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.

As I made it clear MT, I am not getting into an abortion debate here, I have tried to put my points across clearly but obv not succeeding. time to bow out and go to sleep!!

oh my god i really think that the middle class (middle management ie people who don't contribute anything to modern life,just like to pick holes in it) will come out best. how depressing

so true MT

I fundamentally disagree with the stance of Riven and those against many of those quotes. I think it is desirable to seek to ensure we eradicate all manner of undesirable things from malaria to polio, breastcancer genes to down's. But I can see that many who are disabled see that as a threat to them. But I don't see the inconsistency. That doesn't mean those who are here and are disabled are worthless or people don't regard them as human beings of value.

yes because the well educated have really sorted out the world's problems haven't they? lol

Riven's point is that genetically selecting out certain disorders further marginalises people suffering with disabilities.

The OP's and Xenia's point is that some of these disabilities are painful, difficult etc and life would be easier without them.

Both points are clearly true. Does that mean that they can't be reconciled? Because I don't think that they are irreconcilable. If we preserve and enshrine in law the equal rights of disabled people, and also enshrine in law the right of genetic selection to the most profoundly disabling conditions and terminal diseases, would that not work?

For me, it would. But there are people on this thread who are against a woman's right to choose. I doubt if anything will make them happy.

i'm pro-choice (for any reason)...but i understand this is a very emotional subject.

Quattrocento have you read all xenias post on this thread? if you do you will find 2 of the disabilities she has talked about are deafness and blind ness, now I know they are not a walk in the park but hardly life threatning and pain filled.

No Quattro. It is proposed that that might happen. No that it will. The language of the rhetoric is however misleading on this point, as it asserts all kinds of stuff (as does feminist rhetoric, for instance, such as "all women live in fear of rape all the time" - plainly that's not true, but it rings true to some women who have been assaulted and are still struggling with the consequenses). To point that out though, to some, is equivalent of denying the suffering of those individuals who find some solace in the rhetoric. The rhetoric gives them a powerful voice at a time when they are feeling powerless.

But to point to the flaw in the rhetoic is not to point to flaws in those people. Its a hard one to untangle as they have everything persoanlly invested in the truth of the rhetoric. Its heartbreaking.

But rhetoric doesn't actually get us any farther in solving problems. It just helps us in the moment. If people could see that challenging the rhetoric will ultimatly make it more robust and usefull in challenging real threats to vunlerable people - becasie when they come they are very sophisticated - it just might set their hearts at rest, even just a little bit.

that's true 2shoes..which is why the "super race" is a frightening thing...i would never abort a baby due to deafness or blindness.....but some people would.

the unknown will always scare people(I speak from expierence) sadly not enough advice is given at the time(again I speak from expierence)

it's wrong
it's nazism
i'm suprised this thread is still running

yep, but like i've said to you off mn 2shoes...it's what can be detected early on in the pregnancy...i'm not 100% sure, but hasn't screening for d/s been around for 20+ years?...i guess it was obv that further screening would follow.

southeastastra I know it is mad....mad I say

I understand everyones arguments.
Ds has Cerbral Palsy.
In dh's words touch him and your dead.

southeastastra, a parent wanting their child to be healthy is NOT nazism.

Killing disabled people is.

The problem is too many people on this thread are confusing the two.

I would want my child to be screened if there was a serious issue (no not for blond hair) and yet I want all disabled people should have equal rights and extra help where necessary.

In fact I find it quite insulting that the anti screening lobby do not think I have the sensitivity or morals to be able to want both and resort to calling me a Nazi.

disgusting.

saphron your dh sounds like mine and my ds, they would say that as well(dd has cp)

MrsFreud my dd is healthy(very) just disabled.

do you know what, i'f i'd have evidence that the more educated, socially aware generation would have made a difference to society i would agree with you.

to me, the more educated equals the more vain, the more self important, the more ugly this generation is showing itself up to be

Nazism?

This is getting ridiculous now.

at last MT we agree

Yes, we,who disagree with you are nazi's!?

Call me stupid please.

.