Support NeoGAF

[CoolOff]

So, today (3/21) is World Down Syndrome Day, and the discussions I've read throughout the day have given me a few things to think about, morally, and I figured it'd be interesting to get GAF-input.

Scientifically, we've reached a point where many genetic disorders can be detected so early that a pregnancy can be terminated as early as most other abortions. In some cases I assume this is perfectly morally correct in order to not bring a child into the world who's potentially short life will be filled with actual suffering, but it gets a bit different when you talk about something like Down Syndrome which by itself doesn't lead to any severe medical issues.

I don't have any close friends that have relatives with the disorder, but the people I have met and read interviews with are equally happy or sometimes even more so because someone they know and love is "different". The argument I've seen made today that their existence helps us on a societal level in understanding and feeling compassion for many other kinds of differences.

It's tricky because that bond with the child or sibling isn't there when tests are being done, and blaming parents for choosing not to be responsible for a child that perhaps requires many times more care doesn't seem right either.

In my mind, this is just a first step on a road to where we genetically create "perfect" humans, and I'm genuinely conflicted in how I feel about it. I read that Denmark has all but eliminated babies born with Down Syndrome, and that's why it's a hot topic in Sweden now I guess.

The Swedish Museum of Photography launches a new exhibit called Icons - an exhibition about being allowed to exist, and they've posted a couple of pics on their Instagram:

https://www.instagram.com/fotografiska

Oh, and the day is celebrated by wearing different coloured socks!

 

[Abstrusity]

I don't particularly think there would be many measurable consequences of eliminating genetic disorders. I mean, on one hand, if we do, there would be more live, healthy births, but even then, those genetic disorders aren't simply "things we know will happen before birth."

So, it's not possible to remove all genetic disorders unless you are willing to go full Gattaca.

 

[~Devil Trigger~]

i think this is the first time i've heard this theory of Down Syndrome considered to just be ...different.

 

[NoblesseOblige]

I'm not an expert on genetic disorders but by eliminating them do you simply mean aborting all the affected zygote/fetus/whatever? Because the only way you could eliminate that is to remove the right to choose by forcing abortions on those carrying the negatively diagnosed.

 

[gamz]

Nm

 

[Truant]

My Son is a highly functioning autistic kid and even if they would find a way to elimate the autism I'm not sure I would. He's just the coolest and happy as hell as is. Out of my 3 kids he's the easiest. He's very well liked in school even though hes a little awkward socially. Somehow it works for him and kids are drawn to him because he different.

I'm not even sure how to respond to this.

 

[Sho_Nuff82]

I don't particularly think there would be many measurable consequences of eliminating genetic disorders. I mean, on one hand, if we do, there would be more live, healthy births, but even then, those genetic disorders aren't simply "things we know will happen before birth."

So, it's not possible to remove all genetic disorders unless you are willing to go full Gattaca.

Within the next 20 years, we'll be able to screen or irreversibly cure nearly every known disease caused by a single gene mutation.

The bigger ethical questions, IMO, will arise with how this distributes across social/cultural lines, and to what extent do we start defining "undesirable" traits.

Down's Syndrome community has actually be up in arms over this, which is kind of double edged sword. Is it right to want people to be born with physical maladies just so your kid isn't alone with theirs?

 

[gamz]

I'm not even sure how to respond to this.

Never mind. I didn't read the whole story. Sorry...I'm an idiot. Early Monday morning and all that.

 

[Magwik]

I'd say there are negative consequences from removing anyone from this world at birth if that's what you're inferring. It doesn't matter what abilities or disabilities they are born with, every single person has the potential to drastically better the world overall or even on a smaller scale.

 

[Carcetti]

It's pretty obvious that the next step of genetically cleansed society is widening the definition of what's a problem or a disorder. It'll be Eugenics 2.0 for a Master Race before you can blink.

 

[CoolOff]

I'd say there are negative consequences from removing anyone from this world at birth if that's what you're inferring. It doesn't matter what abilities or disabilities they are born with, every single person has the potential to drastically better the world overall or even on a smaller scale.

At birth? Of course not, what gave you that impression? That's straight up murder.

 

[Dali]

My Son is a highly functioning autistic kid and even if they would find a way to elimate the autism I'm not sure I would. He's just the coolest and happy as hell as is. Out of my 3 kids he's the easiest. He's very well liked in school even though hes a little awkward socially. Somehow it works for him and kids are drawn to him because hes different.

Some genetic disorders aren't as life changing or devastating to the family as others. I'm assuming the OP is talking about stuff like harlequinism and the aforementioned downs more so than than something like aspergers or heterochromia.

 

[thefro]

Some of those people with disorders may be more resistant to diseases or more adaptable to certain situations, so that would be a potential negative.

Obviously there's a whole huge can of worms when you start majorly genetically engineering kids. You'd have an upper class of engineered rich kids with model looks/height who are super-athletes, very smart, have long lifespans and are resistant against a lot of diseases that kill people now.

It'd just take a few people to start doing that and everyone else would need to do that to keep up.

 

[Nivash]

In some cases I assume this is perfectly morally correct in order to not bring a child into the world who's potentially short life will be filled with actual suffering, but it gets a bit different when you talk about something like Down Syndrome which by itself doesn't lead to any severe medical issues.

I'm afraid you have completely misunderstood the prognosis of Down's syndrome, it absolutely comes with a ton of severe medical conditions. I'm wondering if you're confusing it with autism. 40-80 % have vision problems, 50-90 % have hearing problems, 40 % have congenital heart defects, they have a 10-15 times higher risk of developing leukemia, 20-50 % have thyroid problems, 7-20 % have celiac disease and that's just the more common ones. Worst of all however is that almost all sufferers develop an Alzheimers-like dementia starting by age 50-60 which greatly contributes to the group having a very low overall life expectancy; still just 60 years. Not to mention that most sufferers are intellectually disabled enough to never be able to live independently.

It really isn't a case of them just being a bit different, Down's is a very serious medical condition.

 

[gamz]

Some genetic disorders aren't as life changing or devastating to the family as others. I'm assuming the OP is talking about stuff like harlequinism and the aforementioned downs more so than than something like aspergers or heterochromia.

Yeah that what I get for not reading the OP fully. Blah. Carry on...

 

[CoolOff]

I'm afraid you have completely misunderstood the prognosis of Down's syndrome, it absolutely comes with a ton of severe medical conditions. I'm wondering if you're confusing it with autism. 40-80 % have vision problems, 50-90 % have hearing problems, 40 % have congenital heart defects, they have a 10-15 times higher risk of developing leukemia, 20-50 % have thyroid problems, 7-20 % have celiac disease and that's just the more common ones. Worst of all however is that almost all sufferers develop an Alzheimers-like dementia starting by age 50-60 which greatly contributes to the group having a very low overall life expectancy; still just 60 years. Not to mention that most sufferers are intellectually disabled enough to never be able to live independently.

It really isn't a case of them just being a bit different, Down's is a very serious medical condition.

Understood. Like I said, no close experience of it. I got the impression from a few of the articles today with quotes that talked about someones kid with DS only having a minor heart condition on top of it.. For the sake of the argument, feel free to switch DS for any genetic disorder that might be grounds for prospective parents to eliminate a pregnancy, despite it not causing any significant pain or suffering for the baby's future life.

 

[TheYanger]

Gattaca and that Star Trek TNG episode that dealt with this issue say a lot about how I feel on it.

I think it would have huge classist growing pains, along the lines of Gattaca, and I think that the TNG episode did a reasonable job of showing that our adversity is the source of a lot of inspiration for invention.

I would buy that someone doesn't believe all of that, but I think it's not as black and white as we would like.

 

[The Technomancer]

Gattaca and that Star Trek TNG episode that dealt with this issue say a lot about how I feel on it.

I think it would have huge classist growing pains, along the lines of Gattaca, and I think that the TNG episode did a reasonable job of showing that our adversity is the source of a lot of inspiration for invention.

I would buy that someone doesn't believe all of that, but I think it's not as black and white as we would like.

I don't disagree in the abstract, but the reduction of the various sufferings that can present us with adversity has been the arc of human history. Polio could be challenging as well but we felt no guilt in stamping it out

 

[TheYanger]

I don't disagree in the abstract, but the reduction of the various sufferings that can present us with adversity has been the arc of human history. Polio could be challenging as well but we felt no guilt in stamping it out

True, and you can even say that this IS overcoming the adversity and learning from it. Like in TNG Geordi's Visor is technology that the perfect society they encountered lacked, here the genetic alteration itself is technology that we'd develop more strongly to overcome. The one thing I would say as a negative in this way is we'd be universally countering all of these issues with only a single technological/societal advancement, rather than the diversity of learning we would do in the course of countering Downs, Blindness, ADD, etc separately.

 

[Abounder]

Ethically eliminating genetic disorders is great for society. Google and Co. are even on the quest for the holy grail aka immortality so I'm game for a cyberpunk future, I don't think we'd slip into A Brave New World.

Also let's be real: even with 'genetically perfect' humans, we still have a ton of work to do like fighting global warming.

 

[YN12]

I think it would be wrongheaded to want to eliminate genetic disorders while still keeping in place the social and architectural structures that makes life harder for disabled people. Stuff like lack of disabled toilets for example.

It seems to me it would be a cop out to genetically modify people while leaving society unchanged. A much better way would be for societies to accomodate disabilities, so that everybody can function at their best..besides,what are you going to do with people who have disabilities as a consequence of an accident? Eliminate them?

 

[Nivash]

Understood. Like I said, no close experience of it. I got the impression from a few of the articles today with quotes that talked about someones kid with DS only having a minor heart condition on top of it.. For the sake of the argument, feel free to switch DS for any genetic disorder that might be grounds for prospective parents to eliminate a pregnancy, despite it not causing any significant pain or suffering for the baby's future life.

No problem, it's a common misperception. There are definitely examples of kids with minimal comorbidities but it doesn't tell the whole story. I just thought I'd point out that Down's is a lot worse than most people think, this being Down's Day and all.

As for whether or not it's ethical to abort due to benign genetic disorders, that's probably a question of which schools of ethics and morality you follow. I'm personally a pretty staunch secular consequentialist and I don't take that much issue with the concept overall. The way I see it, aborting one fetus to try again for a more healthy one just switches one potential life for another. Those kind of abortions would take place early enough in the pregnancy to make sure that the fetus isn't capable of consciousness or suffering. I also don't see why it would degrade how we view people currently suffering from the disorder, we have succesfully figured out how to cure other ailments without resorting to that. Then there's the aspect of how free abortion allows for the termination of a pregnancy for whatever reason the woman chooses which shouldn't exclude doing it for a medical condition in the fetus.

I perfectly respect that people are likely to disagree with this stance, vehemently so in some cases. But that's where I stand.

I think it would be wrongheaded to want to eliminate genetic disorders while still keeping in place the social and architectural structures that makes life harder for disabled people. Stuff like lack of disabled toilets for example.

It seems to me it would be a cop out to genetically modify people while leaving society unchanged. A much better way would be for societies to accomodate disabilities, so that everybody can function at their best..besides,what are you going to do with people who have disabilities as a consequence of an accident? Eliminate them?

There are plenty of disorders severe enough that the sufferers have a vastly diminished quality of life no matter what you do. No degree of social accomodation is going to change that. The OP also talked specifically about genetical disorders which we might actually be able to remove, not accidents which will always happen. I'm assuming we're discussing this in the framework of reducing suffering, not some ubermensch-driven idea of creating a perfect population that requires us to eliminate the disabled.

 

[BigDug13]

I think it would be wrongheaded to want to eliminate genetic disorders while still keeping in place the social and architectural structures that makes life harder for disabled people. Stuff like lack of disabled toilets for example.

It seems to me it would be a cop out to genetically modify people while leaving society unchanged. A much better way would be for societies to accomodate disabilities, so that everybody can function at their best..besides,what are you going to do with people who have disabilities as a consequence of an accident? Eliminate them?

Imagine if the polio vaccine was made today and wasn't given away. If it was patented and sold by a pharmaceutical company, the disease wouldn't be eliminated, and instead would simply be kept to the lower classes. I think genetically modifying fetuses as well as being able to choose which ones to eliminate to avoid hardships are upper-class-exclusive options. I'm not sure all those same options are available to everyone.

 

[tcrunch]

I'm not sure what your goal is here OP. How do you imagine this society is coming about? Countries where most Down's syndrome fetuses are aborted are not "eliminating" the disorder.

 

[abstract alien]

I'm not sure what your goal is here OP. How do you imagine this society is coming about? Countries where most Down's syndrome fetuses are aborted are not "eliminating" the disorder.

Not trying to speak for him, but I didn't get that there was a "goal" the op was getting at. He just proposed an honest question.

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

I don't think the question of eliminating severe genetic disorders is particularly controversial, it's more like the method that is. Both embryonic screening+abortion and hypothetical future genetic engineering methods will inevitably ruffle feathers for some people.

The more interesting questions, imo, are related to things governing neurology and psychology. If you figured out the genetic+developmental basis for the development of say gender dysphoria, would you consider it right or wrong for a parent to prevent its emergence in their child?

More generally, there is an interesting line of thought around the changing nature of what we consider to be rightful or valid parts of the human condition. In 1916, if the technology existed to detect whether or not a child would be homosexual and prevent it through some kind of pill or simple surgery, that's probably something that would have been integrated into routine medical practice without many people batting an eyelid. In 2016, it would be completely unthinkable to large portions of the population, enormously controversial at a bare minimum. Modern, accepting (although by no means universal) attitudes to homosexuality likely would never have emerged in the western world if such an alternate history had somehow come to pass. What is possible and not possible to change about humans through various kinds of intervention in this sense shapes what we consider to be right and wrong here.

Continuing this, there are many people I have conversed with who consider aging and death by natural causes to be a necessary part of the human condition, and who argue that even if you could find a way to instill biological immortality, it is something that "should" not happen. It's certainly a lot to reflect on.

 

[Rktk]

Detecting abnormalities and getting early abortions will become more acceptable as time goes on, to the point where women that go ahead with pregnancies when they know of abnormalities will be stigmatised, I think.

 

[A Fish Aficionado]

Imagine if the polio vaccine was made today and wasn't given away. If it was patented and sold by a pharmaceutical company, the disease wouldn't be eliminated, and instead would simply be kept to the lower classes. I think genetically modifying fetuses as well as being able to choose which ones to eliminate to avoid hardships are upper-class-exclusive options. I'm not sure all those same options are available to everyone.

Vaccines are developed today with patents and this doesn't happen.

 

[John Kowalski]

I am not looking forward to the "perfect human" world.

 

[Doc_Drop]

Both these points echo my feelings and interests regarding this topic, I wont waste anyone's time by trying to articulate my point as well.

As for whether or not it's ethical to abort due to benign genetic disorders, that's probably a question of which schools of ethics and morality you follow. I'm personally a pretty staunch secular consequentialist and I don't take that much issue with the concept overall. The way I see it, aborting one fetus to try again for a more healthy one just switches one potential life for another. Those kind of abortions would take place early enough in the pregnancy to make sure that the fetus isn't capable of consciousness or suffering. I also don't see why it would degrade how we view people currently suffering from the disorder, we have succesfully figured out how to cure other ailments without resorting to that. Then there's the aspect of how free abortion allows for the termination of a pregnancy for whatever reason the woman chooses which shouldn't exclude doing it for a medical condition in the fetus.

I perfectly respect that people are likely to disagree with this stance, vehemently so in some cases. But that's where I stand.



There are plenty of disorders severe enough that the sufferers have a vastly diminished quality of life no matter what you do. No degree of social accomodation is going to change that. The OP also talked specifically about genetical disorders which we might actually be able to remove, not accidents which will always happen. I'm assuming we're discussing this in the framework of reducing suffering, not some ubermensch-driven idea of creating a perfect population that requires us to eliminate the disabled.

I don't think the question of eliminating severe genetic disorders is particularly controversial, it's more like the method that is. Both embryonic screening+abortion and hypothetical future genetic engineering methods will inevitably ruffle feathers for some people.

The more interesting questions, imo, are related to things governing neurology and psychology. If you figured out the genetic+developmental basis for the development of say gender dysphoria, would you consider it right or wrong for a parent to prevent its emergence in their child?

More generally, there is an interesting line of thought around the changing nature of what we consider to be rightful or valid parts of the human condition. In 1916, if the technology existed to detect whether or not a child would be homosexual and prevent it through some kind of pill or simple surgery, that's probably something that would have been integrated into routine medical practice without many people batting an eyelid. In 2016, it would be completely unthinkable to large portions of the population, enormously controversial at a bare minimum. Modern, accepting (although by no means universal) attitudes to homosexuality likely would never have emerged in the western world if such an alternate history had somehow come to pass. What is possible and not possible to change about humans through various kinds of intervention in this sense shapes what we consider to be right and wrong here.

Continuing this, there are many people I have conversed with who consider aging and death by natural causes to be a necessary part of the human condition, and who argue that even if you could find a way to instill biological immortality, it is something that "should" not happen. It's certainly a lot to reflect on.

 

[KingWool]

I am not looking forward to the "perfect human" world.

It's just one step further from current medicine keeping people alive longer than they would just 50 years ago. With this line of thought; we should all be dead [especially men] by the time we turn 20.

 

[peakish]

There was an interesting feature on this in a recent Nature. Not sure if this is published with open access, but here's the link:

Should you edit your children’s genes?

It's focused on gene modification in general, although Down's syndrome is brought up in it. The article speaks to a few families with affected children as well as adults, some who are for removing genetic defects and others who are happy to deal with their consequences. I think it's a good article because it covers the very good aspects of gene therapy, such as dealing with fatal and other very serious diagnoses, the possible consequences of trying to eradicate every blemish (for example social pressure against parents to terminate pregnancies), and that people without disabilities can underestimate the life satisfaction of people with them.

If possible I suggest to read it in full.

A few choice quotes:

The answer made Ethan Weiss, a physician–scientist at the University of California, San Francisco, think. Weiss is well aware of the rapid developments in gene-editing technologies — techniques that could, theoretically, prevent children from being born with deadly disorders or with disabilities such as Ruthie’s. And he believes that if he had had the option to edit blindness out of Ruthie’s genes before she was born, he and his wife would have jumped at the chance. But now he thinks that would have been a mistake: doing so might have erased some of the things that make Ruthie special — her determination, for instance. Last season, when Ruthie had been the worst player on her basketball team, she had decided on her own to improve, and unbeknownst to her parents had been practising at every opportunity. Changing her disability, he suspects, “would have made us and her different in a way that we would have regretted”, he says. “That’s scary.”

“As a parent with an incredibly sick child, what are we supposed to do — sit by on the sidelines while my child dies? There’s zero chance of that,” Wilsey says. “CRISPR is a bullet train that has left the station — there’s no stopping it, so how can we harness it for good?”

So far, little has been heard from the people who could be first affected by the technology — but speaking with these communities reveals a diverse set of views. Some are impatient, and say that there is a duty to use genome editing quickly to eliminate serious, potentially fatal conditions. Some doubt that society will embrace it to the degree that many have feared, or hoped. Above all, people such as Ethan Weiss caution that if policymakers do not consult people with disabilities and their families, the technology could be used unthinkingly, in ways that harm patients and society, today and in the future.

Emphasis mine for what I think is one of the most important points to make. As a person who hasn't had much contact with persons affected by disorders I don't think it's my role to debate for or against any family's desired way to deal with this.

 

[Doc_Drop]

It's just one step further from current medicine keeping people alive longer than they would just 50 years ago. With this line of thought; we should all be dead [especially men] by the time we turn 20.

It isn't one step at all, right now treatment and diagnosis is the goal. Actually editing genetic code of cells is quite different (that isn't to say we haven't experimented with genetic code and cells to find the solutions we have so far)

also, it's not like everyone was dying young in the past, it's that the average was that low. Rich gentry and nobles were still living long lives, it was the poor and unclean masses that were dying. Moreover, most of those were likely child/infant deaths that drag down the stats.

 

[aeolist]

the abortion side of this is pretty clearly going to come down to personal ethics. in my mind there's nothing wrong with aborting an early stage fetus for any real reason, and a genetic condition would be an easy call for me. a fetus with an extra chromosome isn't a person with down syndrome and someone who wants a healthy child has every reason to abort and try again.

it's more complicated when you're talking about conditions that don't have consequences for life expectancy and quality of life, and even worse when you think about gene editing to try and optimize for intelligence or other specific traits. not sure how i'll come down on that once we reach the point where it's feasible.

 

[A Fish Aficionado]

It isn't one step at all, right now treatment and diagnosis is the goal. Actually editing genetic code of cells is quite different (that isn't to say we haven't experimented with genetic code and cells to find the solutions we have so far)

also, it's not like everyone was dying young in the past, it's that the average was that low. Rich gentry and nobles were still living long lives, it was the poor and unclean masses that were dying. Moreover, most of those were likely child/infant deaths that drag down the stats.

that's a cop out.

 

[John Kowalski]

It's just one step further from current medicine keeping people alive longer than they would just 50 years ago. With this line of thought; we should all be dead [especially men] by the time we turn 20.

I would think that there is a vast difference between medicine as it is today and the hypothetical super human who doesn't get sick, doesn't get hurt, is super strong, super smart, etc.

 

[Doc_Drop]

that's a cop out.

In what way? I may be wrong, but that seems to be the logical reason for lower life expectancies. If there is evidence to the contrary then fine.

I do agree that it does feel like we are extending lives before we know how to handle that burden. On the other it is a health service's job to treat people if they are able

 

[A Fish Aficionado]

In what way? I may be wrong, but that seems to be the logical reason for lower life expectancies. If there is evidence to the contrary then fine.

I do agree that it does feel like we are extending lives before we know how to handle that burden. On the other it is a health service's job to treat people if they are able

I mean it still counts if a big percentage of a population didn't make it to adolescence.

I would think that there is a vast difference between medicine as it is today and the hypothetical super human who doesn't get sick, doesn't get hurt, is super strong, super smart, etc.

Well, yes but these conversations tend to be speculative fiction rather than grounded ones.

 

[Doc_Drop]

I mean it still counts if a big percentage of a population didn't make it to adolescence.

It still counts but should be taken with a huge grain of salt considering that child/infant mortality rate dramatically shifts the data as does mass mortality rates due to events such as war, famine, and major epidemics.

 

[A Fish Aficionado]

It still counts but should be taken with a huge grain of salt considering that child/infant mortality rate dramatically shifts the data as does mass mortality rates due to events such as war, famine, and major epidemics.

Because there are different terms and ways of measuring those statistics. Longevity, life expectancy, are not the same.

I guess we are on the same page now.

 

[Doc_Drop]

I guess you're looking for longevity.

I think I understand where you're coming from, like expectancy vs longevity. I'm looking at potential to live longer rather than how many times someone dies early and the likelihood of that happening.

 

[Unknown One]

It would be moral to modify their genetic defection out. We are not there yet and there is ethics issues to tackle.

 

[Aaronrules380]

For severe genetic defects like down syndrome, finding the right way to eliminate them would probably be great. For others, you run into the risk of limiting the diversity of the human gene pool, which has a ton of issues even outside of the ethical implications

 

[Darksol]

Scientifically, we've reached a point where many genetic disorders can be detected so early that a pregnancy can be terminated as early as most other abortions. In some cases I assume this is perfectly morally correct in order to not bring a child into the world who's potentially short life will be filled with actual suffering, but it gets a bit different when you talk about something like Down Syndrome which by itself doesn't lead to any severe medical issues.

!

Five seconds of Googling...

"They have an increased risk of a number of other health problems, including congenital heart defect, epilepsy, leukemia, thyroid diseases, and mental disorders, among others."

I don't know, but some of that seems severe to me.

 

[G.ZZZ]

I would think that there is a vast difference between medicine as it is today and the hypothetical super human who doesn't get sick, doesn't get hurt, is super strong, super smart, etc.

But there actually isn't, conceptually. Modern humans would look very close to immortal to even the ourselves of 500 years ago, being immune to basically all bacteria-based disease, and resistant to lot of other thing, plus regularly screened for other harder to treat disease.

In 20 years, genetic screening that come regularly as normal check up exams will be common, and fixes will be available. As someone who was born deaf and with the BRCA2 gene defect, i'd take the chance to cure that as soon as possible to avoid my inevitable surgery later on.

Personally, i think it will come down to personal decisions the most just like abortion is it now. Pro-choice and all.
As for the consequences of a society where genetic disorder are eliminated, i have no doubts. I think people are missing the very simple fact that said society will exist when poverty end and everyone has the possibility to afford health care for itself, regardless or ethnicity, race, origin, name , sex , orientation etc... When and if, that society will exist, it will be a society so much better than ours from a moral standpoint, where every single human being can live in peace and harmony, and i trust their judgment on the matter will be better than anything we can think about now.

 

[Nabbis]

Your not deleting a "person". The embyo or fetus in question has about as much cognitive function and personality as a bug, if talking about the acceptable timetables for abortion.


It may be disturbing to someone but that's the reality.

 

[Shao Kahn on the Lawn]

It seems cruel to subject a person to genetic defects if those defects could be remedied before birth. I would honestly consider it a moral imperative for society as a whole to ensure the best possible outcome for a future birth that a woman wishes to carry to term. As someone with a bowel disease that is due to genetic aberration, I say without reservation that my quality of life would have been significantly improved had I not had to endure the many problems caused by this problem and would have some harsh words for whomever had the power to fix it but opted not to if the option were available to them.

 

[Fuchsdh]

Within the next 20 years, we'll be able to screen or irreversibly cure nearly every known disease caused by a single gene mutation.

The bigger ethical questions, IMO, will arise with how this distributes across social/cultural lines, and to what extent do we start defining "undesirable" traits.

Down's Syndrome community has actually be up in arms over this, which is kind of double edged sword. Is it right to want people to be born with physical maladies just so your kid isn't alone with theirs?

I mean deaf people are specifically trying to have deaf kids. It's already an issue, albeit with groups so small I don't think most people have paid attention. It'd be far more problematic if we had straight or gay parents trying to have straight or gay kids, probably, or if you could control stuff like black parents wanting the lightest-skin kid, or selecting for intelligence, et al.

Insofar as actual disabilities I think it's pretty hard to defend the right to purposefully handicap your unborn child. Seems like that starts running into a gamut where I don't think you should have the choice for granular control over your offspring.

If mental disorders are proven to have a genetic component that could get screened or fixed I assume there'd also be a huge uproar from the "neurodiversity" proponents too.

 

[Peter Ian Staker]

Scientifically, we've reached a point where many genetic disorders can be detected so early that a pregnancy can be terminated as early as most other abortions. In some cases I assume this is perfectly morally correct in order to not bring a child into the world who's potentially short life will be filled with actual suffering, but it gets a bit different when you talk about something like Down Syndrome which by itself doesn't lead to any severe medical issues.

What?
Ignoring the severe health issues Down Syndrome causes, i believe the main symptoms are severe enough.
We shouldn't judge people who don't want to raise someone that will never become self sufficient.

 

[Doc_Drop]

I think this issue will always come to a point where we have to ask "where is the line" as human suffering is subjective when it comes to medical disorders and can be different from person to person.

I'd love to have gone through life without being atopic (asthma, eczema, hay fever, etc) but I can't condone genetic manipulation to prevent these treatable conditions. On the other hand, I have seen the massive disruptions to life experienced by people with even relatively innocuous conditions and have no desire to say what people can and cannot live with due to living life generally fit and healthy in the scheme of things