4 ms·
In what sense?
by matthewmacleod 10y ago
In what sense?
- NicoJuicy 10y agoSaving small lives that couldn't be saved other wise. When they have children, what are the odds for more trouble during pregnancy and more emotional pain.
- burkaman 10y agoThis is historically a very dangerous idea on its own, but even ignoring that, please read the article, or even just the subtitle. This is about babies born prematurely, which often has nothing to do with genetics.
- onion2k 10y agoWhen they have children, what are the odds for more trouble during pregnancy and more emotional pain. Medical science moves at a pretty impressive pace, so whatever the odds are now it'll probably be considerably lower in 20 to 30 years time.
- s_kilk 10y agoSpoiler alert: you owe your own life directly to advances in medicine too. The notion that only the "inferior" have a need of these advancements is imbecillic.
- ska 10y ago"When they have children, what are the odds for more trouble during pregnancy and more emotional pain." What scientific evidence that these odds are significantly different than the general population are you basing your thinking on? Why apply this only to newborns? Surely the argument translates to many other forms of treatment. Finally, are you really prepared to stake a strong claim that reproductive success is a dominant metric of future worth?
- burkaman 10y agoI guess a "Darwinian" idea that babies who need an MRI to live are genetically inferior, and keeping them alive would weaken our species? Doesn't really make sense, but I don't know how else to interpret that comment.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]