Slashdot Mirror
Where To Draw the Line With Embryo Selection?
Tjeerd writes "There is currently a discussion going on in the Netherlands about embryo selection. The process means that when using in vitro fertilization, you can check what kind of genetic defects will definitely become activated during life. When embryos with those defects are identified, they can be avoided or destroyed. The next step the government is considering is to make it possible to select against genetic defects which might become active in life, such as breast and colon cancer. Of course, this is a very difficult discussion; where do you start, and where do you end? People are worrying that there is no real limit, and that you could potentially check for every genetic defect. I think if you're in a situation where you or your family have genetic defects, you surely want to check whether your children would have them too. What does the Slashdot community think about this?"
Well I am not Christian, and certainly not Catholic. I have no concern, or consideration for a clump of cells.
Furthermore, I have a Penis. According to all the junkmail I get, it is a humiliatingly small penis that all the women laugh at hysterically, but the point is that I am a Man.
I don't think men should have any business telling a women what to do with their bodies, certainly not based on faith either.
That being said, if you could choose the genetic make-up of your children and spare them any diseases or malformations I would be hard pressed to form an argument against it. Especially, since I would want the same for my children.
So I understandably have a hard time agreeing that government could declare a position either way on this. They should just be silent and mind their own business.
Gattaca
-- Mean People Suck
Can we make selection retroactive?
There's several people I'd like to retroactively select...
To put a witty saying into 120 characters, jst rmv ll th vwls.
This is one of the reasons I got snipped; to avoid this whole nightmare-infested minefield.
Anonymous online voting. Pick an embryo, vote as often as you like.
I mean, a system like that isn't going to be any worse than a couple people choosing who gets to live or die based on genetic pre-requisites.
A weakness is not always a weakness.
Consider the old example that gets trotted out, time and time again: sickle cell anaemia. In the US, Australia, England, Canada, etc., it's a weakness, and is rare. But in Africa, it turns out that if you have one normal gene acting in tandem with one sickle cell anaemia gene (remember that genes always operate in pairs), you are more resistant to the effects of malaria.
Two sickle cell genes, and you're in trouble. One, and if malaria is prevalent, you're actually better off (but if it's not, you're slightly worse off.)
So just because a given gene variant is a weakness here and now in our society doesn't necessarily mean it's a bad thing overall. We simply don't know enough to judge the bigger picture in the general case.
I can's see anything wrong with selecting for gestation the embryo which will turn into the healthiest human. This will result in a net gain in health for millions of real humans in future generations, at the expense of millions of potential (meaning "not") humans - the rejected embryos. Since the rejected embryos have no consciousness, and the real humans do, I think it's a worthwhile trade-off. If there was any evidence that the rejected embryos could feel pain or have any awareness of their situation, I'd go the other way. But as it is, it's a (bad pun alert) no-brainer.
My truck is like a series of tubes.
As long as I'm allowed to have a defect kid, I should be free to have one.
All other people can do what they like.
If you are going to do something with an embryo, you have crossed the line already and beyond that there aren't really any ethical questions, since it is already decided that the embryo has no intrinsic rights that need protecting. Any further regulation on the matter is just pandering to wine-and-cheese liberals.
Do it yourself, because no one else will do it yourself. [beta blockade 10-17 Feb]
If the genetic defect will cause the person to suffer and be dependent on others for their entire life why would anyone allow the embryo to develop? It seems more cruel than terminating a clump of cells.
People are afraid that we could screen out all defects?
What's wrong with that?
I wish my ancestors did it so that I (or whoever would be in my place) wouldn't have that constantly annoying eyesight problem...
Imagine an embryo wearing a hat like the one in this article's "Politics" subject icon! That's where I draw the line. It would look like the gutbuster alien dancing down the diner countertop at the end of Spaceballs.
Seriously, if you do an ultrasound, and you see the little greasy goblin wearing a hat, just flatten your wife's belly with the broadside a shovel, right then and there.
I consider myself a Christian, and while I see no problem with this in relation to my beliefs, I think that there are far too many unknowns and variables involved. The process of evolution has worked just fine so far, let it be. I don't think we are yet intelligent enough to control this aspect of humanity.
"Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
Do we select FOR or AGAINST the thinkslikecowboyneal gene?
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
I think that I should have the right to genetically engineer my child. I also think that I don't have the right to "BF Skinner" my child. Do you see the distinction?
That's the real issue, in my opinion where it is GROSSLY obvious that a defect will harm the child severely then we should. I really doubt our science (and scientists) are capable at present at deciding what is a 'defect' when no studies have been done and data is not available, since what one might consider a defect, may not be, or maybe tied to a whole host of other issues once development starts, after all if you're going to discard emybryos with percieved small 'defects', the error in judgement of what constitutes a defect is rather large.
If we coul we would monitor and control the growth and eliminate 'defects' during the whole term of a pregnancy or even as we grow throughout are life but this is just not feasable realistically, at some point an embryo is 'good enough', and I really don't think we have the knowledge at present to judge very accurately what constitutes a 'defect' at smaller levels without studies and long term data to back it up.
I'm don't care at all about 100 or 10,000 or maybe even 100,000 cells. I realize they have the spark of human life, but still I think it's unreasonable and hypocrite to be so protective about embryos.
I'm a vegetarian, because I value a living, breathing, eating, (thinking?) creature more than a squishy thing that won't even fit on my little pinkies nail.
As long as there are slaughterhouses, there will be battlefields.
Anyone else have a Gattaca feeling as i do :D
Why???
If you can read this... 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100111 01100101 01100101 01101011
(1) Either it works or it doesn't, for improving offspring.
(2) Lots of people won't be able to afford embryo selection, so humans will continue to explore both options.
I don't see a problem.
There was a great movie made on this *very* topic it is called Gattaca and you should watch it.
Also the extended idea which you didn't get to is the danger of species becoming to same/sterile/loosing it's diversity/"breeding" out x quality which appeared bad at first but turns out to be only thing to save species from existential threat. Examples abound in modern sci-fi Thor's race from SG-1 comes immediately to mind.
I'm sure there are many sci-fi books exploring same.
that when selecting from half dozen "viable" embryos, the choice should always be for the embryo with the lowest risk of becoming terminally ill (i.e. suffer from lack of quality of life). The embryos are being tested for scores of possible defects anyway - why not choose the one that has the smallest disposition of developing a terminal disease amongst those embryos available?
The current tech may show which people are physically more viable to contract a disease/illness, but what about human minds? How many Stephen Hawkins are people going to kill in the quest for perfection?
People should have the right to do anything within the limits of their personal freedom, and government should shut up. That is not the issue (hopefully we are all educated people who agree). The problem is whether people should actually go ahead and use those rights, and under what circumstances. The worst thing you can do to mankind is deprive it of a great mind.
The big problem I see here is the simple fact is the concept of "defect" is subjective.
Most people would agree that a disease that will cause death at a very early age or remove the child's ability to function would be a defect.
But, like he said, where does it end? Is red hair a defect? What if they find the specific gene for sexual preference? Is that now a defect?
Is being under/over a certain height or high probability of being overweight?
Brown eyes? Left handedness?
Where does it start and, if it's expensive to screen, will it only allow the rich to be "defect-free"?
If most of the embryos created in the process are going to be destroyed anyway, you might as well select for good health. If you have a problem with that, you likely have a problem with that kind of fertility treatment in general.
This issue presented HERE is the ethics involved in picking and choosing which embryos to implant rather than choosing at random, which would most closely (as far as we know) mimic the random selection of an egg to release and a sperm to make it to the egg. Totally different issue, with totally different ramifications - like the evolutionary path of our species. (You could argue that legalizing abortion also affects our evolutionary path b/c certain populations are now less likely to give birth - but the fact is that abortions happen whether they're legal or not. Genetic engineering of this sort is likely to be extremely rare if illegal.)
Warning: Apple/Nintendo fangirl. Likes her electronics cute & cuddly. May be rabid.
The movie Gattaca explores this situation. See http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119177/
The question isn't "should parents do this" - they will. The real dilemna will come when children with genetic problems start suing there obstetricians - or parents - for "wrongful birth" or "wrongful life".
"Dr. Whatisface was negligent in not compelling Mr. And Mrs. Doofus to take a genetic test prior to young Jimmy Doofus being born; Jimmy is under the average height for a male, which is obviously a genetic defect, and therefore the embryonic Jimmy should never have been implanted and brought to term. We therefor ask the court to find for the plaintiff and compell the defendant to support poor, short Jimmy for the rest of his life."
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
As a Christian, I draw the line at The words "Screw You, Im not doing that..." Or complete rebellion. Until then, they are just an undifferanted mass of protoplasm, kinda like telephone support in third world countries. Somewhere around the 52nd trimester. Anything else we should be allowed to terminate, after they gather the intelligence to totally rebel! Now thats viable life! ( important exception, of course is village idiots from Texas ).
Obviously the decision point is whether or not it will make a tasty good balut.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
On the one side, one my best friends Father died of Huntington's chorea. This is a hereditary disease that usually doesn't manifest itself until adulthood.
This used to mean you would pass it on to your children without knowing you even had it. There are genetic tests now for it however.
My friend took the noble course of having a vasectomy just to be sure he couldn't pass it on.
To make a long story short, my friend died in his twenties, in a very unpleasant way. It affects you both mentally and physically. His two brothers also died slow and painfully from the disease.
Can you imagine the Mothers pain losing not only her Husband but her three sons from this genetic disease?
Testing for this kind of disease certainly would seem reasonable to say the least.
But where do you or society draw the line?
Do we discard embryos that don't code for blue eyes and blond hair, or whatever ones preference?
what about height, intelligence and personality traits? Certainly we will eventually be able to understand the genetic code enough to pick and choose any characteristics we would want in our offspring.
All I can say is that it looks like a slippery slope from disease prevention to dehr Fuhrers dream of a master race.
i understand the drive to rationalize and simplify genetics and turn it fast into applied technology, but is it useful at all to discuss the issue in this context at all at this point, where our knowledge about genetics is still in its infancy?
my (lay and lame) understanding of the issue is that even if a gene is present, it is by no means certain that it is involved only in a single phenotype manifestation, or that a particular manifestation will occur for a single organism.
if even the best geneticists cannot give more than a statistical estimate about the development of certain phenotype traints, if a gene that is "harmful" in one situation could be "beneficial" in another, and if a person is considered to be more than their genotype, why not focus on treating a disease if such develops, instead of eliminating a remote _possibility_ by trying to remove a supposedly "harmful" gene from the gene pool (which appears to be the end goal here, even if that is not stated directly)?
since genetic variation is the basis of evolution, "curing" by eliminating variation could in the long term bring more problems that it will solve. it could be a bit like throwing out a bunch of "legacy code", and finding out you threw out your business model along with it ;)
I'm concerned that eventually children being hard to control will be a removable defect; one that may even be outlawed as unruly children may become bullies or criminals. We'll have an entire generation of sheep people.
We are nearing solutions for most of these genetic problems for those who are already living. Do we really need to include the gattaca argument in todays society?
Everyone has different ideals of the "perfect" human, so allowing arbitrary selection -- even if it were affordable to everyone, which it wouldn't be -- won't eliminate diversity.
What it will do is reverse the trend of propagating serious genetic defects throughout the gene pool. Thanks to social ethics and medical technology, people with major non-adaptive genetic mutations -- degenerative diseases, blindness, deafness, obesity, heart defects, and yes, even way-below-average intelligence (to the degree that's determined by genetics) -- are no longer selected out of the gene pool as they would be in a less organized or less ethical society.
We have an opportunity to pick up where we forced nature to stop in designing better-adapted humans. We may have to do some serious engineering on human genetics in order for us as a species to survive in different environments with toxic materials, not enough oxygen, too much radiation, or other uncorrectable environmental difficulties. That could mean another planet, or Earth in the far-future. Whining about parents genetically testing their zygotes is ridiculous.
Isn't the generally accepted philosophy of being human that what really matters is thoughts and personality? Thoughts cannot be genetically selected. Personality has some genetic basis due to biochemistry in the brain and genetically-determined brain structure, but even there the core of personality is dictated by the environment and experience.
I imagine gay embryos will be the first in the trash can. In a generation or two, gays will be seen only in old movies or tv sitcoms like "Three's Company".
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
Consider: If you remove all the embryos with genetic defects, the human race will be better off for it.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Hate to pull a Godwin, but with a nonsensical question of 'How many Stephen Hawkings are people going to kill?!?!?!?!'
So how many Hitlers are going to be avoided?
I have no problem with anyone who wants to sift through endless embryos until you find one that has the markers for mutant super-powers. After all, that's helping usher in the next stage of human evolution. Once you've discovered that, though, I don't think it's right to continue selecting based on the nature of those powers. Just let super-nature take its course. You should be proud just to have an X-Man running around your house, even if it is a crappy one like Dazzler.
The enemies of Democracy are
Of course, I had mod points yesterday...
You all have Oo.o and Firefox, so get World Wind.
So I understandably have a hard time agreeing that government could declare a position either way on this. They should just be silent and mind their own business.
Depends on the social contract under which your government is formed. In the US we have concepts like "All Men are Created equal", "we hold these truths to be self-evident" and "certain inalienable rights, among them Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness".
And then we premise our political philosophy on the idea that the purpose of government is to protect the individual from the tyranny of the majority. The trick here is when the parents' liberty and pursuit of happiness come into conflict with the child's life. It used to be we'd evaluate the order of operations in the order written, as each is a necessary precondition for, and therefore superior to the next.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Groups with a history of intermarrying, African-Americans, Eastern European Jews, etc can be at a higher risk genitic disease. Is your spose a carrier? Are you? Can the disease be detected in the parents? Can the disease(s) be detected with aminocentisious (spelling I know), which has a risk of misscarriage.
Down's syndrome, Fragile X, have no treatment, you just live with it.
Here is a list of some of the gentic disesase treated by Genzyme.
Lysosomal Storage Disorders:
Cerezyme® (imiglucerase for injection) and its predecessor Ceredase® (aglucerase injection) has been the only enzyme replacement treatment for Type 1 Gaucher disease for over a decade.
Fabrazyme® (agalsidase beta) for Fabry disease is our second enzyme replacement therapy for a lysosomal storage disorder. Fabry disease causes organ complications, heart disease, stroke, and renal disease.
Aldurazyme® (laronidase) is the first and only U.S. and European treatment for mucopolysaccharidosis I (MPS I), an often fatal genetic disease that affects approximately 3,000 to 4,000 people worldwide.
Myozyme® (alglucosidase alfa) is the first treatment ever approved for Pompe disease and the first for an inherited muscle disorder. MTAP, the Myozyme® (alglucosidase alfa) Temporary Access Program, is the primary mechanism to help ensure continued access to treatment in the United States.
So what is the disease? and how will it affect your childern's and grandchildren's lives?
What does the Slashdot community think about this?
I think you'd better keep your shields up if you meet another starship pretending to have communications problems.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
New posibilities mean change, debate and responsibility to use them for the good. I guess often new possibilities defy established norms and cultures.
Embryo selection can be used for good. I would draw the line where the quality of life the baby would be at stake. For example a inheritable disease which means the newly born would have to deal with unbearable pain for the rest of his life. I think there is enough medical expertise to define some norms of quality of life.
I am from the Netherlands. The culture of the Netherlands is very progressive, also regarding to abortion, euthanasia, drugs and homosexual marriages.
There are some things that are appropriate for individuals to personally chose to do but are unappropriated for the government to mandate. For example: the government should absolutely not be allowed to mandate bar code tattoos on everyone's forehead, but that doesn't mean that individuals shouldn't be free to get such tattoos themselves.
-- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
That is why Christians say no one but God decides who and when a person lives and dies.
And then when you give birth to a kid with a hole in his heart, spend hundreds of thousands of dollars just to keep him alive before finally losing him, the Christians will come back and tell you why you deserved all of that, and you're a double damned sinner for even suggesting that it would be nice if they helped out with the bills.
"Christians" say a lot of things, I've learned to tune them out.
All of you missed the most obvious point:
Skin color is a defect. Right?
Early in the movie, Gattaca, there was a scene with the African-American doctor. He explains to the prospective parents of some of their genetic choices, one of which was skin color. Did any of you notice the ever-so-slightly displayed sarcasm and/or disgust the doctor had? It thought it was an astute comment the movie made about society (i.e. society is VERY CONSCIOUS about skin color, even to the point of arguing over the lightness or darkness of people within the same race).
Hitler would have adored such an opportunity.
I believe what is happening in the Netherlands is just the beginning. The Eugenics Wars have begun.
The GOV is likely to use this to make super soldiers that will be used in war.
The technology is extremely dangerous and right out of Brave New World. There is way too much chance it could be use to undermine the rights and the uniqueness of the invidual by people selecting gender or eye colour. The technology should be completely banned. I want to be my own person, and there is somnething special about no one has control over your body and what you look like, you are completely your own. I dont want to be my parents idea of what I should be. If you value your freedom and your unique individual nature you will reject this. Nature doesnt have agendas. It doesnt have an agenda to perhaps try to for instance mess with childrens behaviour genes to make them more robot like and obedient. There is something important to our individuality and special quality as unique human beings, none other than our own, in the random processes of nature.
eradicating the genes that predispose some to kill everything else around them?
Sex perhaps? Physical or Mental attribute perhaps? (knock on wood, i wouldn't want to raise a severely mentally retarded child but i'm sure my IQ isn't something to brag about either nor warren a termination of life)
I believe, any choice ending in termination, there must be rational reasoning and it must be a humane reason. You don't breed a dog, and kill the puppies you don't like. I mean, WTF.
Leaving faith in random selection in hopes of coming across the right one seem counter productive, inhumane, unscientific and "unintelligent", IMHO.
For a mankind to achieve greater achievement, there must be greater sacrifice and failure. And without knowing and understanding our own defect, no amount of preparedness and presumption will ever guarantee greater success than that of our past.
"Don't let fools fool you. They are the clever ones."
If you're okay with destroying unused embryos randomly, which is typically the case when couples try in vitro, then using non-random criteria shouldn't pose any great moral dilemma. Personally, I'm not okay with either, so for me the question is mostly moot.
how will it affect your childern's and grandchildren's lives?
That depends, if the parents end up living on the street after selling everything to buy the drugs to keep one kid alive, how will it affect that kid and the healthy siblings? How fast does Genzyme collect the one million dollars that cap most policies?
''What if you were aborted because you have a "defect"? That would have sucked huh?''
That question can't be answered because it rests on a logical fallacy.
If you were aborted, you would never have existed. If you never existed, you would never have been in a position to contemplate the question.
The question plays on emotions of those who are already alive, people who have lived some life already - be it geriatrics with full lives, middle-aged, the young, kids or even newborns / their family.
This is about IVF embryo selection. A selection is already made. As we cannot foretell the lives that any child will lead, any question of "well what if this embryo that is certain to die of young age is the next Einstein!?" becomes moot as you could ask the very same question of the embryo in the 'next tube over' determined to -not- have the same disorder.
Once you realize that, then making the choice between the two is easy. Making the choice to make that choice in the first place may remain the hard part, for some.
Of course, given the choice and not taking the choice, then 16 years down the road realizing that, yep, your kid's dead because indeed he was certain to die at young age, might make you ponder not having made that choice. Or you could just accept that that's how life goes and be thankful for the 16 years you did have with the kid.
Similarly, let's say the 'healthy' one was chosen and turns out it ends up stillborn. You might wonder about the choice you made there, then, as well.
That's the fun thing about all of this - they're highly personal decisions and everybody has to live with that decision either which way.
That's also where government regulation comes into play, imho. If everything becomes a choice then this puts undue stress on the (hopeful) parents-to-be. That's also in part why the Dutch government currently is going with a case-by-case scenario - so selecting by "blue eyes, blonde hair" as some proposed is right out. Life-threatening disorders, predispositions, etc. are the bits being looked at - on a case-by-case scenario. I say in part, because the other part is just plainly the conservative religious party going "zomg! playing god!!!" and threatening to let the government collapse over the issue if they didn't get their way. (They're a minority party but together with two bigger parties just barely make the ruling majority; so if they go, the entire thing goes.)
hear, hear!
Now if only we could agree on that pesky "human being ... created" part.
Conception != created. The cells may not split. The cells may not settle. The embryo may be aborted by the body long before it enters anything like a zygote state. And so forth. And so on.
That being said, if you could choose the genetic make-up of your children and spare them any diseases or malformations I would be hard pressed to form an argument against it. Especially, since I would want the same for my children.
My argument against would be that folks that're "disabled" like me wouldn't have a chance to contribute to society as a whole....
In short, Beethoven. ;)
This is the most insightful/interesting post on this article and it gets marked flamebait? I hope that mod get banned!
Also, Hawking would be another fine example. Roosevelt (although his Polio was not a genetic defect). Hell, I didn't have perfect eyesight, can that be considered a defect worthy of abortion... er... fetal termination?
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
I don't care if I get modded down to troll or flamebait because I firmly believe what I am about to tell you. When will people realize that...
1. You were once an embryo too. If you cannot agree with this statement you need to repeat 5th grade health class.
2. Bringing life in this world is about much more than yourself, so it is not a choice, it is not something "telling you what to do with your body", it is about killing a living organism that happens to be the beginning stages of a human being, who would have grown up to have a family, friends, a real personality, who would experience love and life. An embryo is not a science experiment, and if you think it is a "choice", it is a choice only in the same way that a murderer chooses to kill a victim.
If you think it is OK to terminate embryos, I suggest you do some deep soul searching. If you do not believe in God, at least try to think beyond your own self interests and realize what it is you are doing.
I guess I got suckered into this troll of an article... yes the article itself is a troll, there isn't even a link to an article, but some of the comments on here make me sick.
I Heart Sorting Networks
We need some sort of system, fairly balanced. Let's have some attributes that you can choose between, say strength, dexterity, agility and intelligence. Now, when a couple decides they want to have a baby, they get a certain number of points, which they can allocate to any of those attributes. The more points, the more of that attribute the baby will naturally possess. Naturally those attribute levels can be changed via the environment after birth, but that's what you start with.
We could even have some broad templates, or classes, to help parents get started.
"What guarantee would we've had that his sisters would've brought us the same view of the cosmos?"
What guarantee did we have that Stephen Hawking would have been, well, Stephen Hawking at the time he would've still been a cluster of cells in a petri dish / whatever?
None. Or, rather, the same guarantee as for the next cluster of cells over.
So as per the parent, the choice becomes a lot more simple... given everything else the same, you'd pick the one that's far less likely to have genetic defects.
Of course everything else is -not- the same, but it's one thing to consider, and to consider hard, if you're going the route of choosing in the first place.
Would I have used this? My wife had two failed IVF attempts, and the third finally had both embryos implant. The selected eggs were based on the zygotes that replicated the most cells in 2-3 days. Our twin girls are now 3 years old. One is tracking normally, but the other started showing Autistic symptoms shortly after their first birthday.
Would a test have shown a tendency towards autism? Would we have used another of the remaining 3 zygotes instead of that one? If you haven't dealt with an autistic child, it's an incredible all-day long challenge, because she can hardly communicate at all.
I love both of my daughters deeply, and would die for them. So I can't even imagine either of them not in my life now. But autism is so hard on her, us, our family, it's tempting to consider having screened for this if it was reliable.
In my heart-of-heart, I wouldn't have done the tests, because there's a wonderful little girl in there. Albert Einstein is theorized as being autistic, and lots of adults with autism are incredibly smart, talented people making great contributions. Conversely, lots of healthy people sit around drinking beer and watch NASCAR all day. So what does that say? Health isn't everything, that's for sure.
But what I really fear, is that health insurance companies or government would *dictate* which tests to have and which embryos to keep! I'll pass on them deciding for my family.
Whew! That was way too long. Bonus experience points to anyone who actually read the whole thing.
I think there is a lot that could be said for this sort of tech, most especially if the embryos could be repaired rather then replaced. However as a gay man I can't help but feel threatened by this tech. How many parents out there would choose a gay child? Honestly if they could choose a straight one instead? They would consider it just making life for their child easier after all, avoiding that defect. I personally believe gays are an important part of society and the removing us from the diversity of human life would impoverish it. I shudder at the idea of the beauty and joy in my society going out inside a couple generations because it has been 'selected' right out of humanity.
As long as they can detect and subsequently abort all possible Asperger cases, I'm all for this.
Is it telling a woman what to do with her body when the embryos are not yet in her body? Because these embryos are created in a lab using material from both parents, they at least ought to have equal say in the matter. But that's not my main point.
I believe that a human at birth possesses an intrinsic, sovereign right to life. I further believe that the physical body (i.e. a fancy clump of cells no matter what your stage of development) is accompanied by a soul which grants it the right to life from the very moment it enters that body. I admit that I have no proof of the soul or when it arrives, but there are many aspects of life which cannot be proven; I call them "evident" while you might call them "emergent."
It's worth remembering that in this case, the parents always make a free choice to create these embryos. They do not "find" themselves in the situation either by accident or by corruption. Rather, they choose to assert not simply the right to reproduce or not produce, neither the right for the woman to terminate a pregancy, but rather simply to throw out some clumps of cells on the basis of preference.
So, why is this a problem for me? While you state your complete non-concern for your clump of cells, I on the other hand acknowledge an intrinsic worth and grant it enormous importance. And while you might call my position "unreasonable," you would have to admit that the entire question is beyond reason itself. You can no more prove an embryo deserves no consideration than I can that it does, although in my favor I do have thousands of years of human tradition (Christian and otherwise) in many forms which says that it probably does. I can cite the natural human inclinations -- whether evolved or given, some respect ought to be paid them -- to love, to serve others, and protect the innocent from harm. You have a rule of thumb which says if you cannot observe and reason it, there's not a chance it's there.
Therefore, in a situation which does not violate the rights of any man or any woman, except where these men and women claim a right to select which amongst uneniably existing and living entities should live or die, I think one must defer to the chance that the soul is there.
If you create embryos, then give birth to them or give them to someone else who will. Better yet, wait until they can screen eggs and sperm so that you don't have to create excess embryos at all.
But it comes back to this: you can't kill kids that aren't in the woman's body.
Not to put too fine a point on this, but I seem to recall the Nazi's taking this path once upon a time, albeit in a more proactive manner and after the fact. They too sought a more perfect and genetically pure society.
To put one 'type' of (potential) person over another (life/death) is discrimination at it's purist.
As well, as a side-note, given the some couples might need to resort to in-vitro fertilization, and the fact that they would need to screen for genetic illnesses makes one wonder why they could not procreate naturally? If we wanted to truly conquer these genetic conditions, we would let the natural reproductive cycle work them out of the human genome.
-AC
If folks don't have a problem with fertility treatments, which destroy many embryos as a result of the process, then they should also have no problem with selecting for health.
Japanese scientist: Technically, sir, tomatoes are fags. Military scientist: He means fruits.
Hell, if they really get this embryo-selection stuff working well, I'd like to see it become a normal, covered part of universal health-care systems. If everyone can afford to get selection done, then nobody need be born with "inferior" genes (quotes because everyone defines that differently) unless their parents are assholes.
And some parents will always be assholes who want to ruin their kids lives, and even then the kids won't have any "worse" genetic codes than we normal, unenhanced humans deal with nowadays.
I really, really hope that no network exec reads /.
Imagine a show where they don't have to pay the participants even the handouts and trinkets they pay for the rest of those "reality shows"...
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I think, if we try to minimize the bias in favor of the status quo, the question becomes "How can we accept not using these sorts of technologies.
It is rather like the example of distributing a medical aid budget over several possible projects. You can have all the fine principles about the value of human life and happiness that you want; but you still have to make decisions about who you are going to let suffer, who you are going to let die. It sucks; but there isn't an alternative.
Procreation technologies are no different. Refuse to use embryo selection? You are directly responsible for the suffering and death that results from defects that could have been screened. Use it? You are responsible for the discarded embryos. You can't even bow out of the whole business by avoiding IVF. Do you have any idea what the survival rate for embryos under natural conditions is? It sucks.
We can have all the platitudes we like about the value of human life, dignity, and whatnot; but that doesn't actually help us answer the questions we face. People are going to suffer, People are going to die, embryos are going to get discarded. We only get to decide which ones.
Let them have their perfect children. How can you worry about GATTACA when the world is already so sharply divided between the few in power and the many in need?
Perhaps this will make more people in power, and maybe they will be so thankful that they're not dead that they will want to help other people. Look on the bright side.
As for you not being able to get a job because you might keel over from a heart attack... you're talking about a far-off scenario quite a ways in the future, which requires a totalitarian regime run by genetically engineered children.
Currently we have a totalitarian regime run by a monkey. Let's see, which way should we travel along the evolutionary timeline for our rulers??? Because make no mistake, we are all peasants, the king's bloodline reins supreme, and no amount of genetic engineering is going to change that. If we're lucky, it will catch on in time to avoid another idiot like Bush.
too bad the world will end far before any of that.
PS
Is it just me or do "ethical" people just seem power-hungry?
"Eugenics". But that's basically what this amounts to, and as usual, the science is rapidly outpacing the ethics. I honestly believe that with each breakthrough in biotechnology, we need to pause for breath, so to speak, in order to assimilate the implications. But who decides, and on what basis, when a moratorium is in order? Even that aspect of the debate needs to be debated. Is it even possible for us to decide, as a species, on the future of the species? Can we, should we, deny the technology to those individuals who want it? At the very least, we need a scientifically literate populace in order to have any sort of meaningful discussion, but we're at the mercy of politicians who proudly parade their shocking ignorance of basic science. And worse, the mercenaries among them who cynically pander to the ignorance of their constituents in order to win votes.
I'll tell you what I think about eliminating "defects" from embryos: There was a guy who wanted to eliminate all genetic defects from society. His name was Adolf Hitler. (Let me rephrase that. That's not a guy. It's a cockroach.)
Who's to say that we have the knowledge or the right to decide who will live and who will never be born? What if the analysis that says a defect will certainly happen is incorrect and that person might have grown up and discovered the cure for cancer? What if the analysis that says that a defect has a 90% chance of occurring is also flawed? I don't think it is within the rights of men to decide someone's fate before he's ever born. (The words "men" and "he" are used in the generic sense to refer to both sexes, you oversensitive clod!)
McCain/Palin '08. Now THAT's hope and change!
I'm a Mormon, living in Utah. I tend to be quite religious. However, I believe that there is something to be said for letting nature take its course (I realize that there are qualifications to this) and let what happens happen. I am concerned about the "slippery slope" that is genetic selection. I have asthma and epilepsy, and feel that much of who I am was defined by my learning to over come these relatively minor afflictions. My two children suffered from TTS (Twin to Twin Syndrome) and were in the Newborn ICU for three months, floating between the threshold of life and death. I believe that they are stronger for it. I'm not saying that I wish for everyone to deal with horrible ailments (especially those that threaten life), but I sort of wonder if methods of embryonic selection could be cheating us of certain invaluable struggles that make us who we are as the Human Race. I don't know. Catch me on a different day and I might disagree somewhat with myself.
As our knowledge of genetics inreases, eventually there will be choices like: This one might kill him by leukemia before he's 25, but if it doesn't it'll guarantee that he never has heart disease.
Some parents will opt for full out safety and take no risk at all. Their kids will turn out supremely average in all respects, dull.
Others will take every risk associated with every possibly beneficial gene and so opt for the chance at a super-kid that might inherit various diseases, but will also have a shot at brilliance.
There will be all levels of in-between choices as well.
In short, there will be no line.
Good judgement comes from experience, and experience comes from bad judgement.
- W. Wriston, former Citibank CEO
This is not a post against or for abortion, leave that at the door. This is about genetically choosing what embreyo will develop based on a genetic profile that will match a template free of deases and pestilence... I think they tried this in Germany once, but it was rather low-tech at the time, but towards the same results. Populace without blemish. A Supier Race of humans to lead into the future. Think about that...
Look, Here's the background: My wife and I got married and had a kid. (on /., right....) He had some "issues" but we worked with the doctors to figure things out. We still don't have a 100% match for the syndrome he has, but it is close to a few that usually are pretty bad with a whole host of bad things. At 4 years of age, he's been through a lot. Surgeries, etc.. Someone with genetic testing would of thrown his cells away or aborted him.
Oh, did I mention that he just recently had an IQ test as part of followup from his cranial surgery. It seems he is IQ'd at 131 and may have to be refered to special schools because he's genious range.
So, I put forth that genetic testings is not worth squat. It may tell you what could happen, but it cannot predict in any way how smart the end person would be. I'll take my son who will know more than I ever will, but be challenged vs. a "normal" kid with a "normal" IQ. It makes you wonder how many Einsteins, have been flushed down labatory sinks because they didn't have perfect genetic matches to some profile.
The better news is he has a sister, 2 years old. She's got about all the same as him, but to a lesser degree. Still had to have cranial surgery like her big brother. BUT, she looks like she might be smarter. :) Again, Glad we didn't test and abort. They could have the cures or inventions to the future's problems locked in their cute little brains.
Or they could just give me a drawing of the solar system and make me smile to know they surpass my brothers kid. 8D
--- Relax, that mass muderer is just trying to reduce our carbon footprint, one fetus at a time...
Womens reproductive choices aren't made in a vacuum. Thus, it's very myopic to think that men have no interest or stake in these choices. The embryos women choose to carry to term will grow up and become a part of our society one day. Because of this, it's all of societies concern what limits are placed on embryo selection. This issue doesn't just concern people with a vagina. For example, what if a woman decides she wants to have only disabled babies? Don't laugh or scoff - this has already come up:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7287508.stm
These disabled babies will grow up to collect government benefits and will require special consideration and treatment their whole lives. Their special needs will have to be provided for by you and me - so don't tell me that I have no stake in this particular womans reproductive choices. If her choices effect me, then I have a stake in them and should have some say in what bounds and limits her choices can be made in.
I'm sick of hearing about how men should just shut the fuck up when it comes to reproductive rights - as if we have no interest in the future of the human race. If that's the case then I should never have another of my tax dollars go toward anything related to womens reproductive health or childcare. I don't want that to happen because I believe that I have a stake in the future that isn't limited by the mere fact that I have a penis. As I've just shown, womens reproductive choices have the potential to effect more than just the women who make them. Some of womens reproductive choices effect all of society and, as such, are the business of society. If a woman wants to have an abortion that effects no one but her and is thus no ones business but hers. However, if she's deciding exactly what sorts of embryos she wants to carry to term then that choice will eventually effect all of society and is thus - to some extent - the concern of all of society. The issue of embryo selection is not something that can = or should - be left only to women. It's an issue that effects us all and we all should have a say in it.
Good feminists abort male fetuses
Ignoring morals, ethics, religious arguments and all other such matters, the practice of selecting which biological features can or cannot enter our population is bad business. This is primarily because our population has successfully survived and co-existed with all other organisms in our biosphere up to this point (I suppose some species have definitely had the short end of that stick...), and it is difficult to fully understand the selective advantages of our genetic diversity. Moves to manipulate (attenuate certain traits) the distribution of allelic variation in our population is likely to make us less adapted to the environment in which we have evolved. Additionally, "geno"-cide is a type of discrimination we should all be wary of. For example, if it is deemed acceptable to discriminate in favor of certain traits, where does that leave existing individuals with such traits? unable to reproduce? unable to obtain medical insurance? this is certainly a slippery slope.
Not to be misunderstood, I am writing about the societal detriment of eugenic selection on a broad scale, not the well-intentioned decisions of future parents.
I for one, would like to be the first to welcome our genetically engineered Overlords, please spare me when the Eugenics Wars start.
But as to what could possibly go wrong, I have one word, and one word only, ahem:
KHAAAAAAAAAAAAANNNNNNNNNN!!!
I have a genetic defect which my daughter has inherited. A specialist stated it might affect my daughter to the point where she might not want children herself (she was three at the time). Now in her late twenties she has a degree in philosophy, runs her own rock group, recorded several CDs. Organises charity events, and won several prizes in art. I look forward to having some defective grandchildren.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Pardon me while I cobble together some straw men from the comments and then demolish them:
I'M disabled, you insensitive clod!
Well, that probably sucks, but we're not even talking about you. We're not, in fact, talking about anyone. We're talking about embryos.
I recently saw Mike Huckabee talk. He trotted out this bit about human embryo stem cell research with this picture in his wallet that he claimed was of a 4-year-old girl whose mother got her from a grab bag of frozen embryos at the baby store or whatever, and he was like, "Why would we ever want to do something that might take this little girl away from her mother???"
Well, Mike, and made-up straw man, we simply wouldn't. The decision is about whether individual embryos develop into people or don't; not who lives or dies. Parents are going to love and care for any baby you hand them. Once you're at that stage, you are no longer concerned about whether this child should be harvested for stem cells or whether it should be allowed to grow into a baby. It's already a baby at that point and no one is suggesting it be destroyed.
Talking about Beethoven or Stephen Hawking is pointless. They are/were unique, but they aren't special. Instead of thinking "what would the world do without Beethoven or Stephen Hawking," think, "what would the world do with fully-healthy and able-bodied Beethoven and Stephen Hawking?" You're still going to get those people. They're just going to be healthier.
Haven't you seen Gattaca???
Yes, I have. It's a really underrated movie, I think. It's one of the best SF movies of the 90s, because it does what speculative fiction is supposed to do: ask the big questions. --Not blow up aliens.
BUT...
If anything Gattaca should show you why we need to take care of all people, regardless of their innate health or abilities, and why medical information belongs with doctors, not employers. It stresses the importance of universal health care. Because once these embryos become people, they have rights. It is here, in the real world with real humans who actually exist, that we must never forget Beethoven or Hawking.
Every single one of us is probably walking around with some nasty shit lurking in our genes. Some of it science understands now, some of it will be understood later. We can't always predict what will happen to an organism, but if we can avoid known problems, then that's a good thing.
OMG THERE WILL ONLY BE PRETTY PEOPLE!!!! OH THE HUMANITY!!!
And here's one I just plain can't get my head around. Who cares? Pretty people, on average, do better in life. What is wrong with that?
In my experience, people who worry about an influx of pretty people are usually people with chicken wing stains on their tattered and over-stretched Akira T-shirts. Attractiveness is partially genetic, to be sure, but most people are just average and the difference in attractiveness is explained by "giving a shit what you look like." Looking presentable does not imply superficiality. Looking like crap does seem to imply, however, social retardation which makes working together awful.
Don't be afraid of the pretty, healthy children. They're not going to eat you. They will just want to call you Mommy or Daddy.
Sheesh.
My argument against would be that folks that're "disabled" like me wouldn't have a chance to contribute to society as a whole....
In short, Beethoven. ;)
You know, I hate to use a cheap pop cultural reference in a debate about something this serious, but an appropriate one comes to mind... in an old Star Trek:TNG episode, I recall the crew of the Enterprise visiting a planet where everything was planned, including reproduction of children, and all children were genetically engineered to excel at something. Of course, any fetus with a genetic deformity of any kind was automatically terminated; parents were given no choice in the matter. Upon learning this, Geordi LaForge, blind since birth, gets angry at the very notion of disposing of "imperfects".... like him.
"Who the hell are they to decide what kind of contribution I can make?", he said.
TV or not, that's one of the most insightful things I've ever heard in the whole "designer/perfect fetus" debate.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
All this really does is extend biological processes into the conscious space. Instead of just simple environmental pressures causing selection, more abstract concepts come into play.
As a species we have a very high reproduction and survival chance, and almost no predators or threats. So the gene pool is tending towards a neutral stance. This is normal, and most likely the ideal survival strategy, since when there's no selection pressure there's no telling what will be the next favorable/unfavorable trait, so you nedd to maximize variations. Selection isn't going anywhere fast for us as a species right now. Some things are still changing, like possibly peak intelligence backsliding in favor of multitasking capability, but overall we're not fighting for survival very hard as a species.
Now, I consider it part of my purpose to produce the best offspring I can. You may disagree, that's your problem. If I choose a mate based on specific characteristics rather than at random, I'm already performing a conscious selection of traits. I could take that one step further and choose an egg donor with the best traits and a different partner for the social raising who will contribute superior resources. This means my offspring would have both inherent and environmental advantages, which sounds pretty favorable to me.
Doing more advanced selection for embryos based on attributes is just yet another layer of extension. What if I want a male instead of a female because as a male myself I believe my probability of avoiding a dysfunctional child is better? What about if I want to split an embryo for identical twins because they tend to support each other and become more stable mentally and emotionally?
The point is the line is pretty fuzzy, and yes you can argue that people "will throw out the gay ones", or you could just as well argue that "gay people will only keep the gay ones". Being bi myself, I don't really consider that to be a likely factor in my decision, even if it were easily identifiable as a genetic trait (it's currently not).
But when it comes down to it, I'm going to go for every option that gives an advantage that I can get away with. Why? Because that's pretty much the mandate of reproduction. If other people don't, well then they risk having their genes bred out of the pool. Sucks for them, but that's kinda how life works. So I say give me everything you've got and if it's a country-specific issue just watch me pull up stakes and move wherever I can have the best kids. A tradition we've had for possibly millions of years (or we'd all still be hanging around central Africa).
Introducing the new Occam Fusion! Now with sqrt(-1) fewer blades!
Oddly relevant.
Fnord.
i always thought that perspective would have an interesting impact on abortion discussions.
at least until ALF got involved :)
It seems after much experience in nerd-dom that many of my fellow nerds are a cynical bunch. Or an atheist bunch. Or mad-at-the-world. Or combinations. But really, we are going to say that because a person carries a certain trait that makes them more likely for some disease, they don't deserve to live?? It's not like we're curing autism here, we're just hiding the bodies. Occupancy does not grant ownership.
I see a future with rich parents selecting the best looking, most talented etc embryos (let's call them "Eloy") and the other people (let's call them "Morlocks") having children the "natural" way. This will lead to the Eloys getting better jobs hence more money creating a disparity with the Morlocks who can't get those good jobs due to inferior qualifications.
Eventually there will be need to create fences and walls to secure the Eloys from the Morlocks and thus both races will further diverge, with the Eloy ever increasing their genetic advantage, controlling the planets resources and making sure the Morlocks won't attain potentially dangerous technology. Soon they will find a better way of containing the Morlocks (who sometimes do manage to penetrate the boundaries) by building their cities up into the sky and locking the Morlocks down into the ground.
And thus the Eloy will be able to live in a peaceful, perfect society. - A perfectly fascist one...
And when you gaze long enough into the code, the code will also gaze into you.
I think this will be a slippery slope we'll all (as the human race) be progressing downwards on. Screening for potential defects is not definite, and my wife and I know this first hand.
Half way through my wife's pregnancy we were told that our son has spina bifida, discovered during a routine ultrasound. We were told that he would never walk and have severe learning disabilities (a result of hydrocephalus). We were given the option to abort. After consideration, we decided against that.
Fast forward to present day, my son is now 8 yrs. old. He is healthy and unless you see the scar on his back (from when they closed it up after his birth) you would not differentiate him from any other healthy 8 yr. old boy. He can walk, abeit with more effort than the average person, and he never did develop hydrocephalus. This has surprised the doctors, especially the neurosurgeon who wanted to implant a shunt in his first month of life because he was so sure he would need it.
Whether my son is the exception to the rule or not is irrelevant. We were told ahead of time of his defect, and warned about how bad it would be. The doctors were right, he does have Spina Bifida, but his symptoms are almost insignificant. In the sake of full disclosure, he does suffer incontinence and it will be a lifelong problem for him, but there is many ways for him to deal with that which does not hold him back from a full, productive life.
Had we known at conception or soon afterwards what the doctors predicted for my son, it would have been a tough decision. Learning about it when we did changed that, because my wife was far enough along that she developed a bonding already with my son and could not bring herself to aborting him because he was not 'perfect'.
Now seeing how my son is and that the doctors predictions for him weren't even close, we're so incredibly happy that we decided to carry on with the pregnancy. I realize that if we did abort, we wouldn't know him or realize what we gave up. That's the point of my post.
Unless medical knowledge progresses to the point that they can accurately predict the severity of an unborn persons health, this shouldn't be an option. I admit that our case is an exception, but as long as that can happen it's something we all need to think about.
This is a scary road we have to travel. Movies like Gattaca show how exteme this can get. I'm not against abortion and think ultimately it's the womans choice, but abortion based solely on an assumption of health is not a good idea in my opinion, especially when medical science can't accurately predict the severity. Even if they could, like many previous posters have stated, there are many handicapped people who are better contributors to humankind that fully abled, healthy people. The ability to contribute to society is only one small factor in considering the worthiness of life as well.
In conclusion, I'd rather medical science work towards repairing genetic defects rather than terminating and trying again. If that isn't possible, I'd rather see the perceived defective unborn be given the chance at life anyways, rather than destroyed because it may be a burden on society.
Of course, not every handicapped child is the same, but I believe that my son is having a happy life dispite his handicaps. And in a sense, he also is a joy to us.
But his life did have a dramatic effect on our family life. My wife devoutes all her energy in taking care for him. As a result of this, her relationship with my now 13 year old daughter has been very poor. My wife also has been suffering from a burn-out and depressions. For many years my daughter has not been able to invite friends over to our house, because my wife could not handle the additional stress of an extra child in the house, while having to care for our son. It is my daughter who has been suffering far more than my son. For me too it has not been very easy. For many years our lives have been centered around caring for our son.
Check out this link. Some people think that this is definitely a good thing.
Wh47 d1d j00 541, 31337 15n't t3h r0xor5 ne m0r3???
I like it. The child I deliberately create is one that I will love. The genes don't make me a parent, but rather raising the child makes me a parent. It is our responsibility to raise the best children we possibly can; to give our sons and daughters every chance possible to live a long, healthy and happy life; to make as few mistakes as possible when we bring them up. If I'm trying to have a child, then the love I intend to feel would require me to give him/her the best genes I've got.
When a government decision requisites arbitrating such concepts as "dualism" and "existence of the soul", then government should realize it's provenance and take a pass. Seems to me that's pretty much what they've done. I'm glad we agree.
Furhtemore it should be noted that almost all women above the age of 35 are screened on Down Syndrome and that parents are encouraged to consider abortion. (I personally have been told by a gynaecologist that I would have difficulties to find a doctor who would be willing to perform heart surgery on my yet unborn child in case of Down Syndrome.)
The whole discussion here in the Netherlands is mainly a political on, because one of the parties in the coalition is a very conservative christian party who are against any form of selection and are against abortion. For them a firtelized human egg, is a human being. In their thinking the distruction of an embryo equals murder. It seems that they have more problems with the distruction of embryos than that there is a selection being made.
As others have said, we don't really know the long term issues related to pulling out these sorts of genetic 'defects'.
It can be more subtle then you think - imagine being able to control for depression, but by doing so you remove all those potential periods in peoples' lives where heading towards depression causes them to completely change life direction into something more positive? Or if you can control for manic depressive behaviour, or mild forms of obsessive compulsive disorder, or heck, autism - a lot of reasonably interesting people had these sorts of conditions develop, and not only do we still not understand WHY they develop, we don't understand the impact these predispositions have to some of the very extreme "positive" developments by humanity.
To me, controlling for all of the above will probably result in standardised worker bees being developed. They may be very smart, they may have nothing wrong with them, but they may lack the strange bends which tips people to consider new and weird ideas. Of course, this stuff can't be proven (yet); its really begging for some more research into GAs..
I personally think that one of the keys to understanding what we're capable of as a species, both positive and negative, needs us to focus not on what happens when things go brilliantly right, but all of the strange conditions when things go wrong.
If you can choose between an embryo pre-disposed to colon cancer and one that is not, why would you choose the embryo likely to fall ill?
In vitro fertilization apparently correlates with an increased rate of birth defects --- the very least a parent going this route should do is eliminate genetic illnesses. Better still would be to eliminate the problems caused by the procedure itself.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/01/24/MN35978.DTL
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/health/jan-june02/testtube-3-6.html
What if it's a clump of cells in your brain? How about your optic nerve? What about the little clump-o-cells on your heart, SA Node?
See it's not that anyone cares about all cells after all we shed loads of cells each day- but there are some cells we care about more than others. After all I'd hate for you to give up your P-wave over a silly argument on slashdot.
I for one think that the particular clump of cells you implicitly refer to happens to have lots of value. Although it cannot survive on its own if you don't kill it it will likely become a creation more biologically elegant than you can imagine. In the same way a baby becomes an adult, so long as you nurture it. Perhaps the correct perspective is that the little clump-o-cells, already human, is in fact already an elegant biological creation.
Much Love, Ed
How about all of the embryos that for one reason or another are destroyed by the body itself? Should we be trying to protect those as well? Should we spend money on protecting the "unborn" instead of say, cancer research?
If either of your 2 cases were greater than .001 % of the abortions in the world, you would have a point. But because of a few rare cases, all pre-born humans get no protections?
Look up spontaneous abortion. It's a lot more common than the medically-induced kind. Some estimates put about half of all "pre-born" humans as being discarded in this way, usually because of chromosomal abnormalities.
Reintroduce the larger land preditors in all countries and ban all automobiles, with an emphasis around schools, especially colleges. That would take care of two problems at once. Too many stupid people and global warming.
First off, you should realize that this discussion in the Netherlands is sparked by a very small (2 seats in the government) ultra-religious (they dont accept women in any meaningful position in their party, etc) splinter party (2 seats in the government). This small party was needed to make the current "cabinet" possible and it is now caching in on all kinds of stuff the dutch did NOT intend when the last elections took place.
Most dutch dont care at all which part of surplus clumps of cells gets thrown away and on what criteria. all but one clump will get ditched anyhow so a person with any brain cell at all will choose the best of the lot anyhow!
Having said this, there is a very good reason to ditch the ones with a genetic defect: Due to our protected lives, evolution longer is a meaningful process for correcting DNA defects over time. Even with serious defects you can survive to have children and keep these DNA defects in the gene pool. It is therefore imho no more than prudent that we help nature a bit in this respect.
Just my 2 grains of salt...
A little background information on this discussion should be in order.
You have to know that the government is a coalition of three parties. Normally this is a combination of three of the biggest parties, but in this case they formed it together with one of the smaller christian fundamentalist parties.
In the current coalition they are the ones that have objections to embryo selection.
The big majority of all the other parties are pro embryo selection. The big majority of the population is pro embryo selection. They all understand that it doesn't make sense to put back an embryo that later on in it's life as human very likely will get a very nasty desease.
In my opinion they understand that it is fundamentally sick to have the twisted religious moral of a few imposed on the whole population.
In either case not all the embryos are put back, so in either case some will die. Now the dilemma is do you want your child to have this terrible desease with all the pain and sadness that comes with it or do you want a child that will lead a happy healthy life? Well, what kind of dilemma is that.
Privacy is terrorism.
"Doctor, I want to have an abortion"
"Well, let see it is just pass the second trimester."
"What is that doctor?"
"Hmm, it is 6 months, 0 weeks, 0 days, 0 hours, 0 minutes, and 0.0000000000000001 seconds*. You see it was nothing but a clump of cells that we could have sucked out before, now it is a human life just like you and me."
*DISCLAIMER - I am not entirely sure what the law is because I would never have an abortion, all I know is what I here in the news. And I think this is true, if not substitute the true time you can have an abortion up to and add 0.0000000000000001 seconds.
----
I feel this whole thing is ridiculous, Human life should start at conception. The gametes have now joined to form a zygote and they will develop into a baby. The line is much easier to draw there and works for me. If you don't what to have a baby, then don't have sex or accept the responsibilities for your actions.
So, this is not really different from what Spartans used to do in the day, apart from saving the woman the trouble of actually giving birth before the child is inspected and then possibly thrown off a cliff.
I love how the minds of so many Slashdotters' immediately jump to how the current issue will spell out doom for all of humanity. The truth is that only a tiny, tiny fraction of all births come from in vitro fertilization, even in first-world countries. Even if every single one of these kids were the clone of the exact same person, our genetic diversity would do just fine for the foreseeable future.
I'm concerned about what could be classified as a 'genetic defect.' Many people would agree that selecting against embryos with cystic fibrosis or other early, lethal genetic disorders would be compassionate. But what about screening for sex, which is already done in many parts of the world with some very detrimental consequences? What about selecting against a child that was gay? How about left handedness?
Who's to say such selection is not just evolution further physically strengthening the species?
Of course, physical strength is not the only factor in survival.
On the flip side, who might have been denied existence had such a practice been available in earlier times?
(Srinivasa Ramanujan, Eva Peron, Blaise Pascal, Bill Hicks, Stephen Hawking, Ada Lovelace, Lou Gherig; the list is quite long...)
Alas, that list could also come to include anyone who has ever died of drug overdose, as one could argue that such an inclination is a genetic deficiency. That's where this practice would start to get slippery.
If you further extended that concept to merely include predilection for addiction, we'd potentially lose George Carlin & George Bush, two humans who for better or worse have had an undeniable effect on modern society (and one of whom probably never thought he'd be mentioned in the company of the other.)
One thing is sure: As humans became capable of doing something, they (or at least some of them) usually do, no matter what others may have to say about it.
Any argument against such selection has at its roots a faith-based belief in Spirit. Only those who have such belief will be harmed here, as their belief also entails another entity (or entities) controlling their existence.
The bottom line is such behavior may make us hardier, but only in the physical sense. It will also certainly change our future, just as does every human action.
If there was any "gay gene" I'd say yes ..
But I'd say this is more bullox than insightful.
Look to nature, humanity is throwing everything away which is default in nature. ...
My male cat screws the other male cat around the block; does that mean they are gay; or just animal behavior?
Before you know they will be only allowing people with blue eyes ...
--- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..
Some people have more cells than others. I don't think it's fair to try to define how human someone is by the number of cells they have.
My kid wouldn't use a code font to discuss ;)
Furtheron, I'm ADHD too, runs through the family; slightly dyslexic and my mom is for sure happy to have me ;)
Even better, my mom WANTED to have a child, in a time where there was no fancy pre-selection.
--- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..
You're in for some tough times when you start trying to litigate or legislate action on the part of another person. Granted governments try to do it all the time (taxes, renters rights, requiring emergency rooms to treat all incoming patients). Ultimately, if you to try to do this anywhere you might save a life, you would destroy the economy entirely by pre-determining all economic activity.
Socialized health care is a perfect example. Shortages in available health care are a reality that can not be removed through legislation. But people want sue simply because health care is un-available. How can you righteously try to hold someone accountable for something that is practically guaranteed to happen no matter what they do? It makes no sense.
From a scientific point of view, I find this exciting and potentially beneficial to the race as a whole. As a US citizen, I find it scary. I have come to distrust anything where the decision regarding personal rights is left up to any government. A question we ask each other a lot is, "Should we do something just because we can?" My answer has always been "It depends . . . " I have a personal interest in this and related subjects. My mother is 94, in good general health but shows signs of dementia. Her family is generally long-lived--several have made it to 100 in my lifetime--but the last decade or so isn't pretty. Am I looking at my own future, I wonder? I am 60 and feel fine, aside from a bit of joint pain that abates quickly once I start moving around. My doctors tell me I'm a "young guy." All my blood work and stress tests come back clean. Do the same genes that keep me healthy also doom me to losing my mind in 20 or 30 years? I wish I knew.
I would also like to point out that you can face criminal charges if you fail to provide food for your older children, up to the age of 18.
obviously they had a different understanding.
one argument for their perspective is that it emphasizes our connection to the rest of the non-human world, how we are like animals. (for example, if children are not born human, does that make it okay to abort them? why? i know vegans who would say that it doesn't...)
the point isn't to fight it out (your perspective has obviously won in the US, hands down), but to consider what the different ways of looking at things have to offer us.
Gattaca...please mod me redundant, Gattaca, because that's gattaca how the human brain gattaca learns.
gattaca
In short, Beethoven. ;)
Stephen Hawking. Lou Gehrig.
Michael J. Fox has Parkinson's. Pope John Paul II was also rumoured to have it: how would the world and Eastern Europe look like without him?
I don't think men should have any business telling a women what to do with their bodies, certainly not based on faith either.
How about the business in having a say in the future of their (potential?) children? If the act was consensual, then why shouldn't the man have a say in what's going to happening? Half the genetic code is "his".
If the woman didn't want a child, then she shouldn't be having sex (ditto for guys). Every act has consequences, and if you're not willing to accept them don't perform the act.
Well, maybe not everyone, there's 500 comments, and I can't be bothered to read them all.
We're talking in vitro fertilization. While there is certainly some justifiable Gattaca talk here, most of it seems to be focusing around whether it's okay to discard an embryo because of potential defects. But we're talking about a bunch of embryos that are going to be discarded, anyway, due to the nature of the process!
Ultimately, it's the Gattaca themes that are of more concern, and realistically, it's only a matter of time until we hit that point. What responsible parent wouldn't want the best for their child?
It's not like natural selection through pre-reproductive mortality is really working in the western world anymore. When a family decides to go in-vitro, if they have 5 or 6 embryos, why shouldn't they pick the one with the least genetic defects?
In some cases it'll probably be a trade (because a defect that increases the chances of a particular disease might grant immunity to a different one), but in general this kind of selection means a significant improvement in quality of life and a reduction in medical bills later in life. What's not to like?
And please don't give me the "shouldn't be playing god" nonsense, you bunch of atheists.
That is the long term concern. Is it wise to begin editing out portions of our genetic diversity? Many of these genes have complex and little understood effects. Declaring a particular genetic trait 'defective' may well be quite short sighted. In fact it is already well known that many genes have forms which are both beneficial under some conditions and harmful under others, or at least offer a trade off. This is in fact why many of them have persisted in the human genome.
Even beyond that, ALL the genetic diversity of the human race is material upon which evolutionary pressures can act. The more narrow that diversity is, the weaker the overall evolutionary potential of the species.
Do we really think we're wise enough to start deciding what to keep and what to discard? I have my doubts.
"Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." -- Jefferson
We're all binary people. If the code is wrong, and doesn't execute flawlessly, we SIGHUP, rewrite the code and fix it.
We can't SIGHUP people, though there are a few I vote for kill -9. Probably a different list than yours.
People are different from code. Do we want to 'fix' the code? Who decides what 'fixed' is? Many would write out homosexuality, if it's genetic. Others would write out the 'warrior gene' that both makes men agressive, but also willing to die to defend their families.
But, doing anything to stop it flies in the face of current orthodoxy: an embryo is part of the mother's body. It's solely HER choice whether to keep or terminate it, and she can do so based on any criteria SHE wants. That's the endgame of Roe v. Wade. So, if you want to ban the mother from making any choice you want, you weaken the argument in Roe v. Wade that it's just a bunch of cells attached to the mother.
My personal belief is that somewhere between conception and birth it becomes a person, but it's hard to draw that line clearly in a legal, moral or scientific way
Genetics is going to change the world this century as much as electricity and electronics did the last, and we're not ready for it.
i do wonder who thought it would be a good idea to use AAAS for an orgonisation name ? be nice if i could clame intelagent desing as a theroiry ?
"I don't think men should have any business telling a women what to do with their bodies, certainly not based on faith either."
Why then, does a woman post intercourse still have the choice to be a parent but the man does not? Especially when it comes to taking care of a potentially ill child? What if the father does not want to have the responsibility of supporting a baby with downs? Do not both the Man and the Woman have the same rights?
--
That being said I find Abortion abhorrent, not that people who have or perform them are evil and I am good, far from it! we merely disagree about when human life begins but unfortunately the language (on both sides) becomes very unloving. I take the term Fetus literally (Latin: ftus, offspring) though we use it in the English language to dehumanize someone thus making their extermination more palatable it is, in point of fact, a human being.
When you open the door to 'its just a clump of cells' you open the door to sex selection, eye color, hair color, height, weight, and any number of features that would make your local eugenicist smile. And that, my friend, is a nice little seed of evil to plant in society. Some people are more genetically deserving to live than others, some are superior and should rule over others, and it only gets darker from there.
"They should just be silent and mind their own business."
BTW this was the argument of slave owners in the south, because in their view Africans were not fully evolved people, or the descendants of Ham, or whatever other excuse they were peddling they were adamant that the government had no place in their lives..
"Ahh! Arrogance and stupidity in the same package, how efficient of you!" --Londo Molari
I ass/u/me by "make it possible" you mean "remove their prohibition against," right? How nice of them, to bring new technologies to the people.
The current gene pool of the human race is the product of harsh selection. But in developped countries, selection has all but stopped: one's ability to live to adulthood and reproduce is no longer significantly influenced by, say, the quality of eyesight. It is inevitable that this will lead to an increase in vision defects (this shows for animals living exclusively in caves, which after many generations loose the ability to see).
I get the feeling that we are simultaneously destroying the planet AND the genes ours ancestors gave us.
I think most people are missing the point. The question is where this will stop. If bit by bit they allow to select for every risk, even the most irrelevant ones. Have u seen Gattaca? So there is indeed a need for regulations. Before the problem is there, goverment should prevent. Not start regulations when the problem is there already.
In my opinion, one should only select in the case the embryo carries a serious defect. Or even in families with a really high risk for some hereditary diseases.
I have a really good solution. Ban in vitro fertilization , it is immoral as far as I'm concerned.
Seriously, without religious arguments, the very real question is. 'should you draw a line?'.
Any line is going to be drawn on religious grounds.
The Roman Catholic church teaches that all forms of artificial insemination do violence against the dignity of the human person and are morally and intrinsically evil. I agree, your millage may very.
âoeTolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons.
I have a significant amount of missing teeth; it's genetic, my mother has the same missing teeth, but my sister does not. In order to fix the missing teeth with implants, I'll need to spend about 30-40k. Being selective about the genes I pass will ensure that my descendants don't need to spend lots of money on dental work like I do.
No, I will not work for your startup
Late to the party... but I want to comment anyway.
I'm a woman who just completed her first round of IVF in a European country where pre-implantation genetic diagnosis is illegal. Any embryos that are allowed to divide (max 3) must be transferred (not "implanted" as many people have said - the implantation is a job for the embryo).
So what does this mean for me? It means that without PGD, I had to carry this child for more than 9 weeks until I miscarried. If I had known ahead of time that there was a problem, we would have been spared an incredible amount of heartache.
It's not the same as a natural pregnancy. Women who miscarry after a natural pregnancy can go on to try again in a matter of weeks. Women who undergo IVF have to wait agonizing months to pay many thousands of dollars for another invasive and very uncomfortable cycle.
Unless you have gone through it, you can't imagine how emotionally taxing all of this is. I think the discussion is way to narrow when we only talk about the rights of the embryo - there are other human lives with rights here, too. I am not just an incubator in this.
And to clear up one other misconception - much more often than not, embryos that are not transferred are cryo-preserved for use in a later cycle (60-70% survive freezing and thawing).