‘Designer’ babies with made-to-order defects?

[IntoxicatingToxin]

This is just crazy talk! What do you all think??

Babies with made-to-order defects? - Pregnancy - MSNBC.com

 

[Male Bonding etc]

My mother was outraged about this. When she started telling me about it, I thought she was going to say couples were electing to have sons with huge penises...

 

[Pecker]

Didn't I read some time back about deaf parents who refused to allow their deaf child to receive an operation that would allow her to hear?

 

[chico8]

Didn't I read some time back about deaf parents who refused to allow their deaf child to receive an operation that would allow her to hear?

I'm not sure what procedure was involved but the only one I know of is the use of a cochlear implant. It's still in its infancy and many adults have chosen to have them removed, it's simply too crude of a form of technology at this point. It might be more effective for children but there's a very real danger of long term damage resulting from using it on a child much less the fact that 10 years from now less invasive and alternative forms of technology might be more effective.

The Deaf community is very, very interesting. They have their own and very "real" language and culture. Many feel threatened by gene manipulation etc. Many consider deafness to be a handicap but don't ever tell a deaf person that, it's simply the way they are.

Should gay couples be allowed to "create" a gay child? What about the parents who use growth hormones and steroids to creat superhuman child athletes. The concept isn't new, just the technology involved.

 

[mindseye]

From the article:

PGD pioneer Dr. Mark Hughes, who runs a Detroit laboratory that does the screening for many fertility programs nationwide, said he hadn’t heard of the technology being used to select an abnormal embryo until the survey.

[...]

“It’s just unethical and inappropriate, because the purpose of medicine is to diagnose and treat and hopefully cure disease,” he said.

I'm real uncomfortable with a doctor calling dwarfism or deafness a "disease".

For years, parents have been quietly selecting embryos for gender, hair color, and other traits. For doctors to take the position that "blondness is okay and shortness is not" is judgemental.

It's still within my lifetime that any sexual orientation other than 100% heterosexuality was considered a mental illness. I'd hate to have been filtered out because some doctor decided that who I was, was a "disease".

 

[Heather LouAnna]

Didn't I read some time back about deaf parents who refused to allow their deaf child to receive an operation that would allow her to hear?

I watched an entire video on this in Sociology class, actually. Many deaf people don't feel they have a problem being deaf. They feel they can communicate just fine and that there's nothing wrong with them.

 

[Male Bonding etc]

I watched an entire video on this in Sociology class, actually. Many deaf people don't feel they have a problem being deaf. They feel they can communicate just fine and that there's nothing wrong with them.

Being comfortable with who and how you are is one thing. Being told you could have enjoyed life with a characteristic (like average height) or a sense (like hearing) that most of the human population has, but your parents chose to have you "designed" not to have it, is quite different. I think it would be a lot like the disappointment some of us feel about being circumcised without our permission... multiplied many times.

 

[Heather LouAnna]

They don't see it as crippling, though we do. It's understandable how they would wish for their children not to have cochlear implants. They're the parents. It's their decision. Cochlear implants sometimes work in older age, though it's rare. The children as teenagers can choose differently.

 

[B_spiker067]

In another forum in another time. I was talking to this gay guy. I'll avoid the stream of the conversation. Suffice it to say I asked him if being gay is genetically determined in the future when parents are able to choose the orientation of their children what did he think they would choose.

This shook him up deeply. I made it up to him kind of by saying well if all behavior is genetic it will only be a matter of time before they find the 'believer' genes and gene select that out because it in fact has been such a bane on the world.

 

[D_Humper E Bogart]

Of course, we are all more than the sum of our genes. Genetics has a role to play, but it's interactions with the environment etc. Heck, we have complicated genetic interactions we can't even begin to work out. Heck, we can't work out every gene bacteria use!

 

[B_spiker067]

Of course, we are all more than the sum of our genes. Genetics has a role to play, but it's interactions with the environment etc. Heck, we have complicated genetic interactions we can't even begin to work out. Heck, we can't work out every gene bacteria use!

That was the stream of the discussion. That guy is a good friend. But science and its perceived endless virtues are held in a different perspective now, for both of us.

 

[D_Humper E Bogart]

That was the stream of the discussion. That guy is a good friend. But science and its perceived endless virtues are held in a different perspective now, for both of us.

Which is indeed the problem: What endless virtures? I done my degree in genetics, it's a complicated, tiring science and to be honest, not one I could be happy researching, although reading is a lot more interesting. But the common concept of the 'gene' is already breaking down when you start looking at genes with multiple effects or complicated ones such as the supposed 'gay gene'.

The method used is similar to pulling out random organs out of a person and then explaining the cause of death. Would pulling out a 'gay' gene make someone straight, or asexual?

In fact, considering that if a gene was mendellian inherited, if all gays have no children you couldn't inherit the gene, so where'd it come from?

I will agree that science has more power over life itself then ever before, but the technology is surprisingly old, it's the results that will affect society, and to be honest, most people probably aren't ready for a sane debate on the subject when they can't pronounce 'nuclear' correctly.

 

[Male Bonding etc]

He's improved his pronunciation of "nuclear" markedly since his early attempts.

 

[B_spiker067]

Which is indeed the problem: What endless virtures? I done my degree in genetics, it's a complicated, tiring science and to be honest, not one I could be happy researching, although reading is a lot more interesting. But the common concept of the 'gene' is already breaking down when you start looking at genes with multiple effects or complicated ones such as the supposed 'gay gene'.

...

That was my point to him. Science was going to 'cure' everything, a kind of misguided faith for him. I simply tried to show him an angle he never thought of and he didn't like it. He thought his gay culture was going to disappear overnight. I was pissed he thought frankenfood/gm food was okay for me too eat. When I just wanted to know what was wrong with the food I was already eating. The very liberal left, as the very neocon right, has a ridiculous understanding of science.

 

[baseball99]

I honestly dont think there is a "gene".....i believe it is neuronally controlled through interneurones in the brain. I think genetics, environmental causes, hormonal receptors, hormones, all have an effect. Homosexuality is not as clear-cut as eye color

 

[D_Humper E Bogart]

Baseball:

The concept of 'gene' is flawed anyway. Consider, that it all comes down to semantics. For example, from an infra-red point of view, our eyes are the same colour, and there are many traits we have that don't show up unless under the right circumstances, such as the parkingson ones; which in the olde' ones you'd never notice as you wouldn't live long enough.

Back on eye colour. A single gene controls the pigmentation and distrution of a complex polypeptide to such a level it only distributes itself in what we call the iris??! Consider how daft that sounds when a SINGLE BASE DELETION causes sickle-cell anaemea, which has catastrophic effects, while loosing whole chunks of DNA causes cancer. What is the minimal basal level for a gene to be defined?

At the single base, ten, 20, 1000, a million? Our DNA is like an alphabet, you can mispell words and 'the system' gets the hint, usually.

Heck, you can even have problems when all your 'genes' are intact and have too many of them! (or too few).

----------------------------
So, Spiker, I'm in agreement with you. Actually I'd prefer if science was neutral in politics, far too much suffering has happened for political goals and genetics is literally the key to human flesh.

 

[baseball99]

Baseball:

The concept of 'gene' is flawed anyway. Consider, that it all comes down to semantics. For example, from an infra-red point of view, our eyes are the same colour, and there are many traits we have that don't show up unless under the right circumstances, such as the parkingson ones; which in the olde' ones you'd never notice as you wouldn't live long enough.

Back on eye colour. A single gene controls the pigmentation and distrution of a complex polypeptide to such a level it only distributes itself in what we call the iris??! Consider how daft that sounds when a SINGLE BASE DELETION causes sickle-cell anaemea, which has catastrophic effects, while loosing whole chunks of DNA causes cancer. What is the minimal basal level for a gene to be defined?

At the single base, ten, 20, 1000, a million? Our DNA is like an alphabet, you can mispell words and 'the system' gets the hint, usually.

Heck, you can even have problems when all your 'genes' are intact and have too many of them! (or too few).

----------------------------
So, Spiker, I'm in agreement with you. Actually I'd prefer if science was neutral in politics, far too much suffering has happened for political goals and genetics is literally the key to human flesh.

I'm not being rude, but I think i'm misunderstanding what you are trying to say.....I think I know what you're saying but I don't like to assume

 

[D_Humper E Bogart]

Homosexuality is well more complicated then eye colour, indeed! I just love going off topic on a genetics roll, Baseball. <^.^>

But ultimately, consider that our biology is controlled by genetics; the real question in what way?

I don't believe in a gay gene though. Now a bi-gene would make a ton more sense when you think about how many women you can bag as a bisexual versus a gay man!

I think Kinsey defined the sexuality curve 0%-100% homosexual and I feel that as far as anyone should give a fuck, it works.

Oh well, thread dead? If you really want to talk more, please PM me.

 

[baseball99]

Homosexuality is well more complicated then eye colour, indeed! I just love going off topic on a genetics roll, Baseball. <^.^>

But ultimately, consider that our biology is controlled by genetics; the real question in what way?

I don't believe in a gay gene though. Now a bi-gene would make a ton more sense when you think about how many women you can bag as a bisexual versus a gay man!

I think Kinsey defined the sexuality curve 0%-100% homosexual and I feel that as far as anyone should give a fuck, it works.

Oh well, thread dead? If you really want to talk more, please PM me.

Yeh I've had pretty extensive courses in genetics.....I agree with everything youre saying (except maybe the bi gene).....I just wanted to make sure it was what you were saying bc i had a little bit of a hard time following


oops, i read your last sentence after i wrote this

 

[B_NineInchCock_160IQ]

If you ordered a baby that was freaky enough you could then make money of it while touring the carnival side show circuit. There's a plan.