3 ms·

Yes, the child is better with the procedure than without. The "questions" that "remain" are basically people who don't have to live with dire genetic defects be

• laythea 10y ago
  It would be foolhardy for humanity to have confidence in something it knows nothing about. There are some areas which should never be touched, and this is one of them. I don't mean to sound heartless to those who suffer (parents too) however you come across, to me, like there is a solution. There is not, and at best we can experiment with nature and see what happens. When the "experiment with nature" gets to this level its time to stop, for the betterment of humanity as a whole, not the individuals own good. And, yes. I would be saying entirely the opposite thing, if, for example I was personally in a situation where this may benefit me or my family. Even though I would be saying that as an individual, it does not change the fact that it would not be better for humanity, as a whole. At that point, I would be consumed by my individual, to not care about the effect on humanity, as a whole. This classic battle between the good of the individual and the good of the group can be seen in many areas of nature, and this is another example.
  • x1798DE 10y ago
    What does this have to do with the good of the whole? I'm not going to catch a genetic disease from you. I'm not going to catch side effects from a medication you are taking. Seems to me that the risk is entirely borne by the individuals.
  • jpttsn 10y ago
    Why assume that you, as an individual, can have any idea of what's good or bad for the group? Is the group here to serve your individual agenda?
    • laythea 10y ago
      Its like your favorite color, in that there is no "right" answer, and it all depends on your perspective and person. I tried to illustrate that, by giving you an example of an "if it were" me scenario.
  • Mz 10y ago
    The good of the individual and the good of the whole are not always in conflict. But these discussions where people try to say that someone with a known genetic disorder should not be allowed to do anything like this so that they can both have a baby and try to somehow give the baby a better outcome always smack of Arian Race bullshit to me. I did not know I had a genetic disorder when I had kids, so I never had to wrestle with such questions. But I have seen other parents wrestle with them. The bullshit statements you see about concerns that this child will be permanently fucked up for life are just prejudice. Every pregnancy comes with that risk. In fact, I have read that up to half of all pregnancies miscarry before the woman knows she is pregnant and the theory is these are genetic monsters so screwed up they aren't viable. Elsewhere in this discussion someone rebutted something I said with something like "what if the child lives to age 53 but is in agony and a burden to society?" I have paid accident claims. To my horror, I have read reports of children maimed for life because of parents being, imo, inadequately attentive to safety. So, a child can be born with no genetic defect and end up missing a leg, blind or paralyzed due to parental neglect. You are telling me that parents with "the wrong genes" should be wholesale denied reproductive rights because their kids might suffer, but assholes with no sense can have all the damn kids they like because what fucks over their kids permanently is not part of their DNA. And my feeling on that is [redacted, because it no doubt breaks the guidelines].
    • laythea 10y ago
      I'm not entirely sure what you are ranting about, and I don't see how it is relevant to what I said.