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?"
Wow. My first thought was not to touch your post with a 10 foot pole. I have a birth defect as well and I don't believe that life starts at conception. In any case, I am not the woman either.
If your mother could have chosen a different embryo other than yours, or repaired yours, would you of wanted that for her?
Tough questions, I know. My own sister missed an abortion by -> - much. I cannot imagine life without her.
I would never take anything away from disabled people. Ever. They have made tremendous contributions to society.
EVEN still, I would say that we don't have the rights to tell parents that they must have children with known defects, especially when there is a technical solution proven to work.
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
They may be overpopluated now, but they are heading for a very huge crash in the future if they don't do something about the cultural pressure to have a son (and using sex selection to get a boy). The One Child policy to control the population can work as long as you're not skewing your future generations to be disproportionately male. And not only are you losing the capacity to keep your population stable, you also end up with a lot of frustrated and angry young men who can't find a wife (a problem they are currently facing).
My argument against would be that folks that're "disabled" like me wouldn't have a chance to contribute to society as a whole....
I wonder what the reaction would be like to a couple deliberately wanting to have a "disabled" child. For example, if a blind couple also wanted to have a blind child.
So are are the things listed here. Wow looking at that gives you quite an indication of the crime rate. In 1960, the murder rate was .005%, and in 2006, the rate was .0057%. The rate hasn't gone up much, but if you watch the news, it seems like it's happening a lot more.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
So I take it you're a fan of infanticide by exposure then? After all, if it can't survive...
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
How about the various form of twinning that occur, which in rare cases leads to one twin actually becoming part of the other, and needing to be removed so that the fully grown twin can live? That other twin (which cannot survive in any scenario) is human, and it is its own entity
There are two entirely different scenarios being posed. In the situation above, you state that there are two human lives at risk - how do you balance between them. It's the same as saying "You're wife and child are dangling from different cliffs. Both could fall at any moment. You have time to save one - which do you choose?" It's a moral dilemma, a no-win situation - whichever way you choose, a human dies, and your choice will be based upon this knowledge.
This is entirely different to "There is one human life, and a bunch of cells. We can do whatever we like to the bunch of cells, because we don't define it as human". In this case, there is no weighing of the life of the embryo, no moral decision - it's considered junk, and treated like it.
At the risk of sounding flamebait-y, this is the same proposition raised during the time when black slavery was acceptable. If you define "human" in such a way that it excludes blacks, then slavery isn't any more wrong than keeping hunting dogs. They're just animals after all. Whenever you start splitting hairs over what is and isn't human, you begin toeing a very fine line.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
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