a new super race?

[rosieglo]

Re the article in the guardian about the baby that was successfully screened for the breast cancer gene and the controversy about 'designer babies' - what's the fuss? I'm thinking that breeding out illness and disabilty is a great thing. Improving intelligence also; hopefully the smarter the future generations are the more likely they will find ways to halt our destruction of the planet and stop fighting. What's wrong with wanting fitter, stronger, cleverer and healthier children? And I think it is so wrong for a deaf or blind parent to actively seek out a way to pass their disability on, I cannot begin to understand how they could want to deprive their child of the ability to hear music or see the world around them.
hmmn - for me it's a pretty straight forward matter.

In some ways autism is the red herring in this because of its complexity. If you take something like down's don't 90% of parents abort if they are told in advance? Obviously a lot of people think that's murder but I would personally give the parents a right to choose. I am not happy that so very many millions of baby girls who are healthy are aborted in India and China simply because they are female but that should be dealt with by education. There is certainly a utilitarian argument that given the strain some disabled children place on families, siblings and marriages parents ought to be able to make a choice and sadly a lot of fathers make a choice after birth and leave the family when the mother's choice was probably to bring up the child with two loving parents who live together which halves the burden.

John Mortimer's father was very successful but blind. If his motehr could have ensured he wasn't blind I'm sure she would have done what was necessary to ensure that. I think if we can improve things either with female diet, pills, avoidance of thigns that cause problems, genetic engineering or whatever so that fewer chidlren have various problems that to the publci good. WE dont' stop measles inections and saychildren blinded by meales bring such joy to families let them go blind. We accept being blind is a huge hassle. I'd hate to lose my sight. Of course some of tehm become brilliant pianists but on teh whole it's a huge burden you bear through your life we'd be better off without.

Alternative ds3 could start heroin at 13, get 6 different women pregnant then dump them and finidh off by murdering someone.

There are no guarantees with alternative anythings.

Xenia do you think the marriages would be uner such strain if resources were available for carers? I don't. Not half as many, anyhow. I also agree about education- but suspect the termination rate for DS would drop drmatically from 90% if people really knew what having a child with DS is like, the realities of several people on this thread who aren't exactly begging for pity!. There will always be some who wouldn't have a child with SN and although I can't agree I wouldn't refuse them the choice either, but it's that gap I feel sad over: the people who are fed the you-should-terminate line; who never even had a conversation with a person with DS; who is told thart DS brings a risk of heart probs, early death- but not that many people with it lead happy, conventionally successful lives with partners and jobs.

um xenia.

I don't see blind as being a burden actually. No really.

I have no doubt that my mother would have chosen for me not to be blind if she'd had that option. but then I wouldn't be the person I am today would I?

I wouldn't have attended the school I did and made the friends I did, in fact I would probably have had a different life altogether. I wouldn't have met my dh and therefore wouldn't have had my ds - perhaps I would have had other children but who knows?

I'm sure that for someone who has never experienced sight loss the thought of losing their sight is terrifying, in the same way as to me losing my hearing would be terrifying. But I don't think you can assume that those who have already lost their sight/hearing are carrying this huge burden just because that's how you would view it if you were in the same situation.

jute - It certainly seems to have been the right choice for your family

90% terminate DS. But far fewer terminate when they have hands on experience with DS. Eidsvold will know the figures.

"John Mortimer's father was very successful but blind. If his motehr could have ensured he wasn't blind I'm sure she would have done what was necessary to ensure that."

That's a very big assumption. How do you know what she would have done?

Why not ask wannabe? Her mother may have ensured she wasn't blind, but wannabe doesn't see her VI as a disability (she's said that a lot on here and having met her she doesn't let it interfere with her life- she's one of the most independent confident people I've met). Who should have the final say in wether something is a disability? The person with the condition of the observer looking in.

You could just have easily written that you were sure that I would have taken lots of steps to ensure that my first born wasn't autistic. Looking with hindsight I'm glad I didn't because my life would have been worse for it. It would have been the wrong decision for us.

I have to add that having met wannabe I think that part of her confidence and independence is because she is visually impaired. She can of course disagree but I think it might have contributed.

I think I'd prefer to be confidence and independent with VI than lacking in confidence but with sight.

DS1 is home today and I asked him: he said if there had been an op he would have wanted me to have it.

Hang on- variation between disabled poeple- you mean they're people with feelings and not a homogenous mass?

And you know what- I am 100% sure that's in no way because of who he is, but the way he is treated. Which is rather crap isn't it? (he agrees with that last statement btw)

jute - I am not "assuming some embryos have more of a right to life than others". I am saying embryos don't have a right to life at all.

This is not my "opinion", as some have pointed out, but a simple observation. You do realize that a woman's right to abort embryos means that the said embryos have no right to life, right?

No it is an opinion

I did realise the right to life thing. But do you realise that not everyone would agree with that?

I have already outed myself as pro choice anyway (although I believe an embryo should be given far more consideration than it often is)but that doesn't mean I would want to terminate or be happy about it. There's a massive difference between having an embryo screened before implantation and termination anyway (to me at least).

And you do realise that if you start deciding that some embryos are worthy of implantation and some are best dropped in the bin that you are distinguishing between embryos based on their conditions don't you?

I am aware that distinction already exists in law (being able to terminate for disability up to birth). I totally disagree with it.

So do you all feel abortion is murder, then?

Like, as soon as pregnant woman finds out, at 5 weeks. Is it murder to abort a 5 week embryo?

I'm just asking because the collective gasp of horror from this thread re screening of an embryo days after fertilisation seems very excessive. Do you know what a 3 day old embryo looks like?

Sorry, but I don't see how it is an "opinion" to say "embryos don't have a right to life", seeing how that is the truth.

Embryo = first eight weeks
Fetus = thereafter

It is totally legal to abort embryos (in first 8 weeks) for whatever reason, including "I feel like it". Therefore, embryos have no right to life.

QED

It is an observation. A fact. Not an opinion.

You may feel that shouldn't be so, but it is still the reality.

saying embryos do not have the right to life is different from saying

"It is OK to choose one and discard the rest"

which IS an opinion

Cote

what part of 'I have already outed myself as prochoice' do you not get?

I do think uninformed termination in the case of SN is murder yes. Wide difference between that and wanting to refuse other women a right to terminate in cases such as rape, child pregnancies etc (which a blanket ban on abortion would cause)

I have no problem with termination at all. Have plenty of friends who have had terminations. Wouldn't have been my choice.

I have problems screening out a potential individual because they may be disabled (as in the theoretical screening out severe autism). I have no problem with the technique, but massive problems with the ethics of why we would want to do that (to make our children 'cleverer; according to the OP).

Likewise I have problems with protection to one fetus and not another based on the vague notion of 'severe disability'.

Same issue, same problems with it for me.

Quite, Couching.

I now remember why I promised to not go on this thread again. AM of to RL and my precious, loved, SN child.

jute - I actually disagree with the UK laws on this. Abortion for convenience at 20-something weeks should not be possible.

So who gets to decide which terminations are okay and which are murder?
Did generations of women fight for the right to choose ( and women around the world are still fighting ) so that some one else can judge for them?

oh stop being disingenuous cote. Agree with couching. No problem with the concept that embryos aren't 'entitled' to a life, big problems with 'nah this one isn't good enough, pass us the bin'.

I know a woman who decided to abort when she found out she was having twins. She felt she would never be able to cope.
Now I have lovely twins but that's not to say I can judge her choice. Not my call.

"Saying embryos do not have the right to life is different from saying 'It is OK to choose one and discard the rest'"

No it isn't. Think about it.

If they have no right to life, what seems to be the problem with discarding a few cells?

cote - I don't have much problem with abortion for convenience at 20 odd weeks (wouldn't do it myself but each to their own), just have problems with the difference in protection under UK law.

I would have no problems with a few cells selected randomly being discarded. Do have problems with a few cells being discarded because of who they'll turn into.

Litchick - Now this is my opinion: I'm all for abortion, but I also think that if you don't want to have a baby, you should do something about it before it becomes viable - i.e. it could survive if born right then, but is injected with a chemical to ensure stillbirth because pregnant woman decides at 24th week she didn't want a baby after all. Personally, I think there is a problem with that.