• Replies 37 replies
  • Subscribers 88 subscribers
  • Views 1883 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
Related
Hints and tips
  • To quote someone's message, first select/highlight the relevant text, and then use the Quote button that appears
  • To "mention" someone, type @ followed by the start of the forum name, and choose from the list; that person will get a notification of being mentioned

Does Reproductive Technology Concern You?

Daniel

Is anyone else concerned scientists are going to continue eugenics to more than babies who will be born with Down syndrome?

Bioethicists are debating whether any disabled person has the right to be born. Personally, I find it insulting scientists think disabled people's rights are something to argue about. It should be immediately "No" to the claim disabled people are not entitled to equal rights. Some of them are even saying our lives have no worth that we shouldn't be allowed to be in this world.

I've seen clinical websites saying reproductive technology is a "Great Hope" for preventing autistic people and people diagnosed ADHD coming into the world. There's already significant evidence medical science has become a field of discrimination and hatred and is no longer about health or healing. So many medical scientists have already become neo-*** designing genocide programmes against disabled people. 

These bioethicists and medical "professionals" claiming we have no place in this world, and that we do not deserve to be protected from discrimination has made me write a book to prove we are not the problem, but their attitude towards us and the economy is the problem.

Does anyone know how I can publicly debate the eugenicists? Genome reading, giving everyone a 'Genetic Identity' opens a whole new realm of cultural prejudice and discrimination.

Parents

  • Tbh I find genetic modification less ethically problematic than mass screening with a view to termination. Only a few would be willing to geneticly modify their babies but termination is more or less routeen and could have a profound impact on the gene pool. What if parents decide red hair is a disability? Some hospitals refuse to tell parents the gender of the baby to discourage termination on the grounds of gender. Who gets to decide what parents should and should not be told?

  • in reply to Peter

    I approve of genetic engineering because the individual in question can decide for him or herself whether to have a treatment or not. But eugenics is done before birth where the person has no say.

    Children will be smart enough to realise some parents only allowed them to be born because they did not test positive. Children will be left with the question "do my parents genuinely love me or is it conditional?" 

Reply
  • in reply to Peter

    I approve of genetic engineering because the individual in question can decide for him or herself whether to have a treatment or not. But eugenics is done before birth where the person has no say.

    Children will be smart enough to realise some parents only allowed them to be born because they did not test positive. Children will be left with the question "do my parents genuinely love me or is it conditional?" 

Children
  • in reply to TheCatWoman

    To answer your questions in order

    It's already been done https://www.newscientist.com/article/2186504-worlds-first-gene-edited-babies-announced-by-a-scientist-in-china/

    I mean IVF on it's own also carries risks. Aditional risk would be case by case.

    It's not cheap but it's not insain money, not compared to the already steep cost of IVF. It's cheaper than making a new adult gene therapy. (which is hugely expensive in the first instance)

    As I understand it voleteers are not that hard to come by. This guy in china didn't seem to have much trouble.

    No; typically gene editing embryoes invoves adding an extra gene editing step to IVF. The technology to do this in natural pregnancy isn't developed yet. However in principal you can gene edit testicals / overies and those changes will be passed on in natural births. But existing technologies have been desinged to avoid this.

    No but the NHS doesn't fund lots of medical stuff that still gets done (most cosmetic sugery for example)

    genetic changes done to embryoes typically get passed down to the embryoes future children. genetic changes to adults can sometimes too if the changes take hold in the reproductive cells.

  • in reply to Peter

    Can you?

    Dosen't it carry a risk to both mother and unborn child?

    Isn't it incredibly expensive to do this?

    Who is going to herd all these pregnant women into surgery for these procedures?

    How would it happen for a woman who's having a nomal pregnancy, naturally concieved with no underlying problems?

    Can you honestly see the NHS funding all this?

    I would of thought it would obvious that any genetic change to an embryo would be permanent and when they had thier own children that the "faulty" gene wouldn't get passed along, because it wasn't there to be inheritied.

    But then from what I've read of this thread you don't exactly seem keen on answering any of these questions and then wonder why people are challenging you

  • in reply to Daniel

    I mean you can do genetic engenering in the womb too. In many ways it's easier. You can also do genetic engenering in a way such that the change will be passed down to children.