don't see why preventing the condition should lead to a slippery slope towards designer babies, it's just correcting an accidental error in our genetic makeup.

That's a fair point, I suppose I should have focused on things that do have an impact such as height, skin pigmentation, arm length/leg length (reach), foot size, hand span, hip width, etc. Obviously I'm not knowledgeable to know which of these can be accurately coded as yet

 

[Raist]

So, today (3/21) is World Down Syndrome Day, and the discussions I've read throughout the day have given me a few things to think about, morally, and I figured it'd be interesting to get GAF-input.

Scientifically, we've reached a point where many genetic disorders can be detected so early that a pregnancy can be terminated as early as most other abortions. In some cases I assume this is perfectly morally correct in order to not bring a child into the world who's potentially short life will be filled with actual suffering, but it gets a bit different when you talk about something like Down Syndrome which by itself doesn't lead to any severe medical issues.

I don't have any close friends that have relatives with the disorder, but the people I have met and read interviews with are equally happy or sometimes even more so because someone they know and love is "different". The argument I've seen made today that their existence helps us on a societal level in understanding and feeling compassion for many other kinds of differences.

It's tricky because that bond with the child or sibling isn't there when tests are being done, and blaming parents for choosing not to be responsible for a child that perhaps requires many times more care doesn't seem right either.

In my mind, this is just a first step on a road to where we genetically create "perfect" humans, and I'm genuinely conflicted in how I feel about it. I read that Denmark has all but eliminated babies born with Down Syndrome, and that's why it's a hot topic in Sweden now I guess.

The Swedish Museum of Photography launches a new exhibit called Icons - an exhibition about being allowed to exist, and they've posted a couple of pics on their Instagram:

https://www.instagram.com/fotografiska

Oh, and the day is celebrated by wearing different coloured socks!

That's not really correct. Kids with DS have much higher risks of developing several diseases, like heart problems, some cancer (especially leukamia) etc.

Anyway, I think parents should be extremely well informed by the medical community of what such syndromes would mean for them and their kid, and the choice left to them.

 

[G.ZZZ]

I'm torn on this. On one hand you can fix all developmental problems, which is fine, but then how far does it go? Do we consider less intelligence to be a flaw? Less athletic ability? Weight? Sexual orientation? I really am not sure where I stand on that outside of the general get rid of genetic diseases where possible side.

Anything that require constant medications. Healthcare ain't free, but If a single exam can save you from thousands of medications over the span of your life go for it If anything for economical reasons

 

[Tesseract]

i see no problems, mind your business

 

[SMattera]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...ban-genetic-abnormalities-20160324-story.html

I can fully understand the OP's sentiment, born out of ignorance, but it leads to dangerous nonsense like this. Now families will needlessly be destroyed and people will unnecessarily suffer.