The Start of Designer Babies [Archive] - Bub Hub Pregnancy & Parenting Forum

juliek

14-05-2006, 10:25

I've just read in The Sunday Mail (brisbane) an article about embryo testing for defects, which will be available to IVF patients from the 1st of July. Basically they take a single cell from the embryo and in a few a few hours they can determine if there are any chromosomal defefects and gender. I think it is a great thing for people who are aware of hereditary(sp) disorders in their familes. They can select a embryo that is healthy although I don't think people should be choosing gender, Some things need to be left to nature. My dh disagrees with me saying that it is the start of Gattica (movie, where every one is genetically engineered).
I don't want to start aguments with people, but I was wondering what other peoples thoughts were on the matter?
(please keep it civil:fingerscrossed: )

Lunar

14-05-2006, 10:29

I DO NOT agree at all!
I think that is taking it way too far!
I think that if you are blessed enough to be able to carry a baby (whether it be through IVF, natural ... whatever!) you should be happy with what you get! That is what nature and God have intended you to have, why test fate? I just don't see the point.
But I can see alot of people going for it.... even if they don't admit it:mad:

JATS

14-05-2006, 11:43

I think if it can end the suffering of genetic diseases I'm all for it, as for choosing gender I have no problem with that either, its when they look at things like only selecting blue eyed/athletic/etc babies... thats taking things a bit far!

Its pretty much inevitable this will become available in the future, now it's just a matter of when. But we are a long way off Gataca :rolleyes: even if you do select for all the 'best' traits, nature takes over once bub is implanted! ;) and I believe a childs upbringing (nurture) has a huge part to play.

I mean how many of us are trying to control the 'nurture' part of parenting in order to give or child the best chance for the future? The next step is obvious to me... I know alot of people will find the idea unsteadying but people found the idea of computers and the internet unsteadying a while ago and now its a part of everyday life for many, so like I said, it's only a matter of time!

SassyMummy

14-05-2006, 14:32

I think testing for abnormalities could save many people a lot of heartache, including the babies and the parents. While I don't think that babies born "abnormally" deserve any less than "normal" babies, I believe that if there is a way to prevent future babies from being born with problem, then that is great.

While parents should feel blessed for having a baby, I know I would prefer not to raise an "abnormal" baby if I could avoid it. When we choose to become parents, we choose to be parents FOR LIFE, but that doesn't mean that we necessarily want our children to be in our complete care for the rest of our lives. I know that the first 18 years of DDs life are in my hands (well, as much as you can control an 18yr old...lol), and I'm sure I'll be doing plenty for her when she's 25+ too. That doesn't, however, mean that I want to be taking care of her when I'm in my 70s because she has an illness and cannot do it for herself. While I'd still love her and WOULD care for her, I'd PREFER that there was no need for me to do it. Therefore, if there was cause for concern, then I think testing for such problems is a great idea.

I do not, however, agree with choosing the sex of your baby (unless of course you adopt...lol). I think that it's probably best left up to fate in that case. While a mother might argue that she has 5 boys and REALLY WANTS a girl, who's to say that a girl will possess any "desired" personality traits that the mother associates with little girls?

My best friend in Kindergarten was a tom-boy...she played in the mud, wore "boys clothes" (when her mother would let her) and when we'd play Barbies, she'd be Ken and make it all about fighting and "boy" things. A mother who CHOOSES to have a girl cannot control whether that girl will be girly or not. I think that for some, being able to choose would make them feel like they could have the "girl" they want...but the daughter in their imagination, and the daughter in their reality could be two completely opposite things.

I also think that allowing people to decide the sex of their baby may lead to too many babies of one gender being born. For example, perhaps 30 girls for every 70 boys or vice versa...there's no way it would be balanced for future generations.

While I realise that NOT ALL PEOPLE could afford to alter/determine the sex of their child and therefore it probably wouldn't affect the gender balance THAT MUCH, I still think it is wrong and kind of control-freakish. In the case of gender, I do believe that people should just be happy to get what they are given.

the_queen

14-05-2006, 15:17

I think it's RIDICULOUS. Who gets to decide which child deserves to live or not? I felt differently about this issue before I had children - so if I'd been offered a test to choose a "perfect" embryo, I most likely would have done so. And I wouldn't have my perfect gorgeous daughter who has taught me so much about UNCONDITIONAL LOVE, RESILIENCE, and TOLERANCE.

SixtiesChild

14-05-2006, 15:29

This is all being done in the name of the mighty silly $.:barf:
Sounds incredibly superficial and gives no room for grace to happen.
Very controlling, ungraceful and manipulative.
It will I am certain create problems that were not expected.:devil6:

JATS

14-05-2006, 15:51

Who gets to decide which child deserves to live or not?

please forgive me if I am wrong but when a couple goes for IVF, if they manage to successfully fertilise more eggs than the couple want do they implant all those embryos anyway? who chooses which live and which don't?

JMO but it's the same thing.

the_queen

14-05-2006, 16:33

please forgive me if I am wrong but when a couple goes for IVF, if they manage to successfully fertilise more eggs than the couple want do they implant all those embryos anyway? who chooses which live and which don't?

JMO but it's the same thing.

You're right, it is the same thing, and me personally I don't agree with that practise either. IMO the term "playing God" extends to IVF as well.

*ducks the barrage of flying bricks coming at my head*

Tea Lady

14-05-2006, 17:25

I think that in IVF you can choose to only create the number of embryos you are happy to have implanted (ie there doesn't have to be an excess). I have friends who felt strongly that they didn't want any of their embryos "thrown out" (is that the scientific term?:o ) so only had as many created as they would be happy to have children (if that makes sense).

Personally I think that a baby is a person from conception so I don't like the idea of deciding to keep some and get rid of others.

It seems like a slippery slope to me - it's "ok" now to say you don't want a baby that has eg a chromosomal abnormality but how do you stop it becoming that you find out your baby might get osteoporosis when they're 80 so that's too much suffering for them to be expected to live with? Or they'll have freckles and might get teased and you couldn't expect them to go through that.

No baby is perfect and I think they'll just keep finding ways to find more and more things wrong with them so in the end no embryo will be good enough. Or maybe I'm just paranoid!

I also don't like the subtle message that it sends to people with disabilities to say that their condition is enough reason for a family to decide they don't want a particular child. To me this seems very devaluing. I think it's a really positive thing to have different kinds of people around (including those with disabilities) and instead of making it easier for them not to be born we should make it easier for them to be looked after. I think this is a problem at a cultural level though, not so much at the level of an individual couple making decisions about IVF.

the_queen

14-05-2006, 18:30

No baby is perfect and I think they'll just keep finding ways to find more and more things wrong with them so in the end no embryo will be good enough. Or maybe I'm just paranoid!

I also don't like the subtle message that it sends to people with disabilities to say that their condition is enough reason for a family to decide they don't want a particular child. To me this seems very devaluing. I think it's a really positive thing to have different kinds of people around (including those with disabilities) and instead of making it easier for them not to be born we should make it easier for them to be looked after. I think this is a problem at a cultural level though, not so much at the level of an individual couple making decisions about IVF.

:yelclap: well said TL, i wish i were as eloquent as you :o

jessgray

15-05-2006, 09:07

today children face a hgiher risk of allergies,diabetites (spelling?). my thoughts are sure the baby may be free of gentic illnesses such a cystic fibrosis or a diability but can they tell if the bub will develop health issues later in life?
no one is perfect.
the part i find scary about designer bubs is i read a while ago people could pick the colour of eyes,hair etc... where is the surprise and fun in watching your childrens looks take form?
i think if there was more support for people with chronic illness, genetic disorders and illnesses and disabiliites maybe the only people who would want to use this would be people who only want their kids to look a certain way:confused:

Mister Noodle

15-05-2006, 09:51

This all really boils down to the nature of identity.

Suppose I have three eggs and three sperm cells lined up. Put them together, implant them into parents P, Q and R. Three new people will eventually result - call them A, B and C.

Now suppose that before I do so, I shuffle the order of the three sperm cells.

Will they be A, B and C with different features, or will they in fact be D, E and F?

If the latter, what has happened to the first three people? Have I killed them? If so, isn't the random swirling of hundreds of millions of sperm cells in every conception a holocaust beyond all imagining?

If the former, then genes do not determine identity per se. And if that's the case, all we have is context and circumstance: A will always be parent P's first child, B will always be parent Q's second child, and so on - regardless of which embryo we use, or whose sperm was used. If so, doesn't this mean that embryo selection can't prevent people from existing, by definition?

Now if you really want to get complicated, suppose that we shuffle the line of parents, as well. What does that entail?

JATS

15-05-2006, 13:58

Well Mr Noodle, are you trying to say the genetic structure of a human being is only a very small part of who that person is?

If so I agree wholeheartedly :D

Mister Noodle

15-05-2006, 14:05

LMTB: exactly.

And therefore, picking an undamaged embryo isn't throwing away one 'who' in favour of another 'who', it's giving that same 'who' a better go in life, so they don't, for instance, have to lose an eye to cancer at the age of three.

JATS

15-05-2006, 14:08

Tea Lady

15-05-2006, 16:03

So does that make siblings the same "person" at some point? If not when do they become different people and how do you know when this happens? :detective:

Mister Noodle

15-05-2006, 16:31

I don't quite follow your reasoning there.

'Splain?

Jackson84

15-05-2006, 16:32

this is all very philosophical...

but i think that people with disabilities and illnesses have a place in our society - if only that they give their carers the opportunity to care, and others the opportunity to be grateful for being "normal" (such a horrid word, dont you think?).

as for general health - i think that that is mostly determined by lifestyle. it doesnt matter how genetically engineered you are, if youlive on junk food and dont exercise you will probably be overweight and have health problems.

i think that choosing gender is very dangerous, because in a number of cultures, one gender is valued above another, to the point where babies are arborted or killed because of their gender. this causes a number of problems later on when there is a significant gender imbalance, and cultural stigmas about marrying outside the cultural group (take a look at china).

i dont believe that just because we can do it, doesnt mean we should or that we should accept it. i think that it will devalue people, and turn children into accessories.

if people want designer babies, they can go and buy themselves a dog (probably a pure bred).

CarolineF

15-05-2006, 16:35

I think I can feel a headache coming on......:devil6:

Tea Lady

15-05-2006, 16:36

Maybe I should have asked you to explain what you meant by.....

that same 'who'

Mister Noodle

15-05-2006, 16:42

natasha

15-05-2006, 16:47

Oh the shock!!! I actually agree with MR NOODLE! :eek: ;)

nash goes and faints quietly.:p

You are not picking one over the other, you are just making sure your child who is born has the best possible start in life.

JATS

15-05-2006, 16:52

Okay, YOU explain to your kid how it was a GOOD thing that they had to get their eye ball removed, because you wanted the 'opportunity to care' for them, and because you wanted the be grateful for your own good health.

My thoughts exactly, I mean yes being different from everyone else is an important part of life and identity but I don't like the idea of dissibilities being important to make the rest of us feel better about ourselves, that reasoning makes me sick.

Tam-I-Am

15-05-2006, 16:57

Hmmmm.....

I guess the thing is that people who have experience with disabled people can see their value. Having said that, i think that if anybody were given the choice to be disabled or "normal" (I hate that word, just can't think of an alternative ATM) - no-one would choose to be disabled. Nobody would chose for their child to be disabled.

That's not taking away from the wonderful disabled people already in existance, but I know that if I could find out definatively that my future children would or would not have disabilities - and then make a choice about that - I would choose to have "normal" children every time.

Mister Noodle

15-05-2006, 17:00

TL: okay, here goes.

If we define each distinct gene-combination as one distinct identity - one 'person', one 'who', with fixed attributes, and failing to implant that combination means the death of that identity, then fair enough - but there's problems:

For every sperm that fertilises a given egg, there's a billion runners up that didn't - a billion combinations that will never see the light of day. Do a billion identities die with each act of conception?

If the gene-combination determines identity, how can identical twins be separate people?

It makes more sense to me to index it differently - base the identity on the context and circumstances of the person: a given identity is the-one-born-here-and-now-to-this-person - whatever geneset they may have is just details.

If that's the case, choosing a different embryo to implant won't affect 'who' will be born in the slightest, because the variable we're basing identity on - time-place-parents-circumstances - remains the same.

That's my reasoning so far, and I've yet to find any obvious hole... get in there and rip it apart!

Jackson84

15-05-2006, 17:08

Okay, YOU explain to your kid how it was a GOOD thing that they had to get their eye ball removed, because you wanted the 'opportunity to care' for them, and because you wanted the be grateful for your own good health.

you explain to your kid how you think it was a good thing that they were born perfect, and never had the opportunity to realise their good fortune.

you explain to your kid why you chose to play god and effectively killed their siblings.

you explain to your kid why you chose to support unnessesary medical interventions because you wanted your life to be easy.

you explain to your child why you are having then euthenised because that had an accident, are now "abnormal" and you dont want them to be in anymore "pain".

nobody wants their child to feel pain, or be sick, or have a hard life. but that doesnt change the fact that often from these adverse circumstances, a greater good occurs. eliminating "abnormal" people only reinforces constricted stereotypes about what 'normality' is. dont confuse my stance of not-playing-god with intentionally inflicting a disability or disease on somebody else.

sooner or later doctors will be arguing that some girl embryos should be aborted because they will 'suffer' from "micromastia" (small breasts). or worse. a disability is only a disability if you see it that way.

we dont know what side effects this sort of genetic manipulation could have. we dont know if they will be positive or negative. i think it is dangerous. dont mock me for that. never mind that i said "at least". if you cant see the greater good, then i suggest you look harder, after all, you are the one missing out.

Tam-I-Am

15-05-2006, 17:12

Mr Noodle - In fact, twin studies where maternal twins have been seperated and have not know each other have shown that twins do often share very similar personalities and the course of their life is strikingly similar, ie marry partners with similar identities, call their children by the same names, chose the same career paths etc. So would it not be safe to assume that while identical twins, or the same gene-combination, if you will are NOT the same "who", they are very similar. In that case, it would then be safe to assume that nature plays a rather large role in the development of the identity that nuture later helps shape.

Speaking for myself, I think differently of a zygote than a sperm or egg cell - the sperm or the egg has the potential only to join with the other to create a zygote. A zygote has the potential to become a baby. Its the same way that I think differently of a baby that remains in-utero than I do of one who has been born - it is a further step along the path to development. So therefore, for people who think similarly to me, a sperm lost in an attempted conception is the death only of a potential zygote. The death of zygote is the loss of a potential person.

I don't know if any of that made sense, I have a feeling that I've just been rambling!:laughing:

Jackson84

15-05-2006, 17:14

Mr Noodle - In fact, twin studies where maternal twins have been seperated and have not know each other have shown that twins do often share very similar personalities and the course of their life is strikingly similar, ie marry partners with similar identities, call their children by the same names, chose the same career paths etc. So would it not be safe to assume that while identical twins, or the same gene-combination, if you will are NOT the same "who", they are very similar. In that case, it would then be safe to assume that nuture plays a rather large role in the development of the identity that nature has created the building blocks for.

Speaking for myself, I think differently of a zygote than a sperm or egg cell - the sperm or the egg has the potential only to join with the other to create a zygote. A zygote has the potential to become a baby. Its the same way that I think differently of a baby that remains in-utero than I do of one who has been born - it is a further step along the path to development. So therefore, for people who think similarly to me, a sperm lost in an attempted conception is the death only of a potential zygote. The death of zygote is the loss of a potential person.

I don't know if any of that made sense, I have a feeling that I've just been rambling!:laughing:

thankyou for explaining it so much better than i could!

natasha

15-05-2006, 17:14

Jackson, question for you, just curious. If you had 2 embryos inside you and you knew that one of them was going to grow into a child and be born, but the docs told you one of the embryos showed signs that the child born of it would have no arms or legs, yet the other embryo was fine and would be a healthy 'normal' child. If you had to pick one to be born because you could only carry one, which would you choose? The healthy one or the one were the child would be disabled??

Tam-I-Am

15-05-2006, 17:20

Sorry, just edited my post a little

juliek

15-05-2006, 17:30

For every sperm that fertilises a given egg, there's a billion runners up that didn't - a billion combinations that will never see the light of day. Do a billion identities die with each act of conception?

I agree with you mister noodle. I don't believe that every 'could of been' combiation of embryo and sperm is a person that never will be, it's just far to fatalistic. And having seen someone close to me, go through chemo with their one year old who had retino-blastoma (I'm guessing you know what it is mr noodle) and had an eye removed at two, I completely understand why she would want every embro screened.
As for those who believe we need disabled persons in our society, people can become disabled at any stage of thier life, they are not just born that way. We are not talking about eliminating inferior beings, it's more about providing healthy children who will have quality of life.

JATS

15-05-2006, 17:38

Mr Noodle - In fact, twin studies where maternal twins have been seperated and have not know each other have shown that twins do often share very similar personalities and the course of their life is strikingly similar, ie marry partners with similar identities, call their children by the same names, chose the same career paths etc. So would it not be safe to assume that while identical twins, or the same gene-combination, if you will are NOT the same "who", they are very similar. In that case, it would then be safe to assume that nature plays a rather large role in the development of the identity that nuture later helps shape.

I have identicle twin brothers who, personality wise, are nothing alike, yet my best friend and I share many things such as career paths, similar spouses, etc. so I fail to see your point!

...a sperm lost in an attempted conception is the death only of a potential zygote. The death of zygote is the loss of a potential person.

uh huh, like the death of a puppy is the loss of a potential dog! Its just one step away!

Mister Noodle

15-05-2006, 18:30

Hm.

Clara: While I do agree that genes shape personality to a surprising degree, I think you're conflating what they are with who they are.

Suppose your child died tragically - but someone told you they could clone a cell from him and let you bear a child who would be his exact duplicate.

He still wouldn't be the same person*, and that was my point.

What someone is like is not the same as who they are.

We'll leave the issue of star-trek teleporters right out of this conversation - because things get REALLY messy then.

I think where the question of embryo selection gets really hairy is when you start asking which conditions you can ethically select for, and how you decide. I mean, life-threatening cancers or major disabilities are one thing, but where do you draw the line? Homosexuality? ADHD? Ill-matched personalities with the rest of the family? There's lots of things that might make a person miserable, but how do we decide which ones we can select for? How outraged will people be in 50 years time at whatever we decide?

Just because there may not even be any good answers, does that mean that leaving it up to chance is any better? Don't the same arguments hold for, say, intra-uterine heart surgery, to fix defects that could never survive birth? Is that 'playing god' also?

What about having the technology and choosing not to use it? Isn't that just as much a choice?

Lunar

15-05-2006, 18:41

I also don't like the subtle message that it sends to people with disabilities to say that their condition is enough reason for a family to decide they don't want a particular child. To me this seems very devaluing. I think it's a really positive thing to have different kinds of people around (including those with disabilities) and instead of making it easier for them not to be born we should make it easier for them to be looked after. I think this is a problem at a cultural level though, not so much at the level of an individual couple making decisions about IVF.

:yelclap: HORRAY!!!!!

Finally someone who see's people for who they are and not just their IQ or their disability as something awful and disgusting!
If only the rest of the world could see it that way, we would have a much more tolerant society, better disability services/programs, and alot less ignorance!

Lunar

15-05-2006, 18:52

CarolineF

15-05-2006, 18:56

But isn't that exactly the point? society is not tolerant, its not an ideal world in which we live and never will be.:no:

My view is that this is a hard enough world for us all to live in. Even with no disability of any kind (other than typically cruel levels of intolerance and cruelty) we struggle, if I knew a child I was carrying had a chromosome/gene that meant it definately would inherit a life taking disease, then I may well use this technology.

In my last pregnancy I had a triple test result of 1:28 risk of Downs. I was shell shocked. I saw a genetic counsellor and decided with my husband to have an amnio. The three weeks to getting the result were the worst you could imagine. I thought in great detail about what i would do if it was a positive result. I decided I could not make a decision without the result, I would cross that bridge when I came to it.

I was lucky cos the result came back saying I was carrying a beautiful little girl.

When she was born, she had a serious congenital heart defect which almost killed her shortly after birth. I sometimes wonder what i would have done if I had known from a test about the defect and the risk. Marvellous doctors saved her life. It scares me what I may have done had I not met her first.

Knowledge can be power so long as you do not place too much emphasis on these miracle tests.:ecomcity:

Mister Noodle

15-05-2006, 19:02

Argh.

Nobody is saying that people with disabilities shouldn't exist.

We're saying that they shouldn't have to have the disabilities.

Do you understand the difference?

Imagine it wasn't hereditary, but a contagious disease. Wouldn't you want to prevent them from catching it? Would it take anything away from them not to have to live with it?

Same deal.

natasha

15-05-2006, 19:05

Ok, sorry just had to add...

My DD1 was born with Down syndrome, she is absolutely wonderful! (she is my avatar)
can you honestly say that she doesn't deserve to be here and that I am horrible because I knew that she had ds before she was born and was given the option of termination ('murder')?
I believe that all life deserves a chance and society is really becoming very superficial. If you want a baby, plan for a baby, why not let nayure be and just accept what you are given?

When a life is created (most of the time) it is through love of each other (yourself and your partner) that baby is a result of your love for each other... how can something so amazing such as life made from love be so 'horrible'...?:shame:
It's not fair on life to be 'picky'!

What if you could 'correct' the defect b4 the child is born? Would you have done that? Isn't that being picky also? If you picked to have the defect corrected aren't you still playing God? And if you decided not to have the defect corrected, are you then not condeming your child to life she didn't choose? Filled with pain and hurt? So, you are playing 'God' either way you look at it.
It's just choosing a better life for your child. One that isn't going to cause them unnecessary pain.

JATS

15-05-2006, 19:11

What if you could 'correct' the defect b4 the child is born? Would you have done that? Isn't that being picky also? If you picked to have the defect corrected aren't you still playing God? And if you decided not to have the defect corrected, are you then not condeming your child to life she didn't choose? Filled with pain and hurt? So, you are playing 'God' either way you look at it.
It's just choosing a better life for your child. One that isn't going to cause them unnecessary pain.

:yelclap: :yes: :yelclap:

CarolineF

15-05-2006, 19:13

Mister Noodle - I don't disagree with you at all on that point. And I think there is a big difference between embryo selection and inter utero diagnostic testing.

With IVF in particular there is already a thought in many circles that not all embyos should be implanted in order to prevent seriously high numbered multiple births.

What is the difference with just having them tested before the final decision is made on which embryos are selected if it will ensure that a healthy baby appears at the end?

Conversely, just because technology exists, does it mean it should be used?

I don't know what the right answer is, its down to each persons sense of morality, religious belief etc. No doubt the Catholic church will be horrified by this.

misskittyfantastico

15-05-2006, 19:17

Okay, I going to tell a story (oh yay). I went to school with a girl who's parents conceived their 7th child when we were in about year nine. They found out before the birth that their daughter had downs syndrome. They believe they had no choice in whether to continue with the pregnancy. In our final year of school the parents and little girl come in to give a talk on all the aspects of living with a child with downs and how it has affected their lives. That talk has stayed with me all this time. Whenever I hear of the idea of designer babies, I think of this girl and how she as a 3 year old changed the way I thought forever. I'm really glad she's in the world.

On another note, the women in my family suffer from a hereditary kidney disease. My mother was on dialysis and then received a transplant. This will probably happen to me. Mum says that she would never give back her abnormality because it has changed her in so many posistve ways, it highlighted her strength and determination, her compassion and empathy for others, it healed family rifts...she believes it was a gift.

Anyhow, I ramble.

Lunar

15-05-2006, 19:20

CarolineF

15-05-2006, 19:25

Thats why I knew I could not make a decision on the result of the amnio until i was in the position where I had to. I think theory and reality are 2 different things.

Your daughter is beautiful...and yes all kids are hard work. They don't come with a manual do they!!!!?

Tam-I-Am

15-05-2006, 19:44

uh huh, like the death of a puppy is the loss of a potential dog! Its just one step away!

I don't actually understand what you meant by this - what I meant in my was that a zygote has more meaning than a sperm cell in terms of development toward being a human. To discard a zygote certainly does not have the same meaning as murdering a baby, not by any means (at least not to me, I know some poeple would strongly disagree with me), so I'm not sure if you misunderstood my post - because I'm not arguing that a zygote is a human life and should not be discarded if necessary, just that it's a further step along the development toward being a human. Could you please explain what you meant by this in relation to what I said? (I'm not being faceacious, or a smart ****, I'm genuinely trying to understand where you are coming from).

And Emy's mum - I was thinking about this. Of course you wouldn't change your little girl, not for anything in the world (she's beautiful, by the way! :) ) I wouldn't change mine either, although I'm sure there are some personality characteristic that she will develop that I won't particularly like (and I don't see downs syndrome as anything different from this - it is part of who she is, part of her make up. The results of this might be some personality characteristics that aren't always desirable - but the end result is a child who is yours, who you love with all your heart, who is beautiful and worthwhile, and deserves to be alive as much as any other person in the world!)

(I'm not going to ask if you would change anything about Emily - but) if you were to have another child, and before you knew this child as a person at all - and knew that you had the choice between having a child with downs syndrome, or one without, what would you choose (possibly you would choose differently to me, knowing first hand how lovely your little girl is). I would chose to have a child without downs syndrome. I am not making a comment on whether kids with disabilities should be here or have the right to be alive - because obviously they do, they are, as I said above, as worthwhile and as deserving of life as any other human.

I hope that makes sense.

Lunar

15-05-2006, 19:54

Yes Tami that does make sense, but I can answer with only this...
I would not 'choose', I would simply accept what has been given to me and love that child no matter what.
I just had another baby (2months ago) and I only had the NT scan (more to see her than the actual test) but dr's where strongly advising me to have an amnio, I refused as it would not matter to me if she had ds or not. It simply was just not in the equasion, we wanted another baby, any baby, we would and do love what we have been blessed with.

My odds before the NT scan (because I already have a child with ds) were 1:100. The NT with combined bloods gave a result of 1:4600. But if that result was even as high as 1:2 chance I would still not terminate or have further invasive, risky testing.
My DD2 was born without any signs of ds or any other disability, but if she was I would love her the same.

Tam-I-Am

15-05-2006, 19:58

Emy'smum - that makes absolute sense. Thank you for your very honest answer!

Mister Noodle

15-05-2006, 20:38

Okay, personal perspective:

I'm ADD, I was ADHD as a kid.

It's a pain. Seriously. I have the time management skills of a five-year-old. I have zero short-term memory when it comes to tasks. I've gone back and forth to the shops five times in a row, buying one thing each time because I got distracted and forgot the rest. Half the time I get completely and utterly absorbed in whatever I'm doing to the point the house could burn down around me and I'll never notice, and the other half the time the slightest drifting thought (Hey look, a doorknob!) will completely disrupt my train of thought to the point that I can't put two words together all day.

Do I wish that the next sperm on the left had made it instead?

Every. Damn. Day.

I'd give a hell of a lot not to be this way. I'd give up core attributes of my personalty, just to be able to think like a normal human being.

Would "I" still exist? Would "I" still be "me"?

As far as it is even a valid question... I can't help but think that yes, "I' would exist - I'd just be different.

Though what the question even means is unclear, to say the least.

nats

15-05-2006, 20:56

Mister Noodle, you think too much!
You could eventually simplify things, consider the issues of most consequence and seek contentment. That is not unrealistic, utopic, eternal happiness.. just a feeling of (kind of) satisfaction whether you are are happy OR sad OR indifferent.
Brain chemical or otherwise in so far as your ADD I'm sure you have your own philosophy of mind over matter.

xkwzit

15-05-2006, 21:22

I'm sorry Mr Noodle, but I think that a person's genetic makeup is important in who they are. I just don't think that you would be "you" w/o your ADD. So if the other sperm had made it, "you" wouldn't be here, someone else might be here in your place (or would be busy doing something else). Gosh, she might even have been a GIRL :eek: , I'm sure that would make a great difference to you lovely wife ;) .

Cheers

Beany

15-05-2006, 21:24

Yeah ... the floor might get mopped.

Stupid boy sperm.

natasha

15-05-2006, 21:33

Okay, how can we, as parents, allow out child to be born into the world knowing full well what their life is going to be like living with a disability? Who are we to decide to inflict such hardship on our children. If the child grew up to resent the fact that you knew they were going to be born with no arms or legs, how could you live with yourself? Because of what WE believe is right???

It's easy to say 'its Gods' will,' or ' its still a child whether it has a disability or not', but you won't be the one with no arms or legs. You won't have to listen to the cruel comments growing up.
I don't know how I could live with myself knowing that I chose to allow this defect to cripple my daughter, when I could have prevented it.

xkwzit

15-05-2006, 21:36

Beany

15-05-2006, 21:37

By the way Noodle, are you attributing all the "personhood" (for lack of a better term) to the egg?

In my understanding, based on nothing more intellectual than that which can be read on the back of a cornflakes box, a potential person or identity isn't formed until conception. The sperm and egg play equal part in that and thus have equal part in the identity that is formed. A different sperm would mean a different potential person.

WeThree

15-05-2006, 21:39

WeThree

15-05-2006, 21:41

snap X .........:D

misskittyfantastico

15-05-2006, 21:44

Snap coops....Am I being ignored or something? or are kidney diseases just not relevant?

Lunar

15-05-2006, 21:45

I am a true believer in karma. What happens if you terminante your baby's life because you find out they will have a disability at birth, only to go on and have a 'normal' baby and 2 years down the track they are involved in an accident and are left disabled...?
Would you then say, oh no i can't deal with this... and then terminate that child's life? When does 'choosing' to 'deal' with it stop? Where do YOU draw the line? It seems ok in everyone's minds to terminate a baby's life but not if they are left disabled after an accident or illness?
Tell me, would you say to your child that you could no longer love and care for them if they were left disabled after an accident or illness????
If you are saying that I am wrong for keeping my DD, as I knew that she had a disablity before birth, then please tell me what the difference is between that and knowing you child has a good chance of falling ill (with all the horrible infections such as meningitis, maningacoccal etc) or being involved in a car accident (all the stupid idiot drivers out there) and being left permanantly disabled from it???

natasha

15-05-2006, 21:47

Who are we to deny them life...

Have you asked the opinion of someone with no fingers or legs and have they told you they would rather not be here? Would you deny the right of a woman with no arms to live and birth her own beautiful babies?

Who are we to say what the quality of their life is?

No, but it would be HER choice! As i would be making the choice for my baby, I would chose her to have the best possible start in life, as a healthy baby. I believe that an embryo is just an embryo. Its is then a Zygote and it is this time I believe my baby is given a soul. What comes before is science. I would never abort my baby at 23 weeks gestation because we learned it had a defect, because it is an actual living thing. It is my baby. An embryo is just an embryo in my opinion.
Picking a healthy embryo over an unhealthy one is just my way of making sure my child has the best start in life.

As for your comment 'who are we to say what the quality of their life is?'
WHo are we to say they have to live with this hardship?????

Ask the same woman with no hands whether she would have preferred her mother to have gone in a corrected the defect, what she would have prefered!!!!

WeThree

15-05-2006, 21:50

Snap coops....Am I being ignored or something? or are kidney diseases just not relevant?

by me? no way!! i meant to pm you earlier and applaud you on your post :thumbsup:

Lunar

15-05-2006, 21:51

rynosmum

15-05-2006, 21:53

Kris, you have been in the situation, many others haven't. I believe that from the love you have for your daughter and she has for you, you know that you made the right decision. She will grow up to be a well-balanced, loving, wonderful girl because she has you as a role model.

Milliesmum, kidney disease is certainly relevant. My father is on the transplant waiting list for the second time. Would I wish for us to not have him because of his illness and occasional disability ? No way. Would he rather not be here ? No chance. Hugs to your Mum and yourself, we should catch up another time on this.

I would like to write more but would then have to moderate myself....:rolleyes:

WeThree

15-05-2006, 21:53

Ask the same woman with no hands whether she would have preferred her mother to have gone in a corrected the defect, what she would have prefered!!!!

see this is the line of thinking i dont get, imo opinion you cant correct it, choosing a different embryo means choosing a totally different person, i understand that some of you are of the opinion that it is still the same person only 'improved' but i personally dont believe this is true.

natasha

15-05-2006, 21:55

ok, I have to reply to this one.
Natasha, who decides then what is a disability or not? who decides what is an ideal quality of life? You may find the idea of having some sort of disabilty upsetting, but i know there are millions of people with various disabilites who are not only happy themselves, but also bring happiness and inspiration to the lives of those around them. I find the suggestion that anyone who is not physically or mentally 'perfect' as not worthy of life offensive to say the least.

So if you had 2 embryo's that only one could be born. One was healthy, one wasn't. You would choose to let an unhealthy embryo live and be born into a child with a crippiling disease that will cut the childs life by half, and cause tremendous amounts of pain,than to keep the healthy embryo?

I'm not saying what 'perfect' is. I'm not saying what a disability is, as i' am not a doctor, but in my opinion, if i know i can prevent my daughter from being born blind, I'm sure as hell going to help her out and correct it before she is born!!!!

rynosmum

15-05-2006, 21:55

Ask the same woman with no hands whether she would have preferred her mother to have gone in a corrected the defect, what she would have prefered!!!!

If the mother had 'corrected' the defect as you put it, she would have chosen another embryo. Thus, the woman you refer to would not have been given a chance at life.

Are you saying therefore that the lady with no hands would prefer to have never been born ? Interesting concept.

natasha

15-05-2006, 21:56

see this is the line of thinking i dont get, imo opinion you cant correct it, choosing a different embryo means choosing a totally different person, i understand that some of you are of the opinion that it is still the same person only 'improved' but i personally dont believe this is true.

Well, i guess that's just where me and you are different.:p I don't believe it's a different person as a said earlier. I don't believe an 'egg' has a soul.

Lunar

15-05-2006, 21:57

see this is the line of thinking i dont get, imo opinion you cant correct it, choosing a different embryo means choosing a totally different person, i understand that some of you are of the opinion that it is still the same person only 'improved' but i personally dont believe this is true.
:yelclap: Coops, we must share the same brain!

I too believe that 'choosing' a different embryo will produce a totally differnt person!

rynosmum

15-05-2006, 21:57

, if i know i can prevent my daughter from being born blind, I'm sure as hell going to help her out and correct it before she is born!!!!

How are you correcting her blindness by choosing another embryo ? Am I missing something here ?

Lunar

15-05-2006, 21:59

Well, i guess that's just where me and you are different.:p I don't believe it's a different person as a said earlier. I don't believe an 'egg' has a soul.
I understand what you are saying about the soul, but understand that 2 doffernt embryos contain a differnt set of genetic 'codes'. They will produce 2 different people. One could have blonde hair, the other brown, blue eyes or green.... see my point?
I think that this is where the confusion is.

misskittyfantastico

15-05-2006, 22:01

What about short sightedness. Is that a no no too?

WeThree

15-05-2006, 22:02

:yelclap: Coops, we must share the same brain!

I too believe that 'choosing' a different embryo will produce a totally differnt person!

yay!!! :)
each little spermy and egg is made of different blueprints of who that person will be.
Natasha I dont think an egg all on its lonesome has a soul either, but everything that person will be is already written in each of them, and each one will creat a totally different person, with different behaviours, thoughts, talents and physical and mental perfections or imperfections. :)
oh and good posts too K :thumbsup:

natasha

15-05-2006, 22:02

How are you correcting her blindness by choosing another embryo ? Am I missing something here ?

:rolleyes: I don't believe different embryo's are different people. I believe that is the time when things are begining to get in order. working things out.
I believe when it reaches the stage of a zygote that it has actually taken on a life, soul, can feel hurt, pain, joy.( scientists have proven). SO anything that comes before is science, the boring stuff if you will.:p

Lunar

15-05-2006, 22:03

What about short sightedness. Is that a no no too?

:laughing:

WeThree

15-05-2006, 22:12

:rolleyes: I don't believe different embryo's are different people. I believe that is the time when things are begining to get in order. working things out.
I believe when it reaches the stage of a zygote that it has actually taken on a life, soul, can feel hurt, pain, joy.( scientists have proven). SO anything that comes before is science, the boring stuff if you will.:p

ok, this is the last thing im saying in here, or like K said, I will have to moderate myself for being argumentitive :)
but i just wanted to disagree again, see once an embryo is an embryo, there is no working things out, getting things in order, everything that will happen in regards to physical and mental development has already been decided, yes upbringing etc will play some part in personality traits etc, but for the most part, everything is already contained in that sperm and egg, once the embryo is formed, it is all already written.

Tam-I-Am

15-05-2006, 22:17

:rolleyes: I don't believe different embryo's are different people. I believe that is the time when things are begining to get in order. working things out.
I believe when it reaches the stage of a zygote that it has actually taken on a life, soul, can feel hurt, pain, joy.( scientists have proven). SO anything that comes before is science, the boring stuff if you will.:p

Hey Nash,

Just being pedantic - but a zygote is the very first stage of life, where the sperm and the egg fuse and start dividing (termed this from conception to 6 weeks of age)

The next stage is an embryo (from 6 weeks until viability - ie approx 24 weeks, give or take, depending on what specialist you are speaking to)

The next a foetus (viability to birth).

I think you might be a bit confused on terminology.

I have nothing further to add to the debate, just wanted to clear that up

Jackson84

15-05-2006, 22:23

im so glad to see some people who have my point of view. :)

i have been thinking about this. there are so many people in the past and in the present who have made such incredible contributions to society, to art, to technology, to the sciences and all of ther fields of learning. would these people have been the same without their disability? of course not. would they have achieved the same things had they been born without a disability? who knows. can we gaurantee that their life would be better/more wholesome/more contributory if they didnt have their disability or disease? no.

my uncle was born blind. he has no eyes. unless scientests figure out a way to interface a camera with his brain, he will never see. my uncle is also the commissioner of human rights for australia. he has worked within the UN on groundbreaking human rights laws and provisions. he has consulted professionally as a lawyer with a number of businesses. he has a wife, a step-son and a daughter who all love him dearly. he has had a huge impact on my family and all those around him. he has played cricket, sailed competetively and participated in and achieved in so many areas of his life. he is always positive, kind and humerous. of all people he should be the one feeling short-changed. but he doesnt. do he wish he could see his wifes face, or his daughter? of course. does his blindness make his life miserable? no. has he made a contribution to society? more so than most "normal" people. would he be the same person if he wasnt born blind? i very much doubt it. does he wish he was born sighted? ill have to wait for him to reply to my email.

beethoven - deaf

einstein - Aspergers Syndrome (autism)

edison - partially deaf, learning disability (couldnt read till he was 12)

A. G. Bell - learning disability (invented the telephone)

H ford - dyslexic

S hawking - Motor neurone disease (Uses a motorized wheelchair, and a computerized speech-synthesizer. Probably one of the greatest astronomical physicists of modern times.)

newton - stutter, epilepsy

leonardo da vinci - dyslexic

pythagorus - epilepsy

Julius Caesar - epilepsy

winston churchill - lisp

Franklin D Roosevelt - movement-related disabilities, resulting from Polio

george washington - learning disability (he could barely read or write, and had very poor grammar)

Hans Christian Andersen - dyslexia

Christy Brown - cerebral palsy

lord byron - epilepsy, club foot

HG wells - diabetes type 1

ray charles - blind

stevie wonder - blind

Mary Wells - As a child, she had spinal meningitis, an illness that paralyzed her for a while, and led to partial blindness and a slight loss of hearing.

peggy lee - diabetes

michael jackson - Skin pigment disorder Vitiligo

alice cooper - asthema

Noel Gallagher - dyslexia

elton john - epilepsy

John Mellencamp - spina bifada

Tchaikovsky - epilepsy , clinical depression

Billy Connolly - ADD

tom cruise - dyslexic

danny glover - epilepsy

Marilyn Munroe - stutter

Paul Newman - colour blind

Sylvester Stallone - paralysis of the lower left side of his face, resulting from birth complications, speech disability

walt disney - dislexia

Michael J Fox - Parkinsons Disease

Billy Graham - Parkinsons Disease

Quentin Tarantino - dyslexia

not to mention the countless number of people who have had mental illnesses, or have had diseases such as cancer.

natasha

15-05-2006, 22:23

Mister Noodle

15-05-2006, 22:23

Erm, a zygote is the first stage of development. A bundle of cells you can count on your fingers can't feel or think - there's just not enough complexity there. There's literally not enough bits to encode that many states, or to actually do anything with the encoding. Add to that the fact that they just aren't neurons, don't have axons or synapses or dendrites to connect to each other with... and it's really a very silly claim, all up.

Coops: what's the line between attributes and identity? If I'd been born with blue eyes, would I be a different person, or would I be me with blue eyes?

ETA: Woops, this was already answered

Mister Noodle

15-05-2006, 22:26

misskittyfantastico

15-05-2006, 22:27

So what's ya solution Noodle boy?

natasha

15-05-2006, 22:32

Okay here is my last stand on the subject!:p

I believe it's okay to go in and correct defects in a zygote. But NOT an embryo as i now class this as what i was claiming before was a feotus!:laughing: Do you follow me?

A zygote to me is just a bundle of cells as noodle man said. An EMBRYO is when i believe you should leave things as they are as I believe it is a living thing/person then.

Sorry if i offended anyone with my blondeness!:o
But yeah i do still believe It's right to decide to correct defects in Zygotes.

rynosmum

15-05-2006, 22:33

Jackson: FFS, nobody is suggesting that disabled people should not live.

We are suggesting that they should not be disabled.

Is the concept really that hard? Really? Can you not perceive the difference?

Where do you draw the line on 'what' is considered to be a disabling feature or trait ?

What is a disability for some, is not for others. And yes, your concept IS that hard to understand, purely as I don't agree with your general term that any zygote in a given batch is interchangable. Do twins not have different personalities ? Under your assumption, would even non-identical twins developed from two zygotes not have identical personalities and looks ?

Mister Noodle

15-05-2006, 22:33

mm: As mentioned - the entire thrust of the debate I seem to have escalated :o was that embryo selection isn't preventing a person from living, it's choosing what attributes they will have. Read my posts if you want to see my reasoning.

Jackson84

15-05-2006, 22:33

Jackson: FFS, nobody is suggesting that disabled people should not live.

We are suggesting that they should not be disabled.

Is the concept really that hard? Really? Can you not perceive the difference?

Mr Noodle. i am not an idiot.

i understand the difference.

i understand that disablitys shape people. obviously, your disablity has shaped you into thinking they are are horrible, annoying, and people with one cant achieve much. well, you are wrong. just because you dont like your disablity doesnt mean everybody hates theirs. just because you think you would be a better person without doesnt mean you would be. just because we "can" play god doesnt mean we should.

for all we know, einstein wouldnt have been the genius that he was if he wasnt autistic.

the question is, DO YOU GET IT?

on a completely sci-fi note. how do we know that what we consider a 'disability' isnt actually one step forward in the evolution of humans? by eliminating "abnormalities" we are in fact condemning the human race to stagnation.

Lunar

15-05-2006, 22:35

yeah i'd like to hear that one too......?? hmmm...??

WeThree

15-05-2006, 22:36

Jackson: FFS, nobody is suggesting that disabled people should not live.

We are suggesting that they should not be disabled.

Is the concept really that hard? Really? Can you not perceive the difference?

No Mr noodle, it is not that hard, and im sure jackson 84 understands, the thing is that you are suggesting that by simpy choosing a particular embryo, you are still basically choosing the same person, just without the disability, but some of us dont agree that this is the case, that by choosing one embryo over another you are selecting an entirely different human being, and this posts also again leads to 'who defines disabled' 'where is the line drawn' 'who decides what is a good quality of life'

Lunar

15-05-2006, 22:41

I'd like to add that approx 1 in every 100 children have some form of autism. This disability has no genetic 'markers' and you can not test prenatally for it. Yes Einstein had a form of autism and he would not have been the Einstein he was if he did not have autism. People with Autism have very high IQ's.
How do you know if the baby you are carrying (or about to carry if you choose this 'designer baby' process) will not have autism? You can't know they have autism until they reach at least the age of 2!

Tam-I-Am

15-05-2006, 22:42

Where do you draw the line on 'what' is considered to be a disabling feature or trait ?

I agree. This may be completely off the topic in terms of designer babies - but Hitler didn't like anybody who didn't have blue eyes and blonde hair. If he'd had access to the kind of technology we're talking about, who is to say that he wouldn't have considered eye colour, hair colour, long/short sightedness etc "defects" and/or "disabilities". We certainly know what he thought of homosexuals, for example.

Who gets to decide what's a disabling feature, what deems a zygote unfit for life?

Jackson84

15-05-2006, 22:44

i once read an article that claimed that left handed people are disabled...

littlepickle

15-05-2006, 22:45

To tell you the truth and the absolute HONEST truth!...
I would not change my DD for the world!
And THAT IS THE TRUTH!
I would not take out the extra chromosome as that would mean she wouldn't be who she is.
She is my Emily. I see my daughter whom I love with all my heart and soul, the daughter who fights the odds and is a happy little girl. She suffers no pain. I see a happy little girl who loves being around other children, loves dress up, dollies, chatting on the phone to nanna, dancing to the wiggles and hi-5. She is in no way suffering!

I wouldn't change all that for the world! She is hard work but what child isn't?

Firstly I just wanted to say - what a beautiful post! And Emily is absolutely gorgeous :)
I had an NT scan with this pregnancy - the reason being that I wanted to have the scan to see bub! The results came back good, but had the results not have been good, we wouldnt have had the amnio. DH and I talked about this the night before the scan - we decided that we woud love this bub, whatever happened and that we would not in any way play god and decide whether she should be born or not. I had bonded with my bub at this point and I would have protected her with my life. I know this is not the argument here - we are talking about selective fertilisation BUT isnt this also playing god? I am not a religious person as such, but I do believe that everyone is born the way they are for a reason, and everyone, be they what people would class as "normal" or "abnormal" have their own role to play in this world, their own mark to make - who are we to decide whether they should live or not?
My brother was born with Talipes (clubbed feet) do I wish my mother had decided not to have him - NO WAY! He is a wonderfull and inspirational person who has overcome his disabilities and done more with his life than most other people I know! Does my mother wish she didnt have him? Not in a million years - he is who he is despite and because of his "disabilities".
What I am trying to get to here is that its not up to us to decide who lives and who doesnt, it is not up to us to interfere with nature. it is certainly not up to us to play "god"

Tam-I-Am

15-05-2006, 22:45

hahah yeah, i meant Foetus:laughing: :o Shh im blonde. I knew which stage i was talking about, just couldn't remember what it was called so just took a stab in the dark!!:o

Edited to add..............did i just read that right?? An embryo is from about 6 wks gestatn to approx 24 weeks????????????????:confused:

Have i just been completely friggin foolish?????

I beg your pardon Nash, after you wrote this I checked my facts. In fact, an embryo becomes a foetus at approx 14 weeks.

So perhaps you were talking about a foetus afterall? I'm not sure.

Sorry!

Lunar

15-05-2006, 22:46

Who gets to decide what's a disabling feature, what deems a zygote unfit for life?
This is exactly my argument!
Why can't we just let things be!
Why not just let nature take it's corse and have a baby the old fashioned way???
Why not just let be what is simply meant to be?

natasha

15-05-2006, 22:55

I beg your pardon Nash, after you wrote this I checked my facts. In fact, an embryo becomes a foetus at approx 14 weeks.

So perhaps you were talking about a foetus afterall? I'm not sure.

Sorry!

Nope i was getting an embryo and zygote mixed up. I don't think people should mess round with embryo's at all, i do believe it's okay to go into zygotes and correct things though.As soon as it reaches the stage of becoming an embryo i think too much time has passed and it is a living growing baby that should be left alone to grow without anyone poking it with needles etc.

Tam-I-Am

15-05-2006, 22:55

This is exactly my argument!
Why can't we just let things be!
Why not just let nature take it's corse and have a baby the old fashioned way???
Why not just let be what is simply meant to be?

I agree with you - in principle. To be honest (please don't judge me or shoot me down for this), but if I were told definatively that my baby were going to be born with a disability such as downs syndrome, I don't know that I would be brave enough to continue with the pregnancy. I applaud those who can, enjoy those who I know that are disabled (I believe that they enrich the lives of people around them so much, and are, generally speaking, contented in their own existance), but I don't know that I would have the emotional resources to cope.

I hope that I am never placed in this situation, and thank god for people like yourself, who, when they are placed in this situation, do what their heart tells them is right.

I'm sorry if this has offended, it truely was not meant to.

Mister Noodle

15-05-2006, 22:58

rynosmum:

Yes, personalities will differ with different genes. But personality is just another attribute.

If I had blue eyes, would I be me? What if I liked country music? What if I had artistic talent? Would I still be me?

I hold that I would. I hold that "I", whatever that means, am this-person-here, whatever I look like, however I think, whatever works or doesn't. That's the simplest, most obvious concept of identity there can be: "that person".

Change every detail about them, and they're still "that person". I hold that the genes that go into them are just that: a detail.

If an exact copy of the fertilised egg I came from, implanted at a different time/place/parent would not be "me", then genes, by definition, do not determine identity.

And if genes don't determine identity, all that's left is context/circumstances. So if they're the same, then the identity is the same.

Same person, different genes.

By all means, refute the argument. I don't like what it entails. But I can't see any way past it.

As for which genes we can ethicaly select upon - as I said earlier, that's a really hard question. I have no idea how you'd go about answering it. There may not be any good answers. But I'd say that some answers are worse than others, and that 'none' is far from the best.

natasha

15-05-2006, 23:00

Gosh, is it just me or is all this mind boggling? My head kinda hurts from reading your last post MR noodle. I'm going to bed!!!!:laughing:

Tam-I-Am

15-05-2006, 23:04

if genes don't determine identity, all that's left is context/circumstances. So if they're the same, then the identity is the same.

Same person, different genes.

Why does it have to be so black-and-white?

What we're really arguing here is the age-old "nature/nurture" debate - and I personally, as a social scientist and a reasonably well-educated person, honestly believe that, in ordinary circumstances, one is no more or less important than the other (I say ordinary circumstances, because I'm sure we can all think of extraordinary ones, such as abusive childhoods, where the so-called nurture would have a far greater impact on personality than nature).

MilkOnTap

15-05-2006, 23:07

If I had blue eyes, would I be me? ... I hold that I would. I hold that "I", whatever that means, am this-person-here, whatever I look like, however I think, whatever works or doesn't. That's the simplest, most obvious concept of identity there can be: "that person".
.....
As for which genes we can ethicaly select upon ... There may not be any good answers. But I'd say that some answers are worse than others, and that 'none' is far from the best.
I think I know where your coming from here. I think that regardless of what stage of development a baby is at (be it a zygot, trigot, embryo, fetus - anything) it is still a baby and should not be tampered with.

It would be like me chopping off my arm cause I dont like the scar that I have on it! Just not done.

So in response, Mr Noodle - I would say that morally there is no grounds where a person can ethically change the genetic make up of their baby.

Lunar

15-05-2006, 23:08

I agree with you - in principle. To be honest (please don't judge me or shoot me down for this), but if I were told definatively that my baby were going to be born with a disability such as downs syndrome, I don't know that I would be brave enough to continue with the pregnancy. I applaud those who can, enjoy those who I know that are disabled (I believe that they enrich the lives of people around them so much, and are, generally speaking, contented in their own existance), but I don't know that I would have the emotional resources to cope.

I hope that I am never placed in this situation, and thank god for people like yourself, who, when they are placed in this situation, do what their heart tells them is right.

I'm sorry if this has offended, it truely was not meant to.

You have not offended me at all.

I feel that people cannot say what they would do unless they were put in that situation. If someone had of asked me before I fell pregnant with Emily, what I would do if I knew mt baby had a disability I would not be able to answer. The only thing that I would probably have said would be.."that's not gonna happen to me! Things like that happen to 'someone else'" Well, I am now that 'someone else'. I would not change my decision at all. Emily has changed my life enormously! I would not be the person I am today without knowing her. She has given me phanominal strength, happiness beyond my wildest dreams, and a tolerance for things I didn't even know existed!

So until you are in that position I truely feel that noone can answer with their whole heart. And to tell you the truth, I really hope that some of you are not blessed with angels such as my Emily. Babies like her deserve so much more.

Tam-I-Am

15-05-2006, 23:11

And to tell you the truth, I really hope that some of you are not blessed with angels such as my Emily. Babies like her deserve so much more.

I'm sad that you feel that way about me. But I understand where you are coming from too.

Lunar

15-05-2006, 23:13

I'm sad that you feel that way about me. But I understand where you are coming from too.
That was not directed at anyone person in particular, just those who believe that she should not be here, or would 'terminate' another like her.

Mister Noodle

15-05-2006, 23:14

Clara: this really isn't nature/nurture - they're both about the origin of attributes, and I'm not talking about that. I'm saying that identity and attributes (both mind and body) are independent.

Ally: a question for you: would it be unethical to select a fit sperm donor, or would completely-random-selection be the only permissible approach? If not, why not? Should sperm banks be allowed to divulge genetic disorders to potential implantees?

Chickadee

15-05-2006, 23:15

a disability is only a disability if you see it that way
:yelclap: :yelclap: :yelclap:
I thought that deserved saying again.

Ethics aside, this is still a parenting decision. As in: if you had the ability to screen your children for gene defects would you do it? And as for most parenting decisions, what I decide is right for myself & my children may be completely different than what my neighbour decides in their situation.

In an ideal black and white world I would want the technology to be available for those future parents who know that a hereditary disease runs in their family and who don't want to pass it on. And I wouldn't want it used for inconsequential (big word of the day!) things like eye colour or height. The world's not black and white, and lines aren't so easily drawn. But I'm still for having the choice available to parents and will trust that it will remain out of reach financially for most people and that 99% of babies on this earth will be conceived the old fashioned way.

I personally wouldn't use gene screening or abortion (I think, hard to say till I'm faced with a decision), but who am I to impose my moral values and decision onto anyone else?

MilkOnTap

15-05-2006, 23:17

That was not directed at anyone person in particular, just those who believe that she should not be here, or would 'terminate' another like her.
It saddens me that some people cant appreciate the miracle that is taking form within their bodies and even STILL want to change it...

Though I am encouraged that others are happy to admit that they couldn't accept the challenge of a 'unique' child.

EDITED TO ADD - I use the term 'miracle' because I find the fact that sperm know exactly what they have to do to fertilise the egg (especially when so many men NEVER stop for directions along the way :laughing: )

MilkOnTap

15-05-2006, 23:22

Ally: a question for you: would it be unethical to select a fit sperm donor, or would completely-random-selection be the only permissible approach? If not, why not? Should sperm banks be allowed to divulge genetic disorders to potential implantees?
Though I do feel that this question is slightly off-track I am happy to answer with my thoughts and opinion.

I believe that if a sperm donor has a personal genetic disorder then they should definitely offer this information for potential mothers-to-be. However, not all people know what is in their biological history - a lot of genetic disorders remain dormant for generations on end before affecting anyone.

I dont believe that we have the right to 'choose' what qualities our children are going to have - be it genetic or otherwise.

SassyMummy

15-05-2006, 23:49

Wow...I always feel so STUPID after reading replies like these...:rolleyes:

While I believe that those with a disability deserve to live just as much as those without a disability, I still believe that ALL people would be better off WITHOUT disabilities, and therefore, screening for such problems doesn't bother me in the least.

That doesn't mean that disabled people are any lesser because of their disability, it simply means that their life would be much easier were they not disabled.

While you can criticise parents who choose to abort children with suspected disabilities, I think that choosing to raise a child and choosing to raise a disabled child are two different things. While both children deserve and need equal amounts of love, disabled children often require more care and more time and patience. Some people simply are not ready for that - myself included.

If my daughter was born with a disability I would love her regardless and take care of her the best I could...but I would PREFER her to not have a disability. That doesn't mean I'm a bad parent or that I didn't love her - it just meant that life would be easier for all parties involved did she not have any disability.

I understand that you might take a lot of these replies to heart, Emysmum, but it's all different strokes for different folks. I applaud you for choosing to raise your daughter and for not terminating her...there's no denying that she deserves to all the love and attention in the world. For some people though, it's just not something they could cope with. I couldn't. I honestly could not cope, so if I were given the opportunity to CHOOSE, I would decide NOT to have a disabled child because I know that I very well may resent them for having a disability and therefore taking over more of my life than I was prepared to give.

Jackson84

16-05-2006, 00:14

I still believe that ALL people would be better off WITHOUT disabilities

that still raises the questions of

what is a disability?
how do we determine what is a better life?

people with disabilities dont have to have horrible lives. it is "normal" people who inflict an abnormal, or sub-standard life upon them.

Mister Noodle

16-05-2006, 00:18

Though I do feel that this question is slightly off-track I am happy to answer with my thoughts and opinion.

I believe that if a sperm donor has a personal genetic disorder then they should definitely offer this information for potential mothers-to-be. However, not all people know what is in their biological history - a lot of genetic disorders remain dormant for generations on end before affecting anyone.

I dont believe that we have the right to 'choose' what qualities our children are going to have - be it genetic or otherwise.

I don't get it. How can the two statements coexist? Are women allowed to know, but not allowed to act on that knowledge? If you choose one sperm donor over another, you're choosing the genetic makeup of your child.

Do people have this ethical right or do they not?

Tam-I-Am

16-05-2006, 00:35

Mr Noodle,

I think its a little bit different to choose to do everything in your power to prevent a disability from occuring when you conceive a child then it is to go and and select certain characteristics for the child to posses or not to posses

I mean, don't we take folate to prevent neural tube defects, for example? Is that not interfering with the characteristics of a child by your definition? If you KNOW that there is an increased risk of disability by your action or inaction as a parent, you do your utmost to control those factors. If you are aware that there is a certain sperm donor, with whom you are likely to have an increased risk of birth defect - and an alternative donor, whose history would not indicate that this is the case, of course you would chose the so called "normal" donor.

This is a completely different situation to having the cell of a zygote genetically mapped, and then modified, or picking and choosing which child to implant.

Mister Noodle

16-05-2006, 00:55

Apart from sheer effectiveness, what's the difference? Are we supposed to give suffering a sporting chance?

Tam-I-Am

16-05-2006, 01:14

No, and I don't think that I said anything that even resembles that.

What I did say that a proactive, preventative and non-invasive action is not the same as an invasive, reactive action.

I'm not sure where the confusion is there.

reAllytee

16-05-2006, 02:42

Wow this has been an interesting read.
I have to say im not really keen on this idea at all.
I also believe we should leave things up to nature but then put into a position of being told my baby has something wrong with it does change things.
When i was told this at my 19wk scan i was a mess i cried pretty much from being told at 3pm all the way through the nite till the following day. But i mainly blamed myself of course but i worried about the baby. Worried about society & what it thinks about those who are a little different from the norm. But when it came down to it i accepted that what ever we were to be given was a blessing & for us all things came back clear.
I sometimes wonder though whether this sort of technology leads us onto something else & thats why possibly it is discovered. I mean look at what going into space has given us. But i think the fact it could be used to create a superior race is a little scary & if put into the wrong hands i dare not even think.
Plus i also think that yeah maybe you create this "perfect" baby it arrives & all is well then it say gets hit by a car or contracts some other disease & becomes disabled this way would the parents then reject it because they worked so hard to get their "perfect" child or are we going to take it a step further & make sure it cant contract any disease & can grow new limbs etc as its needed ?
It all just becomes scary.
My mum was born happy & healthy at 5yrs of age she contracted Polio. She nearly lost her life & ended up a vegetable for awhile. If it wasnt for my grandfathers determination she wouldnt be here today let alone be the person she is.
Now they are looking into why some people get Polio yet others dont & also why it affects everyone so differently. So if they were to pinpoint certain cells & alter the genes to make sure someone wont contract it well to be honest i think even my mum would be all for this but at the same time if we really start altering ourselves too much will we still be human is something that i wonder about.
But maybe im just over tired, rambling & making no sense :o

the_queen

16-05-2006, 07:53

that still raises the questions of

what is a disability?
how do we determine what is a better life?

people with disabilities dont have to have horrible lives. it is "normal" people who inflict an abnormal, or sub-standard life upon them.

:yelclap: Well said !!!!! Like someone else said earlier, is short-sightedness a disability? Is left-handedness??

When I was told that my baby would be born with a cleft lip, one of my "friends" suggested I "seriously consider" terminating the pregnancy. She said "what kind of life can a girl have, if she's got scars on her face" :mad: Other people were surprised that we took photo's of her before she had her initial operation. Others commented on "how severe" her deformity was, and asked me how on earth I coped with taking her out in public.
I realise now that I was chosen to be Vallerie's mum, because probably a lot of other women couldn't have dealt with her situation so well. I think it comes down to personal ethics - mine have a Christian base, and so I truly believe that God doesn't give us more than we can handle. I didn't realise how strong I was until my daughter taught me about strength and resilience. I used to be self-conscious about myself, until my daughter taught me about self-acceptance and true beauty.

And HEAR HEAR re: the list someone put up earlier, about amazing minds who happen to have disabilities eg Stephen Hawking.

Mister Noodle

16-05-2006, 08:11

I guess I just don't understand this 'playing god' thing.

Is it 'playing god' to give your child antibiotics? How do you know it wasn't 'meant' to die of that infection? What about heart surgery? If that's not reactive, invasive and irreversible, I don't know what is.

Tell me, under what circumstances should I sit back and let my child suffer or die? Because in the end, that's what it comes down to.

As for the Famous Disabled People argument, that's a really irritating strawman. If anyone were suggesting that we round up and kill / sterilise all the disabled people, you'd have a point. Seriously, why don't your arguments apply to things like folate supplements? Do you think people take them out of pride or convenience, or do you think they just want their child to be healthy? Is it somehow wrong and elitist to 'deny them the opportunity' of neural tube defects?

Lunar

16-05-2006, 08:26

that still raises the questions of

what is a disability?
how do we determine what is a better life?

people with disabilities dont have to have horrible lives. it is "normal" people who inflict an abnormal, or sub-standard life upon them.

That is why this argument is still going on!
People that think 'normal', 'abnormal', I think there is something to be said for society's (as a whole) views on people with disabilities.
People FEAR difference. But it is these difference that makes the world go round (so to speak), it's what makes us who we are.

How do you know that the child you 'choose' won't have a chemicle imbalance in their brain and later become a murderer, terrorist, or the likes?
Or be involved in an accident and be left disabled for life!?!?!?!?
(A question I asked earlier on, but no one seems to want to give me an answer?!...hmmmm, I wonder why!)

natasha

16-05-2006, 08:41

How do you know that the child you 'choose' won't have a chemicle imbalance in their brain and later become a murderer, terrorist, or the likes?
Or be involved in an accident and be left disabled for life!?!?!?!?
(A question I asked earlier on, but no one seems to want to give me an answer?!...hmmmm, I wonder why!)

because that could happen by CHANCE. It's different if you KNOW your child has a defect. If you know your child has a defect and don't do anything about it, it's very different to giving birth to a healthy child who MAY POSSIBLY be involved in a car accident.

Just wanted to answer that question. Not judging anyone. JMO

WeThree

16-05-2006, 08:44

IAs for the Famous Disabled People argument, that's a really irritating strawman. If anyone were suggesting that we round up and kill / sterilise all the disabled people, you'd have a point.

Oh so you are suggesting anyone not deemed aesthetically pleasing enough or intelligent enough just be bred out instead? Thats much better :rolleyes:

natasha

16-05-2006, 08:50

Oh so you are suggesting anyone not deemed aesthetically pleasing enough or intelligent enough just be bred out instead? Thats much better :rolleyes:

:laughing: :yes:

Odessa

16-05-2006, 09:12

I think this all boils down to personal choice. Some people when faced with the challenge of raising a child with a mental or physical "disability" will opt out, as they do not feel they are up to the challenge. Others may take on the challenge, out of spiritual or moral obligation, or personal belief. No one has the right to judge anyone for their personal choices, particularly in matters as personal as this.

Please keep this in mind when posting your responses.

Mister Noodle

16-05-2006, 09:20

Coops: If thses things were caused by a contagious disease, a mineral deficiency, some environmental toxin, radiation exposure or just about any other non-genetic factor, I'm willing to bet you'd be all for preventing it, and we wouldn't have all these claims of elitism.

"Rubella shots! Ha! You're just too vain and lazy to raise a deaf child! What's the matter, a deaf kid not good enough for you?"

What makes a genetic disorder qualitatively different? Why is it okay to want your child to be free from disease, deformity, retardation, pain, disability or reduced lifespan if it's environmental in nature, but not if it's genetic? What's so sacred about damaged DNA that it must be allowed to mindlessly hurt our children while we stand back and reverently accept it?

MilkOnTap

16-05-2006, 09:23

I think its a little bit different to choose to do everything in your power to prevent a disability from occuring when you conceive a child then it is to go and and select certain characteristics for the child to posses or not to possess
.....
What I did say that a proactive, preventative and non-invasive action is not the same as an invasive, reactive action.

Well said Clarabelle :thumbsup:

what is a disability? how do we determine what is a better life?
This is the exact question that the whole thread needs to boil down to. Who determines what a disability is? If it is something that slightly alters the 'ideal body image' or 'ideal mental image' - then half of my family are disabled! That certainly wont stop me from attempting to conceive a child.

If you choose one sperm donor over another, you're choosing the genetic makeup of your child.
In a sense I can see where you are coming from. If you can choose the sperm then isn't that the same as choosing the genetic makeup? No.

IMO, the difference between selecting a sperm (or lover/partner/donor) and having a genetically modified embryo AFTER conception are worlds apart. To alter one or two chromosones AFTER conception is tampering with the ORIGINAL genetic makeup of that being.

Mister Noodle

16-05-2006, 09:24

MilkOnTap

16-05-2006, 09:27

Why is it okay to want your child to be free from disease, deformity, retardation, pain, disability or reduced lifespan if it's environmental in nature, but not if it's genetic?

Of course we want our children to be free from disease! Immunisations will certainly be a priority for me.

There are two sides to this thread (which by the way I think we have all handled in quite an adult manner :thumbsup: )

1. Individual and personal acceptance of having a 'special' child.

2. Whether or not each individual believes that the child created at conception is the one that they were 'meant to have'.

Jackson84

16-05-2006, 09:50

Odessa: indeed, courtesy.

But I think you've hit the heart of the debate, right there.

IMHO, it's not about whether the parent is 'up to the challenge'.

It's about not wanting your child to be sick.

Not vanity or laziness, but altruism.

like you said, it is personal choice.

there are some lines that people will not cross. be it for religeous reasons, cultural reasons, personal reasons. fear of god, fear of change, fear of the "slippery slope".

taking a drug, or having surgery does not change you. it can influence you, lead your life in another direction, give you the opportunity to change, but in and of itself it doesnt (except that once sick you are now well).

altering DNA presupposes a number of things.
firstly, that there is something wrong with your DNA.
secondly, that you are "the same" even though you have different chromosones (i personally dont understand this).
thirdly, that altering DNA has less negative side effects than a course of anitbiotics, or surgery or chemo etc.

may i give an example?

upon the sperm fetilising the egg, a doctor does a reading and tells the parent that they will have a perfectly healthy baby, except that when she is 10, she will develop from flat-chested to a D cup. in fear of not only the social effects of such development, but also the physical effects, the parents alter or choose another zygote that will instead have B cup breasts.

as this girl grows up, she goes to school, she develops, she fits in as well as anybody else. she has fairly good selfesteem and learns to play the flute. she goes to high school, meets boys, doesnt work as hard in the classroom and studies history at university.

alternatively, the parents do nothing. the girl grows up, goes to school, develops into a D cup. gets teased so insesently that her self-esteem is completely mangled. she hates being a girl and decides to learn the drums. because she is depressed, ashamed, and intent on showing boys up she doesnt have a lot of friends at school. she spends every recess and lunch time of yr 12 practising music. she gets into the music degree, but has to drop out because of back problems caused from having a large bust (her heart is broken, but she learns to live with it). she switches to straight arts and studies history.

how can you choose one life over the other? do you take the no teasing and the lack of motivation? or the "hard" life that comes with the passion?

as much as i hate what happened to me in school, it shaped who i am, and i would never change that. i dont see the alternatives to what i could have been as "better", i see them as alternatives. this life is the best life because i was born as i was created, and its what i live. does that mean i wouldnt have a breast reduction? hell no. as soon as i finish having kids it will be one of the first things on my list.

im not sure you will understand that.

Mister Noodle

16-05-2006, 09:51

Ally: but again - why don't you value the 'personal acceptance' of having a rubella-infected child, leaving it up to chance to determine whether you were 'meant' to have one?

Why is it okay to say 'not on my watch, matey', and proactively prevent that by getting your shots? Why *isn't* it okay to do the same thing with equally nasty mutations?

What's the difference between protecting your child from harmful germs and protecting your child from harmful genes?

Mister Noodle

16-05-2006, 09:57

MilkOnTap

16-05-2006, 09:59

What's the difference between protecting your child from harmful germs and protecting your child from harmful genes?
Who gets to decide what a 'harmful gene' is?

Personally, I dont believe that a physical ailment is debilitating at all. If a child is conceived with a cleft lip, club feet, Downs or any other disabling condition (as pre-disposed by society) that child knows NO different. They grow up with it, and live with it. They have never experienced life without their unique qualities, therefore 'life goes on'

Jackson84

16-05-2006, 11:08

Jackson:

And if your kid gets knocked down by a car, it might spend the time in hospital reading, develop a passion for science, and become the greatest physicist ever to walk the earth, instead of being poor and miserable forever.

Do you let your child run in the street unsupervised on the off chance?

Of course not. You do the best you can on every little thing you can skew in their favour, and trust to luck on the rest. It's all you can do, and I can't imagine any parent wanting to do less.

altering DNA presupposes a number of things.
firstly, that there is something wrong with your DNA.
secondly, that you are "the same" even though you have different chromosones (i personally dont understand this).
thirdly, that altering DNA has less negative side effects than a course of anitbiotics, or surgery or chemo etc.

btw mr noodle, if my son was paralysised, he wouldnt be able to run on to a road and get his by a car.

you seem to enjoy confusing responsible parenting, with meddling with DNA. whilst you think that changin DNA may be a responsible decision to make, i do not, just as some parents believe smaking their children is a responsible parenting decision and some do not. just as some believe that letting their child experiment with alcohol and smoking while supervised is responsible, and some do not.

i have made it clear that i do not accept your premises for the advocation of genetic descrimination. i have made it clear that i do not accept your premises that support your conclusion as to what identity really is. i have also made it clear that i do not accept your premis that a disabled person lives a live that is substandard. that if you had two identital people, different only in that one was disabled and the other not, then the "normal" person would have a better life by virtue of being "normal". i do not accept that. nor do i accept the premis that intentionally eliminating "abnormalities" is a good thing. as i have said earlier:

how do we know that what we consider a 'disability' isnt actually one step forward in the evolution of humans? by eliminating "abnormalities" we are in fact condemning the human race to stagnation.

Mister Noodle

16-05-2006, 11:20

Ally,

As I've said, where to draw the line is a hard question, but some of the answers are easy.

As for physical ailments not being debilitating: rubbish. You'd do all you could to prevent your child from getting sick, poisoned or injured; you wouldn't call a flesh-eating infection or a cancer that took both your child's eyes a 'unique quality' - you'd do all you could to prevent it, and you'd be grieving if it happened anyway. You know you would.

Again: Why do you expect people to allow their children to suffer from ailments of genetic origin, and yet expect them to protect their children from exactly the same symptoms if the cause is environmental?

Why the double standard?

Mister Noodle

16-05-2006, 11:28

btw mr noodle, if my son was paralysised, he wouldnt be able to run on to a road and get his by a car.

Non sequitur.

Or, to quote my favourite yiddish expression: ...and if my grandmother had balls, she'd be my grandfather.

The point was that though good may coincidentally and unpredictably result from harm, nobody in their right mind places their child at unreasonable risk on the off chance.

Jackson84

16-05-2006, 11:53

As for physical ailments not being debilitating: rubbish. You'd do all you could to prevent your child from getting sick, poisoned or injured; you wouldn't call a flesh-eating infection or a cancer that took both your child's eyes a 'unique quality' - you'd do all you could to prevent it, and you'd be grieving if it happened anyway. You know you would.

Again: Why do you expect people to allow their children to suffer from ailments of genetic origin, and yet expect them to protect their children from exactly the same symptoms if the cause is environmental?

Why the double standard?

personally, i wouldnt be locking my child in a quantined bubble, only allowing people through in hazmat suits, and feeding him purified, pre-digested foods.

it isnt a double standard. it is a matter of degrees.

to what degree are you prepared to go to protect your child?

you continue to compare reasonable, rational parental actions with extreme actions.

would you alter your childs DNA or be genetically descriminatory when selecting which embrio to implant, but then allow your child to breath contaminated air? lets face it, its hard to find a metropolis without contaminated air. would you then lock your child up in a bubble to protect them from the environment?

i would not go to that extreme. nor would i go to the extreme of manipulating DNA or being genetically descriminatory. i would have children the "old fashioned way", and i would protect them from what i could within reason. i would educate my child as to how to look after themselves, but would not tie them to their bed so that they dont run out onto a busy street.

what is so wrong mr noodle, in your point of view, about having degrees of reasonableness, and drawing a line?

i disagree with your line of through because i do not take too kindly to extremes. i also do not subscribe to your initial premisses as i stated earlier. that is my choice. it is what i belive to be a responsible decision.

Tam-I-Am

16-05-2006, 13:01

it isnt a double standard. it is a matter of degrees.

Exactly.

Mr Noodle, I think that the problem that we're having here is that you seem to look at this issue in terms of black-and-white.

I hope I am not speaking out of turn on behalf of others, but speaking for myself, and, I think, some other people who have posted here - the world is not black-and-white, there are is a whole spectrum of greys in the middle, and each person, each parent must decide at what point on that continuum they draw the line.

I personally think there is a world of difference between taking reasoanable, evidence-based action toward ensuring that your child does not contract a preventable disease, or condition (ie neural tube defects), and interfering with what a person fundamentally is (note, I said 'what a person is' - not 'who a person is').

I think my world and life would be much simplified if I didn't recognise that many of these issues can be placed on a continuum, if I could just think of them as black-and-white, poloarised issues. But I think that simple is not neccessarily better, either.

Jackson84

16-05-2006, 13:06

once again somebody has explained it far better than me. :)

JATS

16-05-2006, 15:16

I personally think there is a world of difference between taking reasoanable, evidence-based action toward ensuring that your child does not contract a preventable disease, or condition (ie neural tube defects), and interfering with what a person fundamentally is (note, I said 'what a person is' - not 'who a person is').

yes there is a difference, unless you don't interfere with what a person is! A person is a person and will still be a person even if you do "take reasoanable, evidence-based action toward ensuring that your child does not contract a preventable disease, or condition" by selecting an embryo that has none!

buzzing bee

16-05-2006, 15:21

I just wanted to reply to this post mainly because of the quote below. I too think it is a personal choice but wanted to say that there is a big diiference between disability and terminal illness that would rob the child of any quality of life.

may i give an example?

upon the sperm fetilising the egg, a doctor does a reading and tells the parent that they will have a perfectly healthy baby, except that when she is 10, she will develop from flat-chested to a D cup. in fear of not only the social effects of such development, but also the physical effects, the parents alter or choose another zygote that will instead have B cup breasts.

as this girl grows up, she goes to school, she develops, she fits in as well as anybody else. she has fairly good selfesteem and learns to play the flute. she goes to high school, meets boys, doesnt work as hard in the classroom and studies history at university.

alternatively, the parents do nothing. the girl grows up, goes to school, develops into a D cup. gets teased so insesently that her self-esteem is completely mangled. she hates being a girl and decides to learn the drums. because she is depressed, ashamed, and intent on showing boys up she doesnt have a lot of friends at school. she spends every recess and lunch time of yr 12 practising music. she gets into the music degree, but has to drop out because of back problems caused from having a large bust (her heart is broken, but she learns to live with it). she switches to straight arts and studies history.

how can you choose one life over the other? do you take the no teasing and the lack of motivation? or the "hard" life that comes with the passion?

There is a big difference between the above and the hereditary disease in my family.

Jackson84

16-05-2006, 15:46

Tam-I-Am

16-05-2006, 16:04

Mister Noodle

16-05-2006, 16:22

I think I see the core of the fallacy here:

If I stick a fork in your eye, will you be in horrible pain and lose your stereo vision and half your visual field, have to wear a glass eyeball, and deal with all the associated hassles, pain, infections etc that go with it?

Will that be a problem to you? Would it really only be 'society's alienation and lack of support' that would give you cause for unhappiness?

If I promise everyone will be really nice to you forever after, would you be willing to gouge your own eyeball out, here and now?

No?

Whyever not? What about your own child's eyeball? Surely it won't miss it - it won't live a 'sub-standard life' as a result - because pain, illness, disability, short lifespans and everything else are just a social hurdle, according to you.

Why, in fact, have any kind of preventative medicine at all? Why not just pour all that money into social reforms to *support* the sick and dying people that result?

Whether or not society could treat sick / disabled / hatever people better, that does NOT mean the only harm from sickness or disability comes from society's treatment. If you're sick, injured or anything else, that's a bad, regrettable thing that any vaguely ethical person would prevent if they possibly could.

It doesn't make the person worthless, just unfortunate.

Jackson84

16-05-2006, 16:33

you dont get it.

your not reading everything.

im not going to explain anymore.

Yasmeena

16-05-2006, 17:40

Mr Noodle - it may surprise you to know that some disabled people are actually happy, yup :smiliedance: they are not all living lives of misery wishing some doctor had altered their chromosomes.
I am not sure where I stand on this issue entirely but I think it's an ill-considered view to say "any vaguely ethical person would prevent if they possibly could". Is it entirely (or even vaguely) ethical to alter the formation of life? Screening for diseases is not the same as creating designer babies, to do that you have to genetically engineer the embryo. Screening involves the creation of dozens of embyryos, are you entirely certain that this is an ethical thing to do? Science may at times be morally questionable, to say the least, in fact the IVF process itself is morally questionable to many people, some believe it 'violates gods will'. (not me :wave: no offense meant to any ivf parents, just using an example).
Perhaps there are further ethical dilemmas you may not have considered? It is a complicated subject.

juliek

16-05-2006, 18:01

I may be wrong here, any one who has had IVF please feel free to enlighten me. I am under the impression that when you are being harvested for eggs they like to get 10-15 eggs and when they fertilse them they hope to get at least 6 viable embryos. Isn't it law that you can only be implanted with 4? What happens to the others? (I know they can freeze eggs and sperm, but can they freeze embryos?) If thats true why should I let a lab technician choose which ones he thinks would be best. If I know I can only have four why shouldn't I choose the four with the best chance of survival and chance at a normal life? Is the government gulity of murder because they have said I can only use four, but I have six and the other two can't be kept? :detective:
(This has turned out to be alot deeper than I thought it would be :o lol )

Lunar

16-05-2006, 18:55

of course there is. nobody is denying that.

i gave that example because i have little experience with hereditary diseases and the like. i can only speak from what i know, and from others have told me. more so, i gave that example because of mr noodles previous questions about if he had a different eye colour, would he be a different person. i happen to believe so. *shrug* im not that concerned if other people dont.

i suppose what disturbs me the most, is that there is an unspoken premiss that disabled/ill people live sub-standard lives by virtue of being disabled/ill. i happen to disagree with this. yes, their life may be harder than everybody elses, but i think this has a lot more due to society, and they we alienate these people; the way we fail to provide them with adequate support and resources; they way we ignore their needs, than it does with the particular disability or disease that they have. in some countries black people live sub-standard lives. in other women live substandard lives. should we choose different embrios so that these people are spared their pain? or should we instead, change society, so that all people are truly equal. so that everybody has access to the support and resources that they need, and so that nobody, for any reason, is living a "sub-standard" life?

my fear is that if it is believed a disabled/ill/female/black person is living a substandard life because they are disabled/ill/female/black, then this just gives permission to those who would treat them as sub-standard, to continue doing so.

eliminating "abnormalities" constricts the definition of "normal". i believe that is a very dangerous road to travel.

:yelclap: :yelclap:
Well said!!! The reason new tests are being invented constantly is just that!
The ignorance of society. Why not work on creating better services for the disabled rather than saying they should not be here. I think it is very insulting to the disabled in general, these tests are basically saying to them that they don't deserve to be on this earth and that no one really wants them here.
If people would just open their precious eyes and see that if they are lucky enough to be blessed with a baby, why not just feel simply that!- lucky and blessed....?!?!?!?! Why be so picky?
Yes I agree with most here. Of course everyone wants a healthy baby, one without any disabilities or illness, but if that is what is meant to be, why not just accept that?
These tests WILL NOT detect every disability, only ones that effect the chromosomes. There are literally thousands of disabilities that DO NOT affect the chromosomes. It is only the more common ones that do.
So what happens when you think you are getting a "normal", "healthy" baby, only to find out at birth or sometime after that, that is not the case... just fate's way of saying get what your given...IMO.

RedPanda

16-05-2006, 19:24

So what happens when you think you are getting a "normal", "healthy" baby, only to find out at birth or sometime after that, that is not the case... just fate's way of saying get what your given...IMO.

I think I know what you are trying to say here, but I have to say, it very much takes the tone of "take your medicine". It sounds like you believe mothers who have undergone prenatal tests and have still had disabled children somehow deserve it. I have stayed out of this debate, mainly because it is just so personal. Personally, I would not genetically select my babies. It took me a while to conceive, and I am grateful for that miracle. However, I think this thread is dangerously changing course. Are we debating genetic engineering or prenatal screening? I would be careful of criticising mothers who choose to screen for abnormalities - no-one likes to be judged, and let's face it - every decision is a hard one to make. Nothing is the "easy way out". I am only referring to prenatal screening here - not genetic engineering.

Lunar

16-05-2006, 20:20

I was refering to the genetic selection we are debating about, not screening. But is there a real difference? The genetic selection is basically to see for 'abnormalities' much the same as the screening tests. If there is a positive result for any abnormalities it gives the parents the option to implant/go ahead with the rest of the pregnancy. To me there is no great difference, just what stage of the baby's life you test.

RedPanda

16-05-2006, 20:40

Fair enough! That's a good point you made about the difference between prenatal screening and genetic selection (ie. that it's just done at different stages of development). Btw, I have PM'd you.

xkwzit

16-05-2006, 21:22

I think that we all agree that if you could treat the embryo/child and "cure" the problem, we would all do it. I think that covers all the folate/vacc issues too.

The problem that some of us have is if treatment is not really treatment, but involves simply selecting an alternative embryo (which many of us believe is a different separate potential person). I think it's really important to remember that screening might involve a range of problems - from terminal diseases so severe that the child won't even survive the pg to much more minor conditions. I think it reasonable that decisions made would very much depend on what kind of condition your child might experience and it's very hard for me to say in every case I would do X.

And re IVF excess embryos (although I'm no expert - please someone who knows correct me) I believe that the doc/technician will choose the "healthiest" looking ones to implant (how you judge health in a bundle of 10-12 cells I have no clue) and they can freeze the rest for later attempts.

Cheers

JATS

17-05-2006, 00:50

And re IVF excess embryos (although I'm no expert - please someone who knows correct me) I believe that the doc/technician will choose the "healthiest" looking ones to implant (how you judge health in a bundle of 10-12 cells I have no clue) and they can freeze the rest for later attempts.

And thus we get back to the question of wether that could include choosing an embryo that is free from genetic diseases/illnesses and thus more healthy? :)

SassyMummy

17-05-2006, 14:41

While I understand that screening, or even selecting embryos that do not contain SOME health problems, will not eliminate ALL diseases or illnesses...they could very well decrease your chance of having a baby with SOME problems.

If there was a chance that the baby I was carrying (I'm not pregnant btw...this is just in theory) had A and B wrong with it, I would get tested. Say they came back positivie (as in yes, this baby DID have A and B wrong with it). The doctor then informs me that there is a way to treat this whilst baby is still in the womb. There is minimal risk to the baby or to me, but there is STILL a risk.

I would have to weigh up whether or not I wanted to take that risk in order to "cure" the baby of problems A and B. While having the baby "cured" will not prevent or cure ANY other problems that A or B, that's still 2 problems that my child would not have.

IMO, THAT is a good idea. It doesn't necessarily mean that parents will expect to have a "perfect" baby...it just means that they will be happy in the knowledge that their child won't suffer from A and B. It doesn't mean that they won't have C or D or even E wrong with them...but by eliminating A and B, that's TWO problems the child WILL NOT have. (Or, as it would be were this "cure" available, the child would PROBABLY NOT have A or B...no cure is 100%).

Also, in reality, having such a "cure" available would probably not eliminate any problems entirely. It might LESSEN the occurance of the problems, but it wouldn't eliminate them. Any form of cure would probably cost a fortune, and even if it DIDN'T I doubt any poorer nations would be able to afford the treatment. Some people wouldn't choose it anyway...so it would never eliminate anything. There would still be sick/disabled people in the world.

I also agree that one thing that contributes to a person being disabled in society...but I don't think that the ONLY reason a person is considered disabled. If that were the case, I might be disabled for being overweight...since society hasn't really made it all that acceptable or easy for a person who is bigger than "the norm".

pestiferous

19-05-2006, 18:59

I find it absolutely amazing that we will on one hand select the best quality egg for our breakfast.

Then turn in disgust at the thought of screening an embryo to find the least imperfections.

We will not ourselves eat inferior food's but are more than happy to open our children to all manner of lifelong problems?

An embryo is nothing more than PRE FETAL matter, the product of conception that is not yet a human being. It is a tiny little speck of possibilities. Each and every fertile womans body will in her lifetime reject dozens and never even notice.

How selfish of us to refuse our children the possibility of perfection.

Of course in the search for perfection, there is the possibility of opening ourselves to new or unknown disabilities and diseases but how many controlled diseases would still be killing millions if it were not for such risks being taken in the past?

(Think of each and every immunisation your child is given now) this is a natural part of human evolution people, 300 years ago an artificial heart would be considered the devils work is this new technology really any different?

xkwzit

19-05-2006, 21:09

mum2four

20-05-2006, 08:48

Lunar

20-05-2006, 09:53

I see nothing wrong for testing for genetic abnormalities such as downs syndrome etc, but I don't agree with choosing the sex. I think it's greats if they can tell beforehand if there is something wrong with the embryo that will either give the child a poor quality of life or be incompatible with life.
Some of the couples that have to choose IVF can only afford 1-2 cycles, to have an embryo put back that won't survive is not only heartbreaking for any couple, but for those who only have X amount of chances then it is also a waste of a cycle, this could be their one and only chance for a child!
I will never agree with choosing the sex of an embryo :thumbsup: , but for severe abnormalities I think it's a good thing :thumbsdown: .

My DD in no way has a 'poor quality of life' !!!!!!!!!
I think people should educate themselves on the reality of such disabilities before they make such wild assumptions that people with them are suffering or have a poor qulityt of life!!!
It's narrow minded people, like those who make these kind of statements, that make society so hard for people with disabilities to live in and be accepted and supported.

mum2four

20-05-2006, 13:15

My DD in no way has a 'poor quality of life' !!!!!!!!!
I think people should educate themselves on the reality of such disabilities before they make such wild assumptions that people with them are suffering or have a poor qulityt of life!!!
It's narrow minded people, like those who make these kind of statements, that make society so hard for people with disabilities to live in and be accepted and supported.

My apologies if you think I meant your daughter has a poor quality of life. From what I understand there are varying degrees of Downs Syndrome (I assume this is what your DD has) and some of those are worse than others. I wasn't only meaning down syndrome either, there are other genetic abnormalities that are no doubt worse than DS. I know personally if my child couldn't walk, talk, get out of bed on their own, feed themselves etc that I would consider that to be a poor quality of life.
My statement does not make me narrow minded, just means I didn't sit there and write a full list of which situations are different from others, that would take me all day. I understand in your situation my statement would get your back up so my apologies to you that it was misconstrued.

Mister Noodle

20-05-2006, 14:02

This is the bit I don't get.

If the conditions being discussed don't reduce people's quality of life in any way, it shouldn't be immoral or undesirable to deliberately inflict them on a healthy child.

Is this the case? Supposing you had a child with no particular disabilities or diseases, would you allow someone to walk up and inflict them on your kid?

*zap* okay, your son is now retarded.

*zap* okay, your daughter is now blind.

*zap* okay, your kid has lost the use of their legs.

If they did, would you press charges? On what grounds?

You seem to be claiming that no harm has resulted, and I for one just don't buy it. It just sounds like reverse sour-grapes to me.

JATS

20-05-2006, 14:37

Hypothetically; You're carrying twins and you know one has a disability, you are told there are complications and unless you abort one of the babies both will die.

If you're one of the people who have commented along the lines of; "disabled people have a place in society" do you choose to abort the non-disabled baby? Why does he or she deserve less of a chance than the other baby?

If you are against "discrimination", how do you choose? Coin toss?

Please, I'm not being a smart ****, I seriously am just trying to understand.

eta; to what degree does it depend on how the child is disabled?

natasha

20-05-2006, 14:49

pestiferous

20-05-2006, 16:31

But that's just it, isn't it? Some of us believe that each embryos is precious and a potential human being. We would not discriminate against someone for their disability IRL and so feel strongly about not discriminating against any of our potential children
Cheers

Does this mean you also refused to immunize your children ?

If you consider an embryo to be as precious as a human being and immunisation IS essentially the same as screening for defects. (both reduce or remove the risk of debilitating illness.) then you must also consider immunisation a form of this supposed discrimination.

Personally i find the accusation of discrimination quite offensive,

Should i ever choose a healthier risk free embryo. I would NOT be commenting on the viability of others , merely ensuring the health of my own!

I would be astounded to find a single parent who would not if they could wish away their childs disability. No matter how slight the disibility is, it is only natural to wish the very best for those we love. Are we to refuse the option of best possible health because others did not have the choice?

I seriously doubt those screaming discrimination would refuse their child the very best medical care because there are others who can not afford the same.

It's narrow minded people, like those who make these kind of statements, that make society so hard for people with disabilities to live in and be accepted and supported.

But if these disabiities (as you state) do not reduce ones quality of life why and for what do you expect SUPPORT ?

JATS

20-05-2006, 17:07

http://www.bubhub.com.au/community/forums/showthread.php?t=9683

Those of you saying disabled people are important; what do you say to this heartbroken mother?

Tam-I-Am

20-05-2006, 17:54

I think that this such a controversial issue, and no one side is going to convince the other - and there are those of us in the middle (like me) who are unsure what to think.

I can see Emy's mum's point of view: Her DD is here, with a condition that others consider to be a disability, and yet this condition has enriched herself, her family, and had no impact on her DD quality of life: a good outcome.

On the other hand, there are so many conditions that do imact quality of life - children who cannot walk, or talk, or who will always struggle because their conditions cause physical symptoms and/or abnormalities that will result in being a social outcast. This is a reality. I agree society needs to change - we need to spend more time and money on making those people who are considered disabled more comfortable and accepted within society - but this is true of all disabilities (ie I'm thinking mental illness, as well as physcial health).....

But on the other hand - if I had to chose, I know that I have only limited resouces - and I would have to think really carefully about how I could distrubute those, particularly when faced with a decision between raising a disabled child, or raising a child considered to be (so called) "normal". I honestly don't know what I'd decide (and hope I'm never placed in a position where I have to).

xkwzit

20-05-2006, 21:17

pestiferous

21-05-2006, 11:12

Pestiferous
I do immunise my children and I don't see the correlation at all.

In my previous post I said that I don't have any problem with TREATING a problem to help a child / person. Immunisation is preventative treatment and while there are risks, I have decided that the benefit of immunisation outweighs the risk.

Excactly, immunisation is a preventative treatment that reduces risk, and so is the process of screening embryo's.

The only difference is while immunisation can ONLY prevent disease where there is a SLIGHT POSSIBILITY of contracting.

screening embryo's can actually stop GUARANTEED disease or disability before the embryo even becomes a human, while also reducing the risk of those same possible diseases or disability.

Now there has not been a case of diptheria in Australia since (i think) 99/2000 and that was in an overseas visitor. Due to immunisation the actual risk of contracting the disease is extremely low. Yet we happily inject our children with Diptheria in the hopes of temporarily preventing the disease (diptheria immunisation usually 'wears off' by late teens early 20's) but because we take this risk, Eventually the disease will cease to exist entirely.

We do not consider this to be discrimination against diptheria sufferer's, or the perpetuation of vexatious stereotyping. Merely the planned eradication of an unwanted illness.

Screening will in future have the same overall effect as immunisation has begun to have, eventually inferior genes (those causing hereditary disease etc) will be 'bred' out of society as well.

Now i woud NEVER consider killing off disabled children.

I would NOT abort a disabled fetus.

But i see nothing wrong with choosing the better of two embryo's if it meant i could ensure the good health of my child.

I think of each embryo as a potential person and hence my discrimination comment. It is reasonable to me, based on my belief and my respect for embryos. But we all have different opinions and I don't expect everyone to agree with me.
Cheers

So if you ever took the pill you would consider yourself a murderer?

Mister Noodle

21-05-2006, 13:32

Heh, good point. The pill prevents implantation, not fertilisation.

Is it just as bad or is selecting embryos based on time of conception somehow better than selecting them based on the amount they're likely to suffer?

xkwzit

21-05-2006, 20:35

The pill prevents ovulation, therefore there should be no egg to fertilise and so no embryo.

We are only debating a difference in where we see the beginning of a person - I lean towards the moment of conception. The US gov allows experimentation on embryos up to 14 days past fertilization, they have a different view to me. I accept that there are other views, but to me the embryo is a potential person and choosing to screen them creates some ethical hurdles for me, as I see this as choosing to give life to a different potential person.

It's not treating a potential human to fix the problem, it is rejecting that first potential human in the favour of one who doesn't have the problem.

Cheers

Mister Noodle

21-05-2006, 21:39

Um, no, most OCs simply prevent implantation. They simulate ongoing pregnancy, making the uterine wall unreceptive to the fertilised egg.

It's possible to completely supress ovulation, but it requires getting pretty heavy-handed with the hormones.

xkwzit

22-05-2006, 12:52

Um yes.:yes:
I checked my info BEFORE I posted it (from the website of a common brand of OCP).

And here's a few other sources (just in case you think I found a special OCP ;) )

Family Planning Victoria:
http://www.fpv.org.au/3_12_1.html

The Pill prevents pregnancy by:

Preventing the production of an egg (ovum) every month
Changing the structure of the lining of the womb (uterus) so a fertilised egg cannot grow
Makes the mucous in the entrance to the uterus (called the cervix) so thick that the sperm cannot enter.

Women's Health Queensland Wide
http://www.womhealth.org.au/healthjourney/pill_myths_misconceptions.htm

How the Pill works
The two hormones in the combined oral contraceptive pill, oestrogen and progestogen work on several levels to prevent pregnancy. Primarily, the Pill works by stopping ovulation (the release of an egg from the ovary). If an egg is not released then of course conception cannot take place. As a back-up, the Pill also makes the mucus released by the cervix thicker so the sperm cannot get through and thins the lining of the uterus so a fertilised egg has difficulty implanting.

Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contraceptive_pill

Several different types of 'the Pill' exist. Generally, they all have different synthetic estrogens and progestins, chemical analogues of the natural hormones, estradiol (an estrogen) and progesterone (a progestagen). Most common brands use 20 to 40 micrograms of ethinyl estradiol as the estrogen component and either a fixed or varying (the bi- and triphasic pills) amount of either levonorgestrel or norethindrone as the progestagen component. An exception is the Progesterone only pill, which lacks estrogen and thus generally has fewer side effects than the combined pill.

The combined Pill prevents pregnancy primarily by preventing ovulation. It also has the side-effect of thickening the mucous over the cervix, which can prevent or slow sperm entry into the uterus. The Pill also thins the endometrium (the lining of the uterus).

But I guess all this is really off the topic - back to designer babies...