On the Ethics of Trait Selection in Human Offspring

[Serilliant]

I recently finished a class on Reproductive Technologies and will be writing a research paper on trait selection. I am deeply embedded in the ethics surrounding certain issues and am interested in what other people think.

Before I begin, I would like to provide a bit of background on the current technology and frame it within some of the constraints of my thesis. Right now, a couple seeking reproductive assistance (i.e. in vitro fertilization) will have several embryos made from their sperm and eggs. Their doctor utilizes a technique called Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis to evaluate each of the embryos. This method reveals each embryo's sex (to about a 95% accuracy), many potential genetic disabilities and diseases, and (theoretically, but let's accept it as scientific reality for the purpose of this discussion) physical traits.

Note that our current level of technology does not allow scientists to "inject" certain traits into an embryo; they merely create multiple embryos and implant the most preferred of the bunch. In essence, we're not designing babies, but rather selecting among those that are already viable.

So given that, which of the following scenarios are ethical/moral and which are not? And, further, if you decided that some situations were moral and some immoral, what is the difference between them?

a) Two blonde parents want a blonde child. PGD reveals that 2 embryos are brunettes, and 2 are blonde. All other things are equal. They elect to implant one of the blonde embryos.

b) A couple has three sons and would like a daughter. They elect to implant a female embryo.

c) A couple wants a second child. Their first, a daughter, has a genetic disease that will kill her at age 5. They want to ensure that their second child is free from this disease, and use PGD to implant a healthy embryo.

d) A couple wants a heterosexual child. They elect to implant a heterosexual embryo.

e) A Deaf couple would like a deaf child. They elect to implant a deaf embryo.

f) The same parents from example (c) who have a daughter with a genetic disease and who would like to have a second child free from disease also want to ensure that the second is a tissue match to their daughter so that it may serve as a stem cell donor for a treatment that may save her life. The stem cell donation from the second child will be noninvasive, painless, and will cause absolutely no physical problems.

(Note that (a) and (d) are currently beyond our technological capabilities, but have been included for comparison. The rest are technologically possible and are, in fact, real examples.)

Please stay out of the realm of the ethics of reproductive assistance in general and extinguish any inclination you have toward asserting "discarding embryos = abortion = murder". Focus, instead, on the differing moral considerations for the above six situations. Do you consider any of them to be appropriate uses of technology? Do you consider any of them to be inappropriate uses of technology? Are some appropriate, but others inappropriate? Which and why? Do parents have any duty to their unborn fetus? If so, what?

[Taskmienster]

Personally I'm an Ethical Egoist, what a surprise I know, but I believe everything is done for the sake of someone's self-interest. That being said, I don't know if there is any reason that any of these could technically be considered 'immoral' and in fact would not be opposed to it at all.

If I had to pick one that was the most 'appropriate' use of the technology I would agree that C (and therefore F) are possibly the most ingenious uses of the tech. I know that diseases, such as Tay-Sachs* (common to Eastern European Jewish families) is devastating and finding a way to prevent not only the reoccurance, but in these examples ways to bypass and possibly eliminate it altoghether is an amazing use for new technology.

As far as D goes though, it's a bit confusing... I wasn't aware that 'heterosexual' was a genetic thing that could be picked at will, but that's not me debating the fact that it is... just being surprised that it was listed as such.

And for A, I don't see why that would be wrong either. Granted it is a little Nazi-ish, but in all reality blonde hair and blue eyes are very recessive genes that are easily overtaken by brown hair and brown eyes. I have blonde hair and blue eyes, and know that unless I marry a woman with the same I wouldn't be likely to carry on the genes, and even if I did marry a woman with the genes the chances are still low.


*Tay-Sachs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tay-Sachs_disease): More common in Infants, it is a disease that literally kills the kid most frequently before the age of 4 or 5 and it's a horrendous death.

[Zack, Son of Tyranny]

You know, call me old fashioned...

I really don't agree with this type of thing. I just kind of think that having a kid should be just that... having a kid. You're not designing an heir, you're having a kid. If you prime them up with exactly what you want, I feel you're missing some of the experience.

And don't ask me to justify my answer because honestly, I can't. I have no Idea why I don't think it's a good idea, and I won't be able to legitimately explain my reasoning... I just don't like it.

[Saxon]

I laughed when I saw the sex embryo hypothesis which I thought originally had said 'homosexual' gene. Yeah, that's genetic.

Anyway, for all intents and purposes I agree with the majority of genetic engineering or research into the human genome and DNA to better ourselves as a race, but this is where I draw the line. Except for B and C, the rest of these are just aesthetic touches that don't really help anybody but to suit the ego of their parents. Better for all this does not make. Maybe if we were searching for ways to systematically neutralize genetic diseases like Huntingtons or the various other, more terrible diseases that plague us, maybe even help disable the gene that causes aging to ravage our bodies.

But trying to turn your kid blonde? Make a child deaf? This seems like a ripple of the eugenic studies we had in our country way back before we realized there was such a thing as ethics and morality over sterilizing the old and breeding out the 'undesirables'. I was never a big man for geneology, but I had often considered what it'd be like to pass on and continue my family line. What would they act like? What would they look like? I generally just hoped that they'd have all their fingers and toes, be smart, and grow up to be somebody while leading a life that meant something to them. I don't think there is much else you can ask for in a kid.

I don't take a shine to the Aryan point of view on this matter, so unless this sort of technology mutually benefits everybody in a positive way to better adapt our race, I doubt I'd take a liking to watching people try to organize their future bloodline like it were a puzzle.

Do it the old fashioned way, roll the dice and see what you get.

[Lighthawk76]

In order to better fit the parameters of the question, I will assume that we are changing the genetics of the child in question to fit ones needs rather than implanting an embryo. While this opens up another set of questions, my verdict is less set in stone on this issue rather than the set-up you have given us, and I believe that it allows one to get to the specific questions and scenarios put forth here. If anyone would rather me use a different assumption, please state the necessary reasons and I shall do so.

A few general comments on all the scenarios before I get into each specific one.

The parents, as I believe many will agree, have a responsibility towards the well being of the child, but do not, as I believe most will also agree, have the right to disrespect their child as an individual. Many see this as more of a problem during their teenage years, when some parents may be forcing their children to conform to a certain image, or a child does not wish to believe that the parent has their well being at heart. These two main pillars, responsibility of the child's well being and respect of its individuality, must be held in importance even at this time of life.

a) One must discern as to whether or not the parents are respecting their child. For parents to decide what their child is going to be from this young age on a physical level, implies problems that may occur later in life. I personally believe that there is a problem now, because the parents are objectifying the child, making it someTHING which is theirs to do with as they please. I believe this idea will continue for many of the other scenarios, and will thus simply state that "Problem A" occurs when it repeats.

As a side note, one may also say that parents, in choosing the best qualities for a child, are looking out for the best interests of the child. I believe that this scenario, that of the parents choosing the best traits of a child for its well being, does not work because it crosses too far into breaking the second responsibility of respecting the child's individuality.

Verdict: Improper use of technology.

b) Problem A occurs, to a lesser extant. In genetic-alteration, it is most definitely a Problem A scenario. In choosing, one could claim it to be simply choosing a child as an adoptive parent chooses a child. To do so at this level seems to not be respecting the child as an individual, however. One must make a choice with what one is given in the case of adoption. One is conforming the child to their choice in the case Serilliant is placing before us.

Verdict: Improper use of technology.

c) Now, in many ways someone could say that Problem A occurs. At first glance, it does appear that way. I do not believe this is the case. Remember, the parents also have a responsibility to the child's well being. In this scenario, the parents are looking out for the child's well being, and wanting to make sure the child is healthy. While this is "conforming" to their personal vision of the child, is this aspect of the vision selfish or altruistic? I personally believe this to be altruistic, making the sure the child is healthy and able to properly function.

While such a genetic disease as Serilliant puts forward does most definitely fit into the above category, lesser disorders may need to be looked at more specifically. Should parents help a females child's genetics tends toward larger proportions for better child-bearing in the future? Should a non-lethal deformity be stopped? I do not have these answers.

Verdict: Proper use of technology.

d) Problem A occurs.

This IS NOT looking out for the child's wellbeing. To remove something like this is to remove, what some may consider, a social stigma. This is purely, due to the child's inability to decide for itself, a selfish consideration of the parents. To make any arguments farther than this, one would have to get into the morality of the homosexual tendency and homosexual acts.

Verdict: Improper use of technology

e) The parents may be proud of their ability to overcome their deafness, but to force such a thing on a child is not looking out for its well being. Deafness is not something that is solely something which is considered social stigma, but also a detriment to a person's well being. It is a challenge one must overcome daily in a audio-dependent world.

For the parents to have their child actively chosen to be created deaf is not looking out for their well being. Even the ability to better understand and associate with the child does not override the fact that the parents are willfully giving the child a hardship.

Side note: This is possible? It's been done? Wow.

Verdict: Improper use of technology.

f) With the specifications that Seriliant has placed, I believe this is simply an outgrowth of the "scenario c" towards the better. The parents are still respecting the child and looking out for the well being of their oldest.

Verdict: Proper use of technology.

Other views?

[Breaker]

a) Two blonde parents want a blonde child. PGD reveals that 2 embryos are brunettes, and 2 are blonde. All other things are equal. They elect to implant one of the blonde embryos.
While this seems rather petty, I can't see a problem with it. Although, I hope this hypothetical couple only has one kid, because they seem like the type of parents who would pick favourites.


b) A couple has three sons and would like a daughter. They elect to implant a female embryo.
I've known a number of couples that were frustrated (and often ultimately gave up on) this situation. Seems like it might help them fulfill their dreams and possibly even provide a healthier growing environment for all the kids.


c) A couple wants a second child. Their first, a daughter, has a genetic disease that will kill her at age 5. They want to ensure that their second child is free from this disease, and use PGD to implant a healthy embryo.
Do it to it.


d) A couple wants a heterosexual child. They elect to implant a heterosexual embryo.
If this were possible, I'd be against it on the grounds that it's the kids choice which team they bat for.


e) A Deaf couple would like a deaf child. They elect to implant a deaf embryo.
This certainly raises an interesting question, and I think for this specific situation I'd have to go against it. Even if the parents have an earnest reason for this desire (maybe they want their child to experience the world in the same soundless beauty as they do???), deafness is still a physical handicap, and purposefully putting that on your child is just... sadistic.


f) The same parents from example (c) who have a daughter with a genetic disease and who would like to have a second child free from disease also want to ensure that the second is a tissue match to their daughter so that it may serve as a stem cell donor for a treatment that may save her life. The stem cell donation from the second child will be noninvasive, painless, and will cause absolutely no physical problems.
Do it to it. Talk about a strong bond between siblings.

EDIT: As for duty towards their unborn fetus, I'd say their duty is to try to give the kid the best life possible. I think my answers reflect that, so I won't elaborate on it anymore.

[Mathias]

I like Task's explanation of A. That was one that I couldn't quite justify other than, parents (ideally) do whatever they believe is best for their child. To be able to choose ideal qualities falls under that, because even if you manufacture beauty, the parents are doing that to give their child a leg up in society, and to shield them from the stigmas and disadvantages that come with having "unwanted," qualities.

And, I would have to use that reason as justification for pretty much every single one. I don't believe in that we're playing "God," because no religion has anything to use as reference for the precedents that we have set with modern technology. And who can truly claim to know what God thinks? Maybe he thinks it's a bitchin' idea that we can bypass disease and all the other bullshit in life.

The only two ones that are truly gray, to me, are D and E.

For D, I really want to say it's not their right to choose their child's lifestyle, especially to the extent of sexuality. At the same time, parents (for the most part) force or induct their children into all the social habits that they have. Religion, ethics, hobbies, and all of that are imprinted by parents onto children as they're raised. Even though I don't agree with that, and believe that children, after a reasonable age and level of maturity, should be free to make their own choices regarding their lifestyle, I'd have to say that D is acceptable by modern social standards. I don't agree with it, though.

E really gets me. A deaf couple might have problems raising a child who isn't deaf, and it would reduce their ability to communicate and empathize, as that's a rather tall wall of a trait between them. From the purely genetic standpoint, however, deafness is a disability, and a disadvantage. Therefore, I consider it a moral imperative to cure it, and if it could be bypassed at the genetic level, then it's an obligation to get rid of it. (Although, on the "if," that homosexuality is a genetic trait, there comes the bigoted, if gray, argument that it might be a defect, and thus, renders my prior argument moot.)

Granted, I seem pretty scary to myself. If anyone has played Bioshock, they might know what I mean. I'm starting to sound like the plastic surgeon who says that "With the technology we have now, beauty isn't a standard anymore... it's a moral obligation."

[Taskmienster]

E really gets me. A deaf couple might have problems raising a child who isn't deaf, and it would reduce their ability to communicate and empathize, as that's a rather tall wall of a trait between them. From the purely genetic standpoint, however, deafness is a disability, and a disadvantage. Therefore, I consider it a moral imperative to cure it, and if it could be bypassed at the genetic level, then it's an obligation to get rid of it. (Although, on the "if," that homosexuality is a genetic trait, there comes the bigoted, if gray, argument that it might be a defect, and thus, renders my prior argument moot.)

Granted, I seem pretty scary to myself. If anyone has played Bioshock, they might know what I mean. I'm starting to sound like the plastic surgeon who says that "With the technology we have now, beauty isn't a standard anymore... it's a moral obligation."

As far as E is concerned, I'd like to make a note that I'm somewhat aloof on the issue. As far as why a family would want a deaf child, I could not answer because I could not put myself in their position. However, I do understand that it is somewhat of a disconcerting issue to grow up with, especially with the world basically revolving around the necessity of auditory communication. It's sad, to begin with, that sign language is probably less known than a good majority of verbal languages. I personally don't know anyone that can sign (other than a friend who has two deaf parents) but a good majority of my friends can speak at least a little of one or two other languages.

I suppose the ethical reasoning for a deaf family wanting a deaf child would probably revolve mostly around either Ethical Relativism or Ethical Subjectivism... what are the circumstances surrounding the individuals and in turn their offspring? Questioning the 'what if' side of philosophy and dealing with the 'what's the situation' thing is where I'd have to base my opinion on.

As far as the bioshock, that's kinda creepy, but interesting. Never played it though.

[Elrundir]

While this seems rather petty, I can't see a problem with it. Although, I hope this hypothetical couple only has one kid, because they seem like the type of parents who would pick favourites.


I've known a number of couples that were frustrated (and often ultimately gave up on) this situation. Seems like it might help them fulfill their dreams and possibly even provide a healthier growing environment for all the kids.


Do it to it.


If this were possible, I'd be against it on the grounds that it's the kids choice which team they bat for.


This certainly raises an interesting question, and I think for this specific situation I'd have to go against it. Even if the parents have an earnest reason for this desire (maybe they want their child to experience the world in the same soundless beauty as they do???), deafness is still a physical handicap, and purposefully putting that on your child is just... sadistic.


Do it to it. Talk about a strong bond between siblings.

EDIT: As for duty towards their unborn fetus, I'd say their duty is to try to give the kid the best life possible. I think my answers reflect that, so I won't elaborate on it anymore.
For the most part I agree with all of these. I'm probably a little more undecided on A and B, though. I get the feeling that these kinds of petty reasons for using PGD could potentially lead to fairly large-scale (i.e. societal) problems many generations in the future, but it's hard to say. At any rate, genetic diversity is an important factor for any species, and if we're too frivolous in eliminating certain traits and desiring certain other ones, we're only going to be screwing ourselves over later.

Of course, weeding out or helping to treat genetic diseases like in situations C and F are another matter. They're not really helping us, let alone the kids, so get rid of them by all means.

D... well, I know it was included just as a theoretical example, for comparison to the rest of them, but even so I think it's nonsense (not that I really believe there's a genetic basis for this in the first place). Of all the frivolous things to try and control, not to mention how invasive it is... I mean, deciding your kid's hair colour is one thing, that's not really affecting their life to any real degree. But their sexuality?

And as for E, just no. I can see no circumstances where they should be allowed to select the child to be deaf. Again, that's just invasive (and, overall, detrimental) to the child's lifestyle. Besides, how do those parents think their relationship with their child would go later on? Do they think they would have a closer bond despite the fact that they forced their child to become deaf? I think that would tear the family apart more than anything. I know I wouldn't be able to forgive it, anyway.

[Alabane]

A) This seems like a random and petty way to choose, but if all other things were equal than I don't see why not pick this way.

B) Seems fine too, unless this becomes common enough that one gender begins to greatly outnumber the other.

C) If it's possible to prevent the disease, it should be mandatory whether the parents wanted it or not.

D) This is wrong. This is like saying they want a child that likes to read, or that hates dogs. Anything relating to personality should be left alone.

E) This is wrong, and should not be allowed. Choosing to inflict a disability is counterproductive and a detriment to the child.

F) This is only okay if it is not the reason for having the second child. If the parents could accept that none of the embryos matched their first child and still wanted a second, then it might be alright. This seems pretty close to cloning human duplicates of ourselves incase we get injured and need an organ or something, like that movie The Island.

[Elrundir]

F) This is only okay if it is not the reason for having the second child.
That's a good point. I hadn't thought of that. It's fine to look for that trait in a child that they're already planning to have, but not if that's the entire reason for having the child. It would be like their second child is just cattle to keep the first one alive.

[Godhand]

And don't ask me to justify my answer because honestly, I can't. I have no Idea why I don't think it's a good idea, and I won't be able to legitimately explain my reasoning... I just don't like it.

Thank you so much for posting!

Anyway, I'm basically for all of these except for the deaf one. That just seems stupid and chaotically selfish on the part of the parents. The heterosexual thing sticks with me a bit and I'm not really for it, but what the Hell; if you're in for a penny you might as well be in for a pound. I suppose you'd call me...Nietzchean? In my beliefs. I feel anything that could be done to improve the human race, should be done. In that sense, and ignoring the inbreeding issue, if a scientist came out tommorow and said he had a drug that could make fifty percent of the world's embryos a genetic duplicate of olympic gold medalist Kurt Angle, I'd be all for it.

Edit: Oh, and before all you amateur philosophers chime in, don't. I know what you're going to ask me: "But what is 'improve'!? How can you hope to 'improve' the human race, when we're all beautiful and unique snowflakes!" Oh ho! Hoisted by my own petard! Shut up. You know what I mean; anything that can improve the human race's viability should be done. I'm not looking to make everyone blonde haired, blue-eyed Aryans so don't invoke Godwin's law just yet.

[Visla Eraclaire]

All are perfectly valid. The only one I would even consider disparaging of is the intentional creation of a deaf child. Still, all things considered, I don't think that the disadvantage of being born deaf is great enough to override my belief that parents may do what they like in selecting offspring through whatever means are available.

I am in favor, generally, of genetic alteration to the extent that it becomes possible.

Parents are allowed to do many more effectual things to mold their children in the desired image once they are born, so why should be deny them the choices beforehand? It seems to me much more cruel to force a child to live with your expectations when it is disposed otherwise, but this is generally accepted. Choosing a suitable child is no different, to me, from adoption. All the embryos are potential births and selecting one you wish you bring to fruition is a perfectly valid choice.

The only choices which I do not believe would be valid would be breeding a fully grown and conscious child for the purpose of organ harvesting. This is an example of the extremes you have to go to to offend my sensibilities. The idea of creating a stem cell match which is painless is a laughably easy choice for me. Note: If you could grow a child, brainless, unconcious, or only to a largely unaware fetal stage simply for the purposes of harvesting its organs, this would be acceptable to me.

I would also question, as with the deafness example, the intential breeding of a child with a painful disability. This would be a balancing test. I myself suffer from a painful, degenerative genetic condition, and so I will not be swayed by the argument, "But that child could live a great life." Yes, I have lived a fine life. But if my parents, all other things being equal, had selected an embryo that would not have suffered as I have and will continue to, I would certainly not begrudge them my nonexistence.

By the same token, I do not believe that parents who discover their future child in embryo form has a genetic disease are duty bound to euthanize it. Still, I would support their choice to do so, if they felt it was for the best.

I largely favor choice unless there is a very strong overriding interest. Embryos cannot choose and I do not believe in choosing for them, vain speculation. Parents may choose.

tl;dr version: I agree with Godhand, mostly, and without invoking Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche, though I am a fan.

[Taskmienster]

Thank you so much for posting!

Anyway, I'm basically for all of these except for the deaf one. That just seems stupid and basically chaotically selfish on the part of the parents. The heterosexual thing sticks with me a bit and I'm not really for it, but what the Hell; if you're in for a penny you might as well be in for a pound. I suppose you'd call me...Nietzchean? In my beliefs. I feel anything that could be done to improve the human race, should be done. In that sense, and ignoring the inbreeding issue, if a scientist came out tommorow and said he had a drug that could make fifty percent of the world's embryos a genetic duplicate of olympic gold medalist Kurt Angle, I'd be all for it.

Edit: Oh, and before all you amateur philosophists chime in, don't. I know what you're going to ask me: "But what is 'improve'!? How can you hope to 'improve' the human race, when we're all beautiful and unique snowflakes!" Oh ho! Hoisted by my own petard! Shut up. You know what I mean; anything that can improve the human race's viability should be done. I'm not looking to make everyone blonde haired, blue-eyed Aryans so don't invoke Godwin's law just yet.

Godhand has a valid point, which I actually agree with and accept. We aren't beautiful unique snowflakes... I know that, and I agree that whatever is done to the human race should be done for the human race's betterment.

[Empyrean]

For the most part, it's stupid.


If it's for a self-indulging reason - like making your child intentionally blonde or heterosexual - it should not be done. Why are we wasting time and money just so a pair of overly nitpicky, vain parents can have the perfect child? I don't like the idea of purposely creating a child a certain way just because that's what you've always wanted. Let the kid grow up whatever damn way they were originally meant to.


I have several thoughts on the other reason - something to prevent a certain disease and what not - so I'm not quite sure where to land on that one. On the one hand, trying to keep a child from having to go through physical and or emotional pain is something I might consider acceptable, for obvious reasons.
On the other hand, it sort of depends on the disease. If it's not something that's going to cause anyone any physical pain, I wouldn't do a thing. I just believe in letting things happen as they normally would, at least in this particular instance.

One of my brothers was born with Down's Syndrome, and though I know at times it's been costly and caused some emotional stress - and sometimes I wonder what he would be like if he hadnt been born with it - I cannot for the life of me imagine, or want, it any other way. He's shaped me into the person I am now.

[Breaker]

I feel anything that could be done to improve the human race, should be done.

In that case, you should get castrated as soon as possible ;)


For the most part, it's stupid.

I disagree, mostly because theoretically, any research in the area could potentially lead to something useful. I agree that it's silly to pick a child's hair color, but at the same time I can imagine parents who it might be very important to. You've got to allow for different/extreme opinions.

[Lighthawk76]

I agree that it's silly to pick a child's hair color, but at the same time I can imagine parents who it might be very important to. You've got to allow for different/extreme opinions.

This is just a curious question that came to mind. I believe it has a lot to do with how people are deciding the ethics of these situations.

Are all opinions equal?

I'm sure most of us will agree that an opinion like "murder is good" is not an equal opinion, but what if we change the question.

Are all opinions which do not cause direct lethal damage to another human being equal? Must different/extreme opinions be allowed simply by virtue of them being an opinion? If not, where is the line drawn?

[Arsène]

In that case, you should get castrated as soon as possible ;)

How would castrating Godhand help humanity? If you're trying to say he shouldn't breed, wouldn't it just be as easy for him to never have sex? (I'm not making the obvious joke here, someone else can do it. I'm also pretty sure Godhand doesn't want kids.)

And if you're trying to get him to off himself, there are much faster ways.

The only feasible reason I could see for castration is to turn him into a falsetto, which would be awesome. He's already balding, he can be the next Klaus Nomi.

In any case, I'd like to see trait selection become more prevalent. God only knows it's hard enough to be a kid in the world when nature curses you with a strange lisp, red hair, or a case of the gay. Obviously there are drawbacks, but this could potentially help better the health of all people. And aesthetics are always behind functionality.

[The Wall]

The only one I think is really worth it is for preventing the debilitating disease and to come up with a stem cell match. I'm pro-choice, which I think extends to this, and we're not even talking about something that's a fetus yet. If a mother has the right to decide to raise a child, there's nothing wrong with parents having the right to try and cultivate a certain genetic predisposition. Both of my biological parents were writers. Had they (well for one stayed together) and put me through writing workshops and classes and etc, wouldn't that be the same thing? Maybe not, okay, but out of all of Serilliant's situations, I only had two nagging problems. Both of those are born of my beliefs. I believe that the parents who tell the doctors "Don't give us the gay kid." when choosing embryos should be kicked in the teeth. If you can't conceive normally or you're so loaded that you can afford to be choosy about which embryo gets implanted, wouldn't you want the healthiest? I think it'd be even more devastating to get a sickly child than one who makes you watch The Sound of Music seventeen times before bed. Or, bringing up genes for alcoholism, do you want the kid who fills all their water bottles with vodka or the one who may have once gotten a little thrill at a passing internet preview of "Batman and Throbbin'." If I had a gay kid, I'd be the happiest woman EVAR! No fear of teen pregnancy.

As far as the deaf parents who want a deaf kid, I do find that morally wrong because my morals follow the logic that bringing harm to another's existance is wrong. Abortion ends a life. There is no suffering afterwards. If they'd chosen an embryo based on other attributes and the child had ended up being deaf, that's different. That was a random chance that they had no hand in. To force silence on someone for the rest of their life, thus bringing down the quality of their life, is wrong. HOWEVER I believe Serilliant put it best in that other thread. (Not an exact quote) Just because something is wrong for/to you, doesn't mean that it is wrong for/to everyone. I would never force one of my handicaps onto my child (like my awful eyesight), but my decisions are my own and my reasoning and instincts are my own. Not everyone is going to share them.

[Godhand]

In that case, you should get castrated as soon as possible ;)

After you, you syrup-chugging moose-humper.

[Rebellion]

You people make me chuckle.
Here's my opinion.
Throw in your quarter and leave it up to Fate.
Hell, we might die tomorrow.
Might as well screw around sometime, eh?
By the way, Fate sucks balls.
Just so you know.
Irony's not much better.
So there's not much use in such embyos, because you know something's gonna screw up. Side effects, people?

And on the whole improving humanity thing, I have one word for you:
Genocide.
Think 'bout it.

[Visla Eraclaire]

And on the whole improving humanity thing, I have one word for you:
Genocide.

Wow, you took a slippery slope argument, which by the way is a bad thing already, and removed the slope entirely leaving just a precipice.

Well done, this is mangled logic on a truly epic scale.

Opinions on ethical issues are also not generally best expressed in free verse. There are so many things in there to criticize, but I have to get off to work so I'm just going to pick a few more.

Leave it up to fate and do nothing? You almost certainly don't believe that in other aspects of utilizing technology. What makes this different? Because the choice is made early? Because it's new? There were many in the past (and some frighteningly in the present) who don't believe in medicine, or certain areas of medical treatment, because they'd prefer to leave it up to fate (or God, or what or who ever). If you're part of that group, then your opinion is consistent. Considering you are 1) Using a computer and 2) Not dead, I suspect that you are not.

"Might as well screw around sometime" doesn't seem consistent with the remainder of the argument, if you can call it that. If we might as well screw around, why not do this? The devil may care nature of this statement doesn't jive with a reverence for fate.

Finally, the idea that something is bound to fail seems a very bad reason not to try, especially when the idea that it is bound to fail is based on nothing but naked pessimism. I have no idea of the rates of error, but unless they're extremely bad (which I doubt modern medicine and science would accept), the practice as a whole is likely an efficient one. Not to mention, any "errors" could probably be detected and aborted. Obviously some people are going to have a problem with that, but I don't care and this topic doesn't care.

[Taskmienster]

You are living the unexamined life, and that's a damned shame. People shouldn't believe things that they can't explain.

Oh my, breakin' out the Socrates. Philosophical PWN.

And I agree, living a life where your belief's are flippant only leaves holes in arguments you can't really defend or define.

ANYWAY:


And on the whole improving humanity thing, I have one word for you:
Genocide.
Think 'bout it.

Your disregard of the actual basis for the argument of 'improving humanity' is... sad. To say the least.

Genocide does not improve humanity, in fact it takes away from the genetic differences that are necessary in order to side-step the issue of inbreeding. If genocide was for the betterment of human kind, and we went ahead and did what was 'good', we would create a gentic bottleneck and be fucked. Cheetah's are currently in a bottleneck because their populations are so low, and the birthrate is horrendous among the race, much less their flourishing population is broken and they could become extinct anytime due to the bottleneck.

How, in any form or fashion, was any of the conversation currently being discussed along the lines of 'genocide is good'?


I believe that the parents who tell the doctors "Don't give us the gay kid." when choosing embryos should be kicked in the teeth. If you can't conceive normally or you're so loaded that you can afford to be choosy about which embryo gets implanted, wouldn't you want the healthiest?

Then again, if you are have such a self-interest in the sexuality of the child being born, then you are undoubtedly thinkin' of yourself and the future of your 'line' or 'lineage' if you will. Obviously a homosexual child is not going to marry and have children, whereas a heterosexual child is likely to have children, pass on the name and background, as well as have someone to pass the 'family fortune' onto after they pass away.

Of course that's a form of utilitarian way of thinking, but still can be somewhat of a justification. I do not think I can condone the action either way, but that's a reason why someone would do it... I suppose.

[Serilliant]

Finally, the idea that something is bound to fail seems a very bad reason not to try, especially when the idea that it is bound to fail is based on nothing but naked pessimism. I have no idea of the rates of error, but unless they're extremely bad (which I doubt modern medicine and science would accept), the practice as a whole is likely an efficient one.

The error rate for sex is about 5% (and this is mostly cases when the 23rd chromosome pair is ambiguous (e.g. XXY)). For other types of genetic screening I'm not sure, but I'm pretty sure they are lower than 5%.

Let me reframe part of the question and see if it changes anyone's moral position:

Remember that the Deaf couple in the example is not 'creating' a deaf child, but rather opting to carry one. A deaf embryo would, under other circumstances, be discarded. Rather than opting to discard the deaf embryo, the couple is giving it life. Thus, the deaf embryo has two paths: be born deaf, or not be born at all. I emphasize that the couple is not deafening a hearing child.

I also want to add (from the real story) the couple's justification for their actions. They said that they knew hearing couples going through IVF would discard deaf embryos, and so they wanted to balance things out by intentionally selecting one. They wanted to combat the notion that deaf embryos are somehow "lesser" than hearing embryos and give one the chance to live.

Does this new information change your answers at all? If so, what's the difference between their thoughts and another couple who wants a deaf kid "because it'd be cool!"? How can we legislate IVF to allow reasonable requests and disregard unreasonable requests? Or, more importantly, how (and who) determines which requests are "reasonable"?

[Alabane]

It still wouldn't be okay to carry the deaf embryo because being deaf is a disability. You don't balance things out by saying the more people there are with advantages in the world the more there should be that are disadvantaged.

This new information does not change my answers. The difference between the couple you mentioned and the other couple that thinks "it'd be cool" is that the first couple are doing it from for a less stupid reason. I am not sure how we would legislate what is reasonable vs unreasonable other than obvious harm vs no-harm choices.

[Saxon]

I agree with Alabane. There really is no reason for either of those couples to have a deaf child if they can opt to have it aborted and try again. It's just cruel and unusual.

As for legislation, I don't think that this sort of thing should be regulated on the grounds of restriction or banned, but I do think some things need to change in order to work with the technology legislatively. First, there needs to be some sort rights established for fetuses or 'potentially people'. I brought this entire discussion up with a friend, and he mentioned the idea of fetus rights and his explanation was that even human corpses have rights despite not being living beings. So why shouldn't human fetuses have rights? I think it would definitely clear up this whole 'morality' and gray area thing when dealing with this stuff whether it concerns genetic engineering or abortion.

As for this technology, like I said before it shouldn't be banned or restricted. But for the studies on superficial enhancements and allowing parents to pick aesthetic choices shouldn't be given any help. No government grants, no government funding, and no government benefits for the research. It isn't worth pouring money into and although it is the parent's right to choose how to raise their children and they are solely responsible most of the time for sculpting them mentally and socially, there is no reason to put government spending in the mix.

So really, if anybody truly wants their kid to be blonde or deaf or a carbon copy of themselves they can start a company and they can pour money into the research to try and make that happen with their own time and their own money.

Also, another thing to consider about wiping out genetic diseases that I hadn't realized before is the potential backlash. Now, I'm not an expert when it comes to how diseases come into being, but there is the potential risk that if we don't understand what we're fully doing we could wind up clearing the field for even more deadly, virulent genetic diseases. Then again, what is science and medicine without that degree of risk, eh?

[Taskmienster]

As for legislation, I don't think that this sort of thing should be regulated on the grounds of restriction or banned, but I do think some things need to change in order to work with the technology legislatively. First, there needs to be some sort rights established for fetuses or 'potentially people'. I brought this entire discussion up with a friend, and he mentioned the idea of fetus rights and his explanation was that even human corpses have rights despite not being living beings. So why shouldn't human fetuses have rights? I think it would definitely clear up this whole 'morality' and gray area thing when dealing with this stuff whether it concerns genetic engineering or abortion.

As for this technology, like I said before it shouldn't be banned or restricted. But for the studies on superficial enhancements and allowing parents to pick aesthetic choices shouldn't be given any help. No government grants, no government funding, and no government benefits for the research. It isn't worth pouring money into and although it is the parent's right to choose how to raise their children and they are solely responsible most of the time for sculpting them mentally and socially, there is no reason to put government spending in the mix.

So really, if anybody truly wants their kid to be blonde or deaf or a carbon copy of themselves they can start a company and they can pour money into the research to try and make that happen with their own time and their own money.

Also, another thing to consider about wiping out genetic diseases that I hadn't realized before is the potential backlash. Now, I'm not an expert when it comes to how diseases come into being, but there is the potential risk that if we don't understand what we're fully doing we could wind up clearing the field for even more deadly, virulent genetic diseases. Then again, what is science and medicine without that degree of risk, eh?

The question of the ethical rights of a fetus aren't currently under discussion though, if I understand what the conversation is about... It's about the embryo before it is even developed, meaning that you would need to through even more legislation in order to make laws that are dealing with something even before conception... Personally I would not like to see the country bring down laws against the potential parents for what they are thinking. Seems to contradict the notion that everyone can at the very least think without the government being involved. I suppose that would be a violation of personal rights, since it would be legislation against the two adults thoughts, and not against any living thing's 'rights to life'.

And genetic diseases wouldn't be affected the same way as virus' like the flu or what not would... From what I would assume the ability to recognize and eliminate chromosomal diseases before they bud and come to fruition would in no way create a way for a new 'virus'. The issue regarding the destruction of viruses and diseases is that viruses mutate according to the medical technology used against them.

When a person is already living and developing, or in most cases base the stage of puberty, a virus can exist in them. Using medicine to remove the virus would, over time, create a virus that is resistant to current medicines making it (theoretically) worse than before. However, this is not a procedure using medicine to eliminate disease, but a selection of the chromosomal tenancies that will better the fetus and therefore create a future human without any issues.

Without the use of medicine to remove the virus or disease there is no risk (as far as I can imagine) that they would be able to evolve and adapt... meaning the elimination would be final. No worry about something worse taking its place.

[Visla Eraclaire]

It still wouldn't be okay to carry the deaf embryo because being deaf is a disability.

I think being raised not to value saving, education, and pro-social values is a much more devastating disability than deafness, and parents are allowed to saddle their children with those problems, among others. Just compare all these choices you hear about to flagrant bad parenting, and see which you think is worse. Then realize our society regularly tolerates extremely awful parents so long as they aren't legally neglectful.

Frankly, as I said before, the deafness one is the close call, because you are disadvantaging your child somewhat versus the rest of the world. At the same time, I can fully understand why deaf parents would want a deaf child that they could share a similar life-experience with, and thus because I don't think the disadvantage to the child is bad enough, choice wins out. If you were born deaf, you'd never really know what you were missing and you could be properly educated from day one by two people who understand your situation precisely.

Honestly, it might be more harmful to a hearing child to have deaf parents than for deaf parents to intentionally have a deaf child.

EDIT: I'm glad my summation survives via quote. Though it probably gets more attention seperated with an insulting title.

[Elrundir]

Also, another thing to consider about wiping out genetic diseases that I hadn't realized before is the potential backlash. Now, I'm not an expert when it comes to how diseases come into being, but there is the potential risk that if we don't understand what we're fully doing we could wind up clearing the field for even more deadly, virulent genetic diseases. Then again, what is science and medicine without that degree of risk, eh?
Well, genetic diseases don't work that way. You can't really "clear the field" for them the same way I suppose you could for a conventional virus or bacterium. They result from a certain defect in the human chromosome layout; for example, having an extra chromosome in one of your 23 pairs, as happens with Down Syndrome and chromosome 21. Some people are more susceptible to them, because of their ancestors, but this procedure would basically allow the parents to select against any embryos that screen positive for them. It is theoretically possible that unknown disorders may be discovered this way (abnormal numbers/structures/mutations that we don't realize will cause diseases), but the likelihood of that depends on just how focused the PGD procedure is. If it eventually reaches the point where it can even detect potentially-problematic deletions/inversions/duplications and other mutations as well as just seeing that chromosome 21 has three copies instead of two, then I think there would actually be a very low risk indeed.

[Saxon]

The question of the ethical rights of a fetus aren't currently under discussion though, if I understand what the conversation is about... It's about the embryo before it is even developed. . .


Then change my wording. Instead of 'fetus' rights, have rights established for a human embryo from conception to birth. It's still 'potentially people' no matter what stage you're at and before we get into a pro-life versus pro-choice discussion, I'd like to point out that even though giving them rights would probably affect someone's choice to abort or engineer their child to some degree, it allows legislators, researchers, and those that practice this stuff to have some common ground to work off of instead of just pointing to various case decisions like Rowe v. Wade and other cases involving embryotic/fetus crises and hoping it'll be enough to fend off the opposition when it really counts.


Personally I would not like to see the country bring down laws against the potential parents for what they are thinking. Seems to contradict the notion that everyone can at the very least think without the government being involved. I suppose that would be a violation of personal rights, since it would be legislation against the two adults thoughts, and not against any living thing's 'rights to life'.

I think you're mistaking what I'm suggesting here. Don't get me wrong, this is an issue about control, but it lands more on the side of the fence of giving humans that haven't even been birthed yet rights than telling parents that they can't do this, this, and this. I mean, we could get into a whole philosophical debate on whether or not people who aren't even people yet should have rights but then that has been discussed over and over and over again for generations. Rights were established for slaves at a time when a lot of people considered slaves to be nothing more than legal property. Rights were also established for human remains to ensure they get the respect they deserve and to show what counts as illicit activity like grave robbing and what is considered fair under the eyes of society like a family claiming the remains of a relative to bury themselves. Human and civil rights have always been an issue, the only thing that has changed are the 'it' in question and the time period in which the legal discussion is in. Stating that granting rights and establishing these laws is just another way for the government to find a way to control how we think is genuine paranoia and not a persausive counter-argument. The government isn't out to get you.


. . .meaning that you would need to go through even more legislation in order to make laws that are dealing with something even before conception. . .

The present legal system, as I understand it, states that up until this stage of human development you are not human. Despite the legality, a human embryo is still human from conception til' birth genetically and not offering them rights in order to give those of us who are already functional more freedom to do as we please with them is ludicrous. As parents we may control how our child develops, but sometimes there may be need for a third party to step in in order to play devil's advocate, and inevitably it will probably end up being the government whether you like it or not. Laws always need to be updated and changed with the times in order to grapple with the new issues that face us every day, and with technology like trait selection and genetic engineering being developed it begins to beg the question of what is okay to do to a human being before birth and what isn't both ethically and morally.