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.

Xenia and Monkeytrousers, you keep bringing natural selection into this and I'm not sure what your point is. Is it that you see it as some sort of justification for the deliberate human selection of embryos according to their "desirability? If so, why? If we were to let the natural order dictate all our moral agendas we would be living in a very savage society indeed.

If we are going to have a debate about screening and embryo selection then let it be an ethical debate about what we value in human beings, not an appeal to a mistaken reading of Darwin. (We've already had something like this with Economics in recent years and look where that got us.)

Very good point IB. Let us please remember that we live in humane society, and disability is best viewed in this context as a social construct.

By Monkeytrousers on Sat 24-Jan-09 16:51:03
Hitler might be your enemy but you cannot dictate that people discuss things you don;t want to

she might not but perhaps people should look at how offensive ther posts are.

agree IB.

"Cote, you questioning whether babies with disabilities being born would make us "feel better" is an astonishing question."

I didn't ask whether. The answer to that is clear from Riven's post:
--------
By Riven on Sat 24-Jan-09 09:22:53
actually, wanting selection at birth does lead to problems for disabled people already alive and those born despite all the tests. It leads to them being second class. A feeling that they would have been aborted if a test for that condition had been avaialble. A feeling that people 'like them' are not wanted by society.
--------

Given what she has said in the above post, my question to Riven was whether she thinks we shouldn't screen for disabilities so that existing ones will not have these "feelings" she describes in the above post.

Riven - re "why is it always about whether ND's like us or 'feel better'?"

It isn't, actually.

If you had read my post addressed to you, rather than amber's misunderstood response to it, you would know that.

S2Shoes - you need to point out what is offensive,as I think the offense in all in your owm inference.

IB, I am not dictating anything to anyone. I think you are mistaking simple descritive statements with prescritive statements. To be fair, it's quite often the case in these discussions.

"If we are going to have a debate about screening and embryo selection then let it be an ethical debate about what we value in human beings, not an appeal to a mistaken reading of Darwin."

I'd like you to expand on that if poss, as I've no idea what you mean.

Monkeytrousers, my point was that I'm not quite sure why you are being descriptive about the process of natural selection in the context of this debate. Presumably you believe that it has some bearing on the screening issue, or you wouldn't have mentioned it.

I'm saying nature and man kind have always worked towards eradication of disbility because disabilty is undesirable and that there is nothing wrong with genetic engineering.

I do think a child who cannot think, move or walk is less "desirable" and also less fortunate than one who isn't like that and I would ilmagine most parents woudl not want a child like that and if tehre were a way to ensure we removed the risks of that we shoudl do that rather than (a) aborting those children which none of us really want to do or (b) dealing with the disability after birth. I also think that aspects of my own personality and that of many others are undesirable and if we can remove those so much the better too.

I'm just pointing out a corrolation - not to you particularly - but to the people who think such selection are messing with 'natural processes' or 'mother nature'.

To be very blunt, I would rather a foetus was aborted than a child born and then either killed (either activly or by neglect, which is - horrific as it will sound to us in the 'civilised' west - very common in societies where having a disabled child places actute stress on a family already struggling to survive). I happen to think early abdortion on demand is the most ethical choice, and the reasons for any mother taking that choice are nothing to do with me or anyone else.

We all know, women do not make such decisions easily. What matters is that the option is there for her. It is not up to anyone to then dictate her reasons for doing it. IMHO.

Xenia - nature and man have not worked towards "eradication" of disablity. Man has, and that needs strict ethical observation. But we also evolve by mutation. Sometimes a mutation does down a path that results in disablity, sometimes the opposite. But mutation is an essential element of evolutuon. Mutation is adaptation.

I am pefectly happy to have the BRAC1 and BRAC2 cancer gene eradicated from my family's gene pool. That doesn't mean I want me eradicated nor my dd, who may carry the gene too, but if I was offered the chance to have my embryoes screened to rule out an aggressive cancer that has killed women in my family whilst their own children were still young, then yes I would take it.

I'm joining this debate late so haven't read the whole thread but was listening to a podcast today about genetics and autism. There are over 100 genes implicated in autism and the same gene is only shared by a maximum of 1% of the autistic community. Many diseases are not a simple link between genes and effect.
Also taking Xenia's point about testosterone and risk taking - excess testosterone in the womb has been linked to autism. So you could, as you imply, increase testosterone to increase risk taking and end up with an autistic person. We have to be ever so careful when we start messing with trying to create the ideal' human being.

But see comments above that autims might be a social good and indeed perhaps even is a better kind of person we shoudl all be working to ensure our children are.. .may be, though I don't agree.

We have evolved as was necessary to ensure we survive with black skin for hot sun, white skin in colder areas and the like and with less healthy and disabled babies more likely to die.

Obviously with testosterone etc we would need to be careful. We're at the very start nothing like the end of knowing what needs to be known about genes and if 50% of city traders were women we might well not have had some of teh financial problems we now have because there woudl be less testosterone but that's a separate issue - the benefits of putting men in the kitchen and women in the workplace.

as the mother of one of these "Less than desirable" children,who is the light of my life and has taught me many things taht I would never have learned if she had not come into my life,I am appalled and saddened at some of the statements and ignorance on this thread

I can't imagine this happening tbh. Can you? No having babies naturally anymore, IVF compulsory, examination and IQ testing of embryos ... How are we going to IQ test embryos anyway? Can those fruitloops in Mensa help?

My only really strongly held opinion is that we shouldn't be fixating on the issue of the quality (there will never be consensus on that issue) of the babies but on the quantity. The world is overpopulated and we probably should start trying to manage population levels down more actively.

Oh,and Xenia,I remember posting on your thread when your father,very sadly died.You explained about how precious and dear he was to you,and that is totally understandable.I offered support and condolences.I have read many of your posts and though I may not always agree with them I was genuinely gutted for you at the sadness you were experiencing.Well,try to put yourself in my shoes.My dd is precious and dear to me,even though she will never have the capacity to lead an independent life she is a PERSON.She laughs and cries and bring joy and sorrow.To hear you say that a disabled child has no worth is very hurtful