Is this idea moraly wrong?

[roguenuke]

It comes down to "I think" against "IMVNHO"... and that is why this subject is not about to be "resolved"... .

Not really, because in your original post, your argument was based mainly on the fact that you believed aborting said fetuses would benefit society by removing them from the gene pool. However, you were very wrong in this assumption. Aborting babies with Down Syndrome does not remove the cause of DS from the gene pool because DS is not caused by a passing of genetics, in most cases.

So then what would make you honestly believe that the parents or society would be better off had this child not existed? Some parents would say that they are better off for having been able to raise their child, even with the deficiencies.

The perfect person does not exist, and I don't really think perfection of the human race is even possible since it is a relative term. Who's idea of perfection would we use? And what genes could we really suppress to support that perfection?

 

[Laila]

I support a women’s right to choose, but sometimes I start to also lean towards the prolifers as I see there standpoint, but to help me in choosing a side after this blurring of lines in my mind I remember the abortion is a great form of population control. There are going to be too many people on this planet and were all ready having food shortages. So I find that it may be beneficial to support abortion as a form of birth control. While the ideal of population control goes against my belief as a libertarian it is allowed as the choose for abortion is not mandated by government and is completely voluntary. I told this to my wife who says that is a fairly dark and some what sadistic view. What do you think?

Not really, i happen to think Abortion is a wonderful form of population
control. I shudder to imagine what would happen if all those aborted was born.

 

[bobnelsonfr]

Not really, because in your original post, your argument was based mainly on the fact that you believed aborting said fetuses would benefit society by removing them from the gene pool. However, you were very wrong in this assumption. Aborting babies with Down Syndrome does not remove the cause of DS from the gene pool because DS is not caused by a passing of genetics, in most cases.

So then what would make you honestly believe that the parents or society would be better off had this child not existed? Some parents would say that they are better off for having been able to raise their child, even with the deficiencies.

The perfect person does not exist, and I don't really think perfection of the human race is even possible since it is a relative term. Who's idea of perfection would we use? And what genes could we really suppress to support that perfection?

My previous post was a peace offering... but since you're not interested...

Try to "listen". If I used DS wrongly (I don't know, and I'm not going to research it because it really doesn't matter), it doesn't change my argument. Just swap DS out and swap in some gene-related illness. OK? Try to respond to the LOGIC, not to the language... :shock:

My "tomorrow" scenario will happen. We must all get our ideas straight on what we want when the technology becomes available.

Our reasoning for the "tomorrow" scenario will necessarily affect our reasoning for today. If we decide to "do our best for our children" tomorrow, it is inevitable that that reasoning echo back to today.

If it is right and proper to ensure the best possible gene combination before fecondation... then why is it wrong thirty seconds later? Ten minutes later? A week later? A month later? Six months later?

Not simple, is it?

Of course, it is always possible to simplify any subject. All you need to do is declare that fecondation is a magic instant, and the subject is closed.

Do you believe in magic................... :doh

 

[roguenuke]

My previous post was a peace offering... but since you're not interested...

Try to "listen". If I used DS wrongly (I don't know, and I'm not going to research it because it really doesn't matter), it doesn't change my argument. Just swap DS out and swap in some gene-related illness. OK? Try to respond to the LOGIC, not to the language... :shock:

My "tomorrow" scenario will happen. We must all get our ideas straight on what we want when the technology becomes available.

Our reasoning for the "tomorrow" scenario will necessarily affect our reasoning for today. If we decide to "do our best for our children" tomorrow, it is inevitable that that reasoning echo back to today.

If it is right and proper to ensure the best possible gene combination before fecondation... then why is it wrong thirty seconds later? Ten minutes later? A week later? A month later? Six months later?

Not simple, is it?

Of course, it is always possible to simplify any subject. All you need to do is declare that fecondation is a magic instant, and the subject is closed.

Do you believe in magic................... :doh

I don't actually agree with you that people will be able to choose which genes they will specifically give to their offspring. Why do you believe that will happen? It might become possible that people will be able to choose which genes from each parent that they want the child to have, however, I don't think that it would be legal for a long time after it became possible if ever. And not everyone would choose to use such technology even if it became legal right away. This technology would see quite a fight to actually making it a viable alternative for parents to use on the questionable ethics of such a procedure.

Presumably, from what we know of genetics now, people could go into fertility clinics and choose to have only those embryos that would be a girl or a boy implanted into them via in vitro. I'm am pretty sure this is absolutely possible at this moment, although I have never heard about this happening. Granted, not many people would be able to afford such drastic steps to ensure the sex of their child, but this would be a set way for certain people to ensure they had a male heir if that was important to them or that they didn't pass on some sex-related disease.

Choosing the Sex of Your Child

Also, it wouldn't be a guarantee anyway that messing with genetics in such a way would get us the child we hoped for. There are always the possibilities of genetic mutations. Artificial genetic manipulation is not considered ethical in most cases, and certainly not when we are talking about humans. We have had some bad things result when we tried pretty much the same thing on other species.

 

[bobnelsonfr]

I don't actually agree with you that people will be able to choose which genes they will specifically give to their offspring. .

An ostrich with its head in the sand won't see the future coming, either! . :roll:

So you can turn your brain off and not think about the implications... and then when they run over you, you can pretend you were taken by surprise. Sheesh! . .

 

[Ethereal]

Unfortunately not. It is one of the rare few things that can actually make me feel pity.

One can feel pity for another human being without viewing their existence as an act of cruelty or a misallocation of precious resources.

 

[roguenuke]

An ostrich with its head in the sand won't see the future coming, either! . :roll:

So you can turn your brain off and not think about the implications... and then when they run over you, you can pretend you were taken by surprise. Sheesh! . .

I have thought about the implications of what you suggest will be normal practice. That is why I believe that it won't happen. What you suggest would be hard to make legal due to the fact that most people do not feel that messing around that much with nature is ethical or moral. We have heard so many horror stories about the negative consequences of genetically manipulating other species. That is pretty much the entire reason the killer bee exists. Scientists were trying to make a perfect bee, and ended up creating one of the most lethal pests on Earth. Almost all movies or books on genetic manipulation show it as something that we should not be doing because it will most likely turn out really bad. Nature does not like to be controlled.

And even if for some reason, in the future, we were able to choose the genetic characteristics of our offspring and it was legal, I still highly doubt that a lot of people would be able to afford it or that they would even want to do it. Just as abortion is against many people's morals, I'm sure this is too.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

What you suggest would be hard to make legal due to the fact that most people do not feel that messing around that much with nature is ethical or moral.

It'll be legal somewhere. And once enough people want it badly enough to go there to get it, it'll end up legal here.

Almost all movies or books on genetic manipulation show it as something that we should not be doing because it will most likely turn out really bad. Nature does not like to be controlled.

That isn't because genetic manipulation is dangerous, it's because humans like scary stories. Especially manipulating the human genome, there's no real way to pose a real threat to humanity or any given society-- because, as you note, most people won't use such technology. Large control group.

Nature doesn't mind being controlled. She just expects you to pay attention to what you're doing.

And even if for some reason, in the future, we were able to choose the genetic characteristics of our offspring and it was legal, I still highly doubt that a lot of people would be able to afford it or that they would even want to do it. Just as abortion is against many people's morals, I'm sure this is too.

Many peoples' morals, and probably most peoples'... but not all peoples'.

And of course it won't start out popular... but every generation, a couple more people will do it, until eventually they are the majority. Then we will see what human-guided evolution is truly capable of.

 

[Writer2Be]

ok, first off, someone had mentioned abortion being used as population control but i dont think abortion should be use as population control because nature will take its course and if the population needs to be decreased, something will naturally occur to balance things out...well thats what's suppose to happen.
anyhow, the lines of abortion are always fuzzy. and what we consider to be morally or ethically right or wrong is relative and thus dependent on the person's own view. therefore whether or not an abortion is going to take place is dependent on the views of the woman. they should have the right to choice. it is in no way easy to decide to have an abortion or to go through one. people aren't soul-less or concience-less, even though it may seem like it at times, and thus after affects of having a child or aborting one will have long term psychological effects either way.
i think prevention through education is key. many young pregnant woman are either not using common sense or pressured by their partner. but not all unwanted pregnancies are due to the lack of a condom, accidents happen. and not just accidents, but unfortunate situations such as rape and incest which then become out of the control of the victim. what kind of life would the mother and the potential child have? and yes, there are adoption agencies and such, however not all countries give their people access to the aid that many single mothers will need. most of these laws are created by men and they in no way can ever understand what goes through your mind when you have an unwanted pregnancy and what to do about.
there is a trail that follows every decision we make and it's up to the individual to decide what is right for them and any potential children that may or may not enter the picture. and a fetus cannot speak or write or communicate in anyway and therefore has no ability to make a conscious decision. and even when you are born, you have to comply with what your parent or guardian says until you are of age.


...sorry for the long rant lol o.0

 

[Coolguy]

Is this idea moraly wrong?

It all depends on the individuals morals.
To me it isn't, but instead, quite pragmatic.
Nothing as far as i am concerned is wrong with abortion.
It is all in the eye of the beholder and based on how they think and feel about it.

 

[Slippery Slope]

My "tomorrow" scenario will happen. We must all get our ideas straight on what we want when the technology becomes available.

Our reasoning for the "tomorrow" scenario will necessarily affect our reasoning for today. If we decide to "do our best for our children" tomorrow, it is inevitable that that reasoning echo back to today.

If it is right and proper to ensure the best possible gene combination before fecondation... then why is it wrong thirty seconds later? Ten minutes later? A week later? A month later? Six months later?

Not simple, is it?

Of course, it is always possible to simplify any subject. All you need to do is declare that fecondation is a magic instant, and the subject is closed.

Do you believe in magic................... :doh

My tomorrow scenario will happen too. Someday I'll win the lottery!!

Or do I need a scary type of tomorrow? OK, someday I'll win the lottery and buy a big rocket and shoot it at Russia!! We better start preparing for what's gonna happen. :roll:

 

[roguenuke]

It'll be legal somewhere. And once enough people want it badly enough to go there to get it, it'll end up legal here.

This is speculation. Do you think cloning will be legal everywhere at some time? The exact same arguments could be made for it. I'm saying that it is not inevitable as was suggested.

That isn't because genetic manipulation is dangerous, it's because humans like scary stories. Especially manipulating the human genome, there's no real way to pose a real threat to humanity or any given society-- because, as you note, most people won't use such technology. Large control group.

Nature doesn't mind being controlled. She just expects you to pay attention to what you're doing.

The argument made though was that it could be considered cruel not to use such technology if it were available. I will admit that I jumped to the assumption that it was therefore being expected that such "cruel" behavior should be illegal. But that is how I seen the post as being written, especially with the beliefs expressed that it was right to take "defective" genes that we can know about today out of the gene pool for the good of society and the parents.

I don't totally agree with your assessment of books and movies as being purely for entertainment. We have entire classes in HS and college dedicated to analyzing the meaning of books, which are generally the bases of a lot the movies. We see how these stories can be warnings about possible outcomes of trying to control nature for our own purposes. People make mistakes.

And I see it as nature doesn't mind being manipulated, but she isn't promising the results that you expect. That's where my example of the killer bee comes in.

Many peoples' morals, and probably most peoples'... but not all peoples'.

And of course it won't start out popular... but every generation, a couple more people will do it, until eventually they are the majority. Then we will see what human-guided evolution is truly capable of.

Most people's morals is all that is required to make something unlawful or lawful. I don't think those morals will change in such huge amounts about this particular issue. It is possible, as is a scenario where we have clones or enforce controlled breeding with licensing. Anything is possible, but nothing is inevitable.

 

[Tr991]

I don't condemn women who opt to have an abortion as being morally objectionable as I'm pro-choice. I understand that the question you've asked is not intended to be misleading or objectionable, but if I'm understanding correctly, the premise that women chose abortion as a first line method of birth control to limit the population is faulted from the beginning.

I'd have to agree with your wife. It's not based on reality.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Do you think cloning will be legal everywhere at some time? The exact same arguments could be made for it. I'm saying that it is not inevitable as was suggested.

Not everywhere, no.

But I think it will be legal in India and South Korea, and rich Americans will take eugenic vacations-- which will eventually come down in price until enough of Middle America can afford to do this, a sizable minority of American citizens will have been genetically engineered. At that point, there will be demand for legalization here.

It'll happen even faster if it's legal in Brazil or Mexico, which I wouldn't be willing to try to predict either way.

The argument made though was that it could be considered cruel not to use such technology if it were available. I will admit that I jumped to the assumption that it was therefore being expected that such "cruel" behavior should be illegal.

If it's available, I do believe that it would be wrong not to take advantage of it. On the other hand, I am a firm believer in not allowing the government to interfere in matters of reproduction, to the point that I would rather tolerate the deliberate engineering of deaf children-- something I consider to be an abomination-- than allow the government to have authority over these matters.

But that is how I seen the post as being written, especially with the beliefs expressed that it was right to take "defective" genes that we can know about today out of the gene pool for the good of society and the parents.

Do you disagree that it is a good thing to reduce the incidence of genetic diseases?

 

[roguenuke]

Not everywhere, no.

But I think it will be legal in India and South Korea, and rich Americans will take eugenic vacations-- which will eventually come down in price until enough of Middle America can afford to do this, a sizable minority of American citizens will have been genetically engineered. At that point, there will be demand for legalization here.

It'll happen even faster if it's legal in Brazil or Mexico, which I wouldn't be willing to try to predict either way.



If it's available, I do believe that it would be wrong not to take advantage of it. On the other hand, I am a firm believer in not allowing the government to interfere in matters of reproduction, to the point that I would rather tolerate the deliberate engineering of deaf children-- something I consider to be an abomination-- than allow the government to have authority over these matters.



Do you disagree that it is a good thing to reduce the incidence of genetic diseases?

I totally disagree that using genetic manipulation to ensure certain genes are guaranteed to go to your children or that certain genes are ensured not to go to them is a good thing. Even if it would reduce the incidence of genetic diseases. Some things are not about reaching for perfection. Reproduction is one of them. I would fight for laws against such genetic manipulation as hard as I could.

I even consider gender selection of a child to be wrong, and some child psychologists even say that gender selection could be detrimental to the child due to the expectations parents can put on that child (I am still looking for the place I read this at). I can see this same problem coming about if a parent went through genetic manipulation to ensure that there children did not receive certain "bad" genes from them, but still ended up with a child with some sort of disability due to a nutritional deficiency, genetic mutation, or accident during the pregnancy or birth. Could you imagine paying a lot of money to try to keep your child from getting some disease that they may inherit from you, and then they are born with something like cerebral palsy or spina bifida or Down's Syndrome? The disappointment for the parents could be very detrimental to the child's mental health.

There are already plenty of people, including children, who believe themselves superior to others because of what they or their parents can afford or how good they are at something or how pretty they look. Can you imagine the amount of superiority complexes we would have running rampant if they believed that they were manipulated prior to conception to be genetically without flaws? It would be an invitation to separation of classes and for people with power to assume control over people that they believed to be genetically inferior to them.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

I totally disagree that using genetic manipulation to ensure certain genes are guaranteed to go to your children or that certain genes are ensured not to go to them is a good thing. Even if it would reduce the incidence of genetic diseases.

I'm not going to go for the cheap shot and argue that you're opposed to protecting children from genetic diseases.

I will say that I cannot think of any possible reason that providing the best possible genetic material is wrong-- any more than providing the best nutrition or education for them is wrong. We already do this, when we try to select the best possible person to mate with; the use of selection and engineering techniques is merely pushing this issue just a little further.

Some things are not about reaching for perfection. Reproduction is one of them.

First, who says that reproduction isn't about reaching for perfection?

Second, I would argue that is the exact purpose behind sexual reproduction-- to drive evolution by combining and recombining genetic material until better and more adaptable organisms are produced.

I would fight for laws against such genetic manipulation as hard as I could.

Just as you can be sure that I will be fighting against such laws-- fighting against their passage, and fighting for ways to circumvent them, for my childrens' sake.

There will be millions of others joining you. But as I've already laid out... time and demographics are on my side.

I even consider gender selection of a child to be wrong...

I consider it petty and superficial, but it's something I would tolerate for the sake of permitting as little government interference as possible in reproductive decisions.

I can see this same problem coming about if a parent went through genetic manipulation to ensure that there children did not receive certain "bad" genes from them, but still ended up with a child with some sort of disability due to a nutritional deficiency, genetic mutation, or accident during the pregnancy or birth. Could you imagine paying a lot of money to try to keep your child from getting some disease that they may inherit from you, and then they are born with something like cerebral palsy or spina bifida or Down's Syndrome? The disappointment for the parents could be very detrimental to the child's mental health.

I would imagine that the consequences of having been born with such profound disabilities would have far greater impact on the child than the disappointment of their parents. Not to mention, this is something that happens now, when parents give birth to disabled children... and what I am proposing would make it occur less frequently.

Of course, you do realize who you're arguing with? While you are arguing that parents would raise these disabled children poorly because they were expecting more-- a problem which already occurs with disabled children-- I've been arguing for years that they should not be raising these children at all.

There are already plenty of people, including children, who believe themselves superior to others because of what they or their parents can afford or how good they are at something or how pretty they look. Can you imagine the amount of superiority complexes we would have running rampant if they believed that they were manipulated prior to conception to be genetically without flaws? It would be an invitation to separation of classes and for people with power to assume control over people that they believed to be genetically inferior to them.

This is an issue of upbringing-- there is a term for children who behave in the fashion you are describing. They're called "spoiled".

And rich parents, and the parents of smart children, the parents of athletic or good-looking children, have been dealing with this for millennia. Some parents have an understanding of how to raise naturally gifted children, and some do not. Having more gifted children, and more children blessed in multiple areas, will not change this.

As for separation of classes... that is all the more reason to get behind this technology as quickly as possible, so that it becomes as inexpensive and freely available as possible. This is best not only for the species, but for society.

 

[joanbrent]

I saw some great views here. I was also very much against abortion, until I researched, and found that there are so many, many children, that are given birth to, and lead lives that are so painful .... I think the woman should make her own decision; as, only she knows her circumstance. I had come across this opinion poll "Women should have the right of choice to have an abortion or not" and some 82% out of 1000's of people agreeing to it. Few people think even father should have some say too.

 

[Arch Enemy]

I think it is morally wrong.
I think if you are not ready to deal with the product of sexual intercourse, then you should not be having intercourse.
There are circumstances that I do believe abortion to be morally wrong, but the best decision. Sometimes, one has to forgo morals.

 

[Slippery Slope]

I think it is morally wrong.
I think if you are not ready to deal with the product of sexual intercourse, then you should not be having intercourse.
There are circumstances that I do believe abortion to be morally wrong, but the best decision. Sometimes, one has to forgo morals.

Love and passion do have a tendency to cloud judgment. People make mistakes in the heat of passion. Are you prepared to live with the death of a bus load of children? It could happen if you drive a vehicle on public roads, or don't you think about that when you're late for work...

 

[Arch Enemy]

Love and passion do have a tendency to cloud judgment. People make mistakes in the heat of passion. Are you prepared to live with the death of a bus load of children? It could happen if you drive a vehicle on public roads, or don't you think about that when you're late for work...

Are you trying to draw a comparison between a vehicular accident and abortion?

 

[Jerry]

I support a women’s right to choose, but sometimes I start to also lean towards the prolifers as I see there standpoint, but to help me in choosing a side after this blurring of lines in my mind I remember the abortion is a great form of population control. There are going to be too many people on this planet and were all ready having food shortages. So I find that it may be beneficial to support abortion as a form of birth control. While the ideal of population control goes against my belief as a libertarian it is allowed as the choose for abortion is not mandated by government and is completely voluntary. I told this to my wife who says that is a fairly dark and some what sadistic view. What do you think?

Forced abortion is necessarily a logical consequence of "abortion is a great form of population control".

 

[FallingPianos]

contraception is a far more cost effective means of population control than abortion.

 

[Slippery Slope]

Are you trying to draw a comparison between a vehicular accident and abortion?

No I am, effectively, showing that people don't always or don't want to, consider that the consequences of their actions will turn out horribly wrong. Heightened emotional states make people even less likely to consider bad outcomes, like driving a little faster when you're late. Savvy?

 

[freemyspeech]

I support a women’s right to choose, but sometimes I start to also lean towards the prolifers as I see there standpoint, but to help me in choosing a side after this blurring of lines in my mind I remember the abortion is a great form of population control. There are going to be too many people on this planet and were all ready having food shortages. So I find that it may be beneficial to support abortion as a form of birth control. While the ideal of population control goes against my belief as a libertarian it is allowed as the choose for abortion is not mandated by government and is completely voluntary. I told this to my wife who says that is a fairly dark and some what sadistic view. What do you think?

My problem with the abortion debate is that no one knows for sure when life begins. A guy on my message board claimed that life begins after roughly six months, but he had nothing to base that upon but his own opinion (though he was slow to admit that it was opinion, not fact). That doesn't do much for one in an argument when the other person's opinion is that life begins at conception. Neither side can be right or wrong when life has not been defined and all arguments are based on opinion. It is difficult to determine if it is a choice or a crime if life's beginning is not defined. I personally believe that partial birth abortion is killing a living human being. In most cases of abortion I am unsure if it is living or not and choose to remain neutral (and probably more towards "choice" because I don't personally believe life begins at conception), but in the case of partial birth abortions, I think it is killing a living being and it is no more of a choice than giving murderers the choice to murder someone. This is only my opinion though and I do not fault those who are "pro-choice" or even say that they are wrong because I don't know when life begins, I can only base that on my own opinion, not fact.

 

[Kal'Stang]

I don't actually agree with you that people will be able to choose which genes they will specifically give to their offspring. Why do you believe that will happen? It might become possible that people will be able to choose which genes from each parent that they want the child to have, however, I don't think that it would be legal for a long time after it became possible if ever. And not everyone would choose to use such technology even if it became legal right away. This technology would see quite a fight to actually making it a viable alternative for parents to use on the questionable ethics of such a procedure.

Presumably, from what we know of genetics now, people could go into fertility clinics and choose to have only those embryos that would be a girl or a boy implanted into them via in vitro. I'm am pretty sure this is absolutely possible at this moment, although I have never heard about this happening. Granted, not many people would be able to afford such drastic steps to ensure the sex of their child, but this would be a set way for certain people to ensure they had a male heir if that was important to them or that they didn't pass on some sex-related disease.

Choosing the Sex of Your Child

Also, it wouldn't be a guarantee anyway that messing with genetics in such a way would get us the child we hoped for. There are always the possibilities of genetic mutations. Artificial genetic manipulation is not considered ethical in most cases, and certainly not when we are talking about humans. We have had some bad things result when we tried pretty much the same thing on other species.

Hate to burst your bubble but it is happening right now.

Couples offered designer babies

Cancer-free 'designer babies' get approval

And for the coup de gra...

Britain's first cancer-free designer baby born after being screened for deadly gene

The first British baby designed to be free of breast cancer has been born into an ethical storm.

She will grow up without a gene which has blighted three generations of her father's family.

The breakthrough gives hope to other couples who fear to have children because they are in increased danger of killer diseases. But it will reinforce fears of future parents producing 'designer babies', choosing the colour of their eyes and hair, and selecting children who will grow up to be top of the class and excel in sport.