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.

Cornsilk

She means Speech And Language Therapy, not sodium chloride.

noonki.....that is an awful statement.

I think noonki may have meant it tongue in cheek, Psychomum!

psycho I HUGE tongue in cheek...neither nor my gorgeous stepson or my children would be here today.

oh, ok

I thought she was serious!

feel foolish now if she wasn;t.....I was chomping at the bit for a while there.....

Ah!

bugger......sorry.

sorry psycho I thought the hitler bit should have clinched it

Seriously though I do think the arguements against screening for downs is different from that of an illness such as breast cancer. But it is all too closely linked to accepting the destruction of any foetus that isn't 'perfect'

well......I did wonder, and then thought maybe not......there are some people with very strong views on this it seems!

and plus, I am very gullable and take a lot of statement at face value.....flame would and could tell youo how many times her DH has 'got me'.......so much so that I now don;t believe stuff he tells me......I have looked foolish once too many times.

I have to say it is scary the way science is progressing. I mean, what it they miss-screen a 'designer baby', and then when the baby comes it is not what was 'ordered'........what do they do then?? I mean, surely they wouldn;t be so harsh as to then say....sorry, defective package....and then destroy it?? what an awful scenario

I would like to qualify that I personally don't agree with screening for downs or breast cancer but there are some differnent issues none of which I am comfortable with.

MrsJust - no, Andy Hamilton is not abnormal but he does use a wheelchair.

Riven, sorry to have made you question my post too.

I think what you are saying is a large part of my fear and why I shudder even at the development for such testing of genetic conditions.

If any of those people get in power, here or in any other country the consequences are frightening. It really would not shock me in 10 years time that some country has mandatory testing of foteus and forced abortions for any imperfections detected. Hitler would have definately agreed with such actions if the science was available in his day. ANd all to sadly he was not a one off.

Oops sorry just thought I'd check and apparently I'm wrong! Was sure I remembered that from going to see recording of a R4 prog. Maybe he was just in a wheelchair temporarily after breaking a leg or something.

Was it Sweden or Norway that used to forcibly sterilise disabled girls? IIRC it was a Scandinavian country that has now apologised.

our country not so long ago used to sterilise the mentally ill IIRC from reading up on it years back!

and they used to put any woman who was ever so slightly upset/PMSish, even grieving, into asylums and they stayed there for their entire lives.

I can see what the OP is getting at but it was tactless. Im sure that if the mother of the breast cancer gene free baby had posted, it may be a different conversation.

Interesting...Im just about to write a paper on screening.

peachy - completely agree re:screening for ASD - couple with adequately funded early intervention it could have great benefits if children could be picked up early on. LOL at the SALT/salt confusion - there are dietary interventions for ASD that some people use, so it was a reasonable question!

psycho - when I was sectioned my mum got asked to do some translating for a patient in another bit of the hospital, he had been there for 35 years.

My mum is polish, this man was from Belarus the staff didn't know that, so for 35 years he had no interpreter. No wonder he was mad .

And many women killed as witches were suffering some form of maniac episode.

Edam, many girls in india have been forcably sterilised too. Some had swapped the operation for a radio not really understanding the term sterilaisation.

nooki, that is soooooo sad. how dreadful!

This is an example of the US forcibly sterilising a severely disabled child for the convience of parents and carers.

Ashley the pillow angel lover or madness

What a vile phase "pillow angel". It almost suggests that her carers do not see her as a human being.

I remember that case, Reallytired. Led to a very heated thread on MN with a LOT of posters saying no-one could criticise the parents unless they had had a child with Ashley's condition. I thought it smacked of eugenics and being done more for the convenience of the carers than the girl, personally.

Think there's a difference of scale between individual cases (wrong and sad as they may be unless there are VERY good reasons) and sterilisation as a matter of policy without consent for every person with disabilities. The latter is why Sweden/Norway apologised.

Reallytired- I honestly don't think you can generalise from that girl's case- it and her condition are so out of the ordinary. I do not think it is classic example of eugenics. And really, she will never be able to give consent to sex or decide to have a baby, so what has actually been taken away from her? The chance to have periods every month for the rest of her life. Furthermore, I don't believe you cannot remove the convenience of carers from the equation as though they were being selfish- without their care she would long be dead anyway, and she will utterly depend on them for the rest of her life, so why not make it slightly easier for them?

I think it's probably true that any parents who has a child who is blind would prefer to have that child who could see. I think my daughter's life would be easier without her mild dyslexia. If there were a pill mothers could take to ensure children were born without that so much the better. I suspect there would be a consensus that if we could ensure chidlren weren't born with things taht hurt them so much the better. My family mostly being psychiatrists I wouldf also think about mental conditions too. I would not like a child who had alcoholism or life long depression or OCD or schizophrenia.

There is a separate issue over whether we would abort a baby ever and if life is formed at conception etc of course but if could ensure children who will suffer do not suffer either by pills the mother takes or screening the genes of both potentilal parents befoer they get tgether or by ensuring them other doesn't eat XYZ or in some cases only implanting embryos which don't contain a particular genes then it would be better. That doesn't mean you think all disabled children would be better off dead of course and that they aren't loved and don't bring a lot of happiness to their families.

On the questino of why we choose a partner and employ our own eugenics whether subconsciously or not - I agree that smell play s a part adn that we';re attracted to people with different genes (which ensures few birth defects unless you're from rural pakiston and forced to marry your first cousin), that we tend to marry people who look good but I acecpt the caveat that we go for what we have a chance of obtaining and probably most people want the man who can walk to the shops rather than the 35 stoner who is in a wheel chair all day as he won't be such a good father and provider over all. So fitness and looks do come into our choice of partner (ro in my sister's case sperm donor)