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.

Jute - I didn't mean you personally. I just meant that I don't think any of us can take our personal circumstances and transplant them on someone else.
Everyone has chosen to ignore the observation I made about multiple births - but it holds fast, I think. It's not for me, a happily coping mother of teins to tell another woman what to do.
Riven - isee where you're coming from but forcing women to have disabled children - which I think is what you're suggesting since you say you are against abortion - won't make society suddenly more tolerent of welcoming to disabled people. It certainly isn't the case in the developing world.
Is that not a different issue entirely?

And by forcing them I mean not allowing them to abort - sorry clumsily put.

"My objection is based on the view that disabled babies are less valuable than non-disabled"

Who has said that???

We are talking about embryos, who are aborted every day with little regard for whether they are going to turn into disabled babies or not.

IMO the opinions people are holding are:

1. There should be no abortion or selection of embryos under any circumstances.

1. A woman should have the right to all information science can provide her with about the genes of her embryo or foetus and have the right to abort or select for any reason, including aborting girls because you only want boys, Asperger's syndome children etc.

1. There should be some form of abortion or selection for genetic reasons to make society better by having cleverer, fitter children and it is wrong for people to actively choose a deaf child (the OP's first post).

1. There are some things you should not be allowed to abort or select for (for example, sex of the baby) and some things that you should be allowed to abort for (for example, very serious fatal diseases) and the areas in between are a matter for society to debate.

I suspect most people fall into group 4, and the debate is really about what groups of vulnerable people are up for grabs in this genetic selection process. It is clearly going to be highly offensive to many people.

I don't think autism and ASD are red herrings; they are the group that tests are being developed for, and they are not, if I understand it correctly, selection of embryos, as it is a test that can only be done after pregnancy begins; it is about the abortion of autistic people.

It is all very well talking about hypothetical situations, but as Riven pointed out, this selection process is already happening. We already abort children with cleft palate, even though this is usually correctable with surgery. In other countries, people already abort girls because they view them as inferior.

IMO breast cancer is the red herring, because very few people in society are seeking to ban pre-implantation genetic screening for breast cancer. It seems to me that very few people in society are fighting for the rights of people who have a cleft palate or asperger's. Our view of what constitutes 'normal' and what constitutes 'special' is growing all the time, and that is only a good thing if we don't believe that 'special' people can be aborted after the legal limit has passed.

We have to say where we draw the line, because there is a line somewhere between wanting to prevent the pain of breast cancer and wanting to promote eugenics. The OP and many others in this society have crossed that line, and I find it terrifying.

I agree with KayHarker that the position "I am pro-choice - except for screening out disability" looks untenable and even contradictory.

If you are pro-choice, you should be OK with even fetuses being aborted, let alone embryos that are days old - basically a cluster of several cells, with no organs, nervous system, etc.

Are you really saying "It's OK for a woman to abort a fetus that kicks with eyes, hands, a beating heart. BUT it's NOT OK for a woman to pick one 4-cell cluster over another because she'd rather her children not have breast cancer gene"?

"We are talking about embryos, who are aborted every day with little regard for whether they are going to turn into disabled babies or not."

Eh? no we're not. The OP certainly wasn't about that. This isn't a general is abortion right or wrong thread (if it was my response would be it's necessary).

Of course we are talking about embryos and not babies.

OP was about screening, which is done on embryos. Not on babies after birth.

Milly summarises the various issues/possibilities on the thread very well. Most people are behind point 4 above although in practiec in the UK we have abortion on demand anyway which makes a bit of a mockery of having rules which allow abortion up to 39.5 weeks for disability but not for other reasons. The law has always been in a bit of a mess because the UK ilkes to legislate for one thing and then do entirely the opposite. Would be a lot more honest to say it is lawful to abort on demand whatever the reason up to 12 weeks and no thereafter or something like that. Obviously if you think life starts before the embryo is created in test tube and you don't believe we have a right to kill then you can't allow any abortion or indeed IVF.

oh cote you really are being disingenuous now. Read my posts. You know what I'm arguing against. I couldn't give a monkeys whether an embryo or a fetus was aborted (and yes I know the blinking difference, I've worked with embyos - I know what they look like). I'm arguing against the views in the OP that its perfectly ok to aim for the superace.I'm arguing against this: "What's wrong with wanting fitter, stronger, cleverer and healthier children?" at any stage, embryo, fetus or baby.

Why would you say I am being "disingenous", when I have only been very frank and straightforward?

Your position "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'." is contradictory and now that you have stopped trying to defend it, I can only assume you have realized this.

oh cote it was a typo, no need for the ""

No I don't see that it is contradictory. I'm surprised you do. But i have learned long ago that arguing with you is pointless as you'll twist what is said/misinterpret.

As I have repeatedly said I have no particular problem with embryos being created then not used randomly. Have problems with selecting out for disability.

oh apologies I thought you were picking me up on a typo, having re-read my message after posting I see it was your typo.

OK, you are getting personal for no good reason. Please stop with the accusations and make an effort to understand:

There is indeed a contradiction as KayHarper pointed out - you think embryos and even fetuses can be destroyed for the flimsiest of reasons (you are pro-choice), as long as it is not because one among them is chosen (you are against embryo screening).

The contradiction is obvious: Either the embryo is just a cluster of cells and so nothing you do to it can possibly matter, or it is a human being in which case they are all equal and deserve their fair chance.

riven sorry for hijack, but I need advice and can't find you any where, should I get dd to get pink or black covers for her seat?

riven thanks, sorry I had to print photos of he rdoll of

MillyR and Xenia put it very well.

cote your language 'make an effort to understand' means your posts come across with a certain tone. I have already apologised for misunderstanding your use of " ".

I do see a difference between discarding random embryos and choosing to discard only certain embryos. I'm surprised you don't. I've already said I don't particularly have a problem with individual choices, but I think the sort of assumptions made in the OP need to be challenged. I'm not concerned by the effect on the individual embryo- hence the reason I am not against discarding of embryos, but I am against the assumption that all disability needs to be weeded out- so balk at the automatic assumption that its fine to discard an embryo because one or more of its genes/chromosomes don't quite make the grade. If this were to become commonplace it would translate into a means by which certain types of lives could be deemed not worth living. I already know of someone who was called selfish for choosing to continue with a pregnancy where DS had been detected.

Yes I guess its being at the receiving end of those sorts of comments that make you ('one') more sensitive about the reasons for discarding of embryos. I've been asked that as well (although really I would have thought everyone would have known there isn't a test for autism).

I fyou think life begins when the embryo is formed adn that it's wrong to "kill" even at that point then whether the child is less than perfect or not you wouldn't allow any of this stuff. if you don't then you could still hold a position taht you want would be happy for children to be bron with various problems. I don't agree with that.

The problem is exactly as Riven expresses it - the message and indeed view of many is that disabled people are not valued as highly. I woudl rather have children who aren't disabled, I'm afraid for all kinds of reasons. that doesn't mean I wouldn't have loved them if they had been but I'm glad they're not and in this culture and society and indeed every one anywhere on the planet just about human kind follows that principal. It's evolution. In societies with no food the weak are left to die. Now that's not very caring and most do try to look after the young, sick and old but I don't think the value is as high in ecnoomic terms certainly. In the eyes of God I'm sure we're all of equal worth and I hope everyone respects everyone else but the value yes if probably less. it's not such an effective child if it can't see or hear. It won't keep a family so easily. It wont' be so easy to do things with it that you might have wanted to do. Just as other things like personality defects or being a dreadful person unable to form close relationship or whater is also a problem.

i think the UK qwould be better off if few children with disabilities were born and also it would be nicer for children too. If you live in a culture where everyone walks and talks and mixes in a certain way no one likes to be different particularyl.