Ethics of prenatal screening

[TorqueDog]

I removed your remark about the blonde hair argument because it was already satisfactorily addressed by someone else (and trying to argue that 'hair colour' could be considered a defect, knowing what we know about human biology, is absolute trollbait).

Originally Posted by RedHot25

I think you missed the point. There are some who would argue, especially in the disability community, that its not necessarily a "defect".

Oh please. Of course those in the disabled community would argue that, that's what special interest groups do.

Humans were not meant to be born with an extra 21st chromosome. Just like they were meant to be born with two arms, two legs, etc. The cold hard truth is it's a defect, that's why they are 'disabled', that's what makes their needs 'special' (hence, "special needs") - humans generally don't require those sort of concessions or assistance. Regardless of whatever politically correct nonsense we get fed on a regular basis, it is a defect. I'm not being or trying to be cruel, I'm being honest. C'mon, this is stuff one learns in high school biology.

Originally Posted by HPLovecraft

What about violent thieves? Cut their hands off?

I guess my approach of answering a stupid question with a stupid answer was lost in translation. Did I really need green text there?

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

I removed your remark about the blonde hair argument because it was already satisfactorily addressed by someone else (and trying to argue that 'hair colour' could be considered a defect, knowing what we know about human biology, is absolute trollbait).Oh please. Of course those in the disabled community would argue that, that's what special interest groups do.

Humans were not meant to be born with an extra 21st chromosome. Just like they were meant to be born with two arms, two legs, etc. The cold hard truth is it's a defect, that's why they are 'disabled', that's what makes their needs 'special' (hence, "special needs") - humans generally don't require those sort of concessions or assistance. Regardless of whatever politically correct nonsense we get fed on a regular basis, it is a defect. I'm not being or trying to be cruel, I'm being honest. C'mon, this is stuff one learns in high school biology.

I guess my approach of answering a stupid question with a stupid answer was lost in translation. Did I really need green text there?

defect? isn't that just really one of the driving forces behind evolution? clearly these types of cases aren't survival of the fittest....but it's still evolution..which is basically one big experiment to see what works best

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

defect? isn't that just really one of the driving forces behind evolution? clearly these types of cases aren't survival of the fittest....but it's still evolution..which is basically one big experiment to see what works best

Right, I get that and I don't disagree.

But it is, at a biological level, a defect. The "disabled community" can say what they want, but it's all in a 'social' context and that means absolutely jack where the science of human biology is concerned.

[GGG]

While I don't think the government should be promoting aborting fetuses and I am anti abortion in general I think this is really a nonissue. right now women have the right to unilaterally abort fetuses regardless of reason. At least in these cases they have some albeit poor justification.

Get rid of all the healthy babies being killed first then let's worry about whether aborting because of unwanted defects is ethical

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by rubecube

As for where I stand, I think it's still ultimately the woman's right to choose..

It's not a woman's right to choose if you intend to have a society 100% free from something. To accomplish that is has to be mandatory. It's getting that way too. A woman I know who was informed that her baby had the gene for Down's, and they said, "We've scheduled your termination for XX date" at the same time. Terminating a pregnancy is a woman's individual choice, but it's probably one worth thinking about.

[TorqueDog]

Yeah, I'm not a huge fan of legislating aborting fetuses (feti?) with defects, because that is just as bad as making abortion illegal - both remove a woman's right to choose. It's important to note that the Danes want to 'promote' aborting of fetuses and not make it mandatory.

I can honestly say - with total confidence - that if I found out my unborn child had a severe defect that would negatively affect his/her life, I would be fully in favour of aborting and trying for another, should the mother agree with me.

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

I can honestly say - with total confidence - that if I found out my unborn child had a severe defect that would negatively affect his/her life, I would be fully in favour of aborting and trying for another, should the mother agree with me.

I think you're being a little cavalier with the wording, and that's where people are getting worrisome visions of the slippery slope. What is "severe?"

Let me post this hypothetical to you: what if, during the same genetic test, they find that your baby will be born with a mutation that gives him a 50/50 chance to drop dead by the age of 30, most likely due to a heart defect triggered by physical exertion? Note that the Down's child would likely outlive this child, though not by much.

What if they have a very high chance of susceptibility to Lou Gehrig's disease, but the age of onset is unknown? What if they have an almost sure-fire chance of getting childhood leukemia?

[bizaro86]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gattaca

[HPLovecraft]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

I guess my approach of answering a stupid question with a stupid answer was lost in translation. Did I really need green text there?

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by Flames Fan, Ph.D.

I think you're being a little cavalier with the wording, and that's where people are getting worrisome visions of the slippery slope. What is "severe?"

Well it sure isn't red hair and freckles or anything like we've been seeing in this thread.

Originally Posted by Flames Fan, Ph.D.

Let me post this hypothetical to you: what if, during the same genetic test, they find that your baby will be born with a mutation that gives him a 50/50 chance to drop dead by the age of 30, most likely due to a heart defect triggered by physical exertion? Note that the Down's child would likely outlive this child, though not by much.

Originally Posted by Flames Fan, Ph.D.

What if they have a very high chance of susceptibility to Lou Gehrig's disease, but the age of onset is unknown?

Originally Posted by Flames Fan, Ph.D.

What if they have an almost sure-fire chance of getting childhood leukemia?

How often are the above actually able to be detected during prenatal screening?

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

How often are the above actually able to be detected during prenatal screening?

The tech used for Downs is easily adapted for other types of genetics screens. So in the terms of "ability" we can do it every time.

So I guess the answer to your question is: as often as parents choose to know.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

Well it sure isn't red hair and freckles or anything like we've been seeing in this thread.
How often are the above actually able to be detected during prenatal screening?

If you're choosing to have selective abortion by genetics, I think it's fair to ask about things that might not be possible right now. It's not like we've reached the limit of genetic testing, and no new tests will be developed.

And it certainly could become a slippery slope. Does 100% chance of downs become 80% chance of scitzophrenia become a 50% chance of a congenital heart defect become a 30% chance of chronic depression become a 10% chance of massive obesity?

Where do you draw the line there?

And if you unilaterally support a woman's right to choose, does that extend to any circumstances? How about late term abortions of babies** who are a gender the mother doesn't want to raise? Is that acceptable? It happens in a number of cultures right now.

Those are important questions, and I don't think it's unreasonable to ask them. A previous post said it wouldn't be hard to draw a line. So where is it?

**(I use the term baby for any fetus that would be viable outside the womb. Feel free to disagree).

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

I can honestly say - with total confidence - that if I found out my unborn child had a severe defect that would negatively affect his/her life, I would be fully in favour of aborting and trying for another, should the mother agree with me.

If your unborn child had a severe defect and the mother (exercising her right to reproductive choice) wanted to keep it, would you support that decision and stick around to raise that child?

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

It's not a woman's right to choose if you intend to have a society 100% free from something. To accomplish that is has to be mandatory. It's getting that way too. A woman I know who was informed that her baby had the gene for Down's, and they said, "We've scheduled your termination for XX date" at the same time. Terminating a pregnancy is a woman's individual choice, but it's probably one worth thinking about.

I very much doubt this, what they probably said was 'we can schedule you for a termination' and in her obvious distress she misheard it.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

I very much doubt this, what they probably said was 'we can schedule you for a termination' and in her obvious distress she misheard it.

That's possible. Obviously it's not a situation where it's reasonable to expect perfect recall.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

That's possible. Obviously it's not a situation where it's reasonable to expect perfect recall.

I'm not busting your chops or anything, its just I've never met anyone in the medical field who was anything other than negative about abortion as a procedure, they may well be wholly pro choice and quite happy to perform it (in fact most are) but nurses and doctors still see it, in my experiance, as a neccersary negative, not a positive.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by Flames Fan, Ph.D.

So I guess the answer to your question is: as often as parents choose to know.

Pretty well. Women can have abortions simply because they didn't want the pregnancy.

Originally Posted by bizaro86

If you're choosing to have selective abortion by genetics, I think it's fair to ask about things that might not be possible right now. It's not like we've reached the limit of genetic testing, and no new tests will be developed.

And it certainly could become a slippery slope. Does 100% chance of downs become 80% chance of scitzophrenia become a 50% chance of a congenital heart defect become a 30% chance of chronic depression become a 10% chance of massive obesity?

Where do you draw the line there?

Like I said, "I don't want to be pregnant" is a good enough reason to have an abortion as it stands right now, so none of that actually matters.

Originally Posted by bizaro86

If your unborn child had a severe defect and the mother (exercising her right to reproductive choice) wanted to keep it, would you support that decision and stick around to raise that child?

Of course I would. What kind of question is that?

[Locke]

Cant we just throw them off cliffs like the Spartans in 300?

We could make a game of it and televise it, and award prize money. It'd be bigger than Survivor!

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

Of course I would. What kind of question is that?

You said you'd be in favour of aborting and in favour of the woman's right to choose. I was curioius what your thoughts would be if a woman made a choice that you weren't in favour of in that situation

I apologize if that came across as accusatory, as that was not my intention.

As mentioned above, legally none of this matters at all. Anyone can get an abortion at any time for any reason they wish, which is Canadian law established by default when the Supreme Court struck down the old prohibition, and it was never replaced. Ethically I happen to think it's a bit of a different story. Something can be perfectly legal, while still being completely unethical.

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

Pretty well. Women can have abortions simply because they didn't want the pregnancy.

huh?

Sorry, I don't understand this reply at all.