4 ms·

Artificial Ovaries Could Expand Fertility Options for Chemo Patients

42 points by ArtWomb 8y ago

anonnyj 8y ago
Should we really be encouraging people who have proven prone to get cancer early, to procreate?
- mhluongo 8y ago
  Have you thought that through? Sounds like an argument for eugenics
  - HarryHirsch 8y ago
    There are arguments for eugenics. Consider Tay-Sachs disease, which used to afflict Ashkenaz Jews - in Israel it's extinct thanks to genetic testing.
    - lurquer 8y ago
      It's not extinct. It's just as common as ever. The only difference is the babies are aborted.
      - HarryHirsch 8y ago
        Mostly it works with genetic counseling. If both you and your prospective spouse are carriers you'll be advised to find someone else.
- wetpaws 8y ago
  You seem to operate under assumption that unlike other people you are personally immune from early cancer. This assumption is wrong.
  - ianai 8y ago
    This. From what I understand, cancer is almost assured the longer a person lives.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
- onetimemanytime 8y ago
  Why not? Even people that post comments like yours should be able to procreate, IMO :). Some get cancer, some drink too much, some get diabetes, some are dumb, some have heart diseases, hemophilia and so on. Probably 90%-98% of the population has one or a few things "wrong" in their genetic makeup. Who gets to decide?
  - jerkstate 8y ago
    >Who gets to decide? Insurance companies.
  - eugenicsismoral 8y ago
    The children afflicted obviously. What gives the unaffected the right to impose their judgment when they will never pay the price? Their skin will not slowly harden to bone over the course of decade, making every movement an agony, until eventually they asphyxiate when their chest can no longer expand. Their limbs will not grow twisted, their heart will not rip and tear, their immune system will not rise up against them. The votes to criminalize reproductive outcomes must only come from the population experiencing those negative outcomes. Otherwise the 99.999% of people who will never experience that particular horror will always outvote them to save 20 bucks of testing. We have a rich history stretching thousands of years of the damned returning to warn society to avoid their mistakes, their follies, their hubris. We listen to Tiny Tim about the importance of relationships over wealth, but seem to discard his other message on the importance of polio vaccinations. Almost 300 years ago society decided that cruel and unusual punishment was unjust, and forswore its use. Yet today the power to summon new human beings into any of millions literal hells on earth is completely unchecked. We have the technology to know > Probably 90%-98% of the population has one or a few things "wrong" in their genetic makeup I read this argument as the slippery slop fallacy. Criminalizing bringing children to term with Huntington's disease is very different that murdering all babies at the hospital that have brown eyes. The current technology level makes it cheap enough to society to eliminate the low hanging fruit of the most crippling genetic diseases. Eugenics is not limited to concentration camps. There are many moral forms of eugenics. For example: a society could recognize that certain genes impose steep costs, and tax those who choose to impose those genes upon new humans. Society then uses the tax revenue to compensate the victims.
- tomjen3 8y ago
  As a society we long ago decided that if any couple can't get pregnant, they need medical help. You are getting a lot of downvotes because you are touching close to the subject of eugenics, but at least I think it is good that we are aware of what our assumptions are.
- cimmanom 8y ago
  So people should be punished for contracting a disease that's known to be often caused by environmental factors that are out of their control?
- hanniabu 8y ago
  And so the cancer-free version of the Aryan race was proclaimed
  - dang 8y ago
    Please don't break the site guidelines by replying to a bad comment with an even worse one. That's exactly the wrong direction to head. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
trdtaylor1 8y ago
Their answer of grafting ovarian tissue into place is a terrible choice, for all the reasons listed. Just make an artificial WOMB, figure out how to cleanly generate sex cells, and provide the immune system information from mother.
- cimmanom 8y ago
  "Just"?
salamanderman 8y ago
Sidestepping the moral/philosophical flamewar going on here, but aren't there plenty of kids in need of adoption? We're bending over backwards to make sure people can have babies that are genetically related to us, rather than just promoting adoption. It's so selfish and self-centered, and honestly, often racist.

42 points by ArtWomb 8y ago

anonnyj 8y ago

Should we really be encouraging people who have proven prone to get cancer early, to procreate?

mhluongo 8y ago
Have you thought that through? Sounds like an argument for eugenics
- HarryHirsch 8y ago
  There are arguments for eugenics. Consider Tay-Sachs disease, which used to afflict Ashkenaz Jews - in Israel it's extinct thanks to genetic testing.
  - lurquer 8y ago
    It's not extinct. It's just as common as ever. The only difference is the babies are aborted.
    - HarryHirsch 8y ago
      Mostly it works with genetic counseling. If both you and your prospective spouse are carriers you'll be advised to find someone else.
wetpaws 8y ago
You seem to operate under assumption that unlike other people you are personally immune from early cancer. This assumption is wrong.
- ianai 8y ago
  This. From what I understand, cancer is almost assured the longer a person lives.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
onetimemanytime 8y ago
Why not? Even people that post comments like yours should be able to procreate, IMO :). Some get cancer, some drink too much, some get diabetes, some are dumb, some have heart diseases, hemophilia and so on. Probably 90%-98% of the population has one or a few things "wrong" in their genetic makeup. Who gets to decide?
- jerkstate 8y ago
  >Who gets to decide? Insurance companies.
- eugenicsismoral 8y ago
  The children afflicted obviously. What gives the unaffected the right to impose their judgment when they will never pay the price? Their skin will not slowly harden to bone over the course of decade, making every movement an agony, until eventually they asphyxiate when their chest can no longer expand. Their limbs will not grow twisted, their heart will not rip and tear, their immune system will not rise up against them. The votes to criminalize reproductive outcomes must only come from the population experiencing those negative outcomes. Otherwise the 99.999% of people who will never experience that particular horror will always outvote them to save 20 bucks of testing. We have a rich history stretching thousands of years of the damned returning to warn society to avoid their mistakes, their follies, their hubris. We listen to Tiny Tim about the importance of relationships over wealth, but seem to discard his other message on the importance of polio vaccinations. Almost 300 years ago society decided that cruel and unusual punishment was unjust, and forswore its use. Yet today the power to summon new human beings into any of millions literal hells on earth is completely unchecked. We have the technology to know > Probably 90%-98% of the population has one or a few things "wrong" in their genetic makeup I read this argument as the slippery slop fallacy. Criminalizing bringing children to term with Huntington's disease is very different that murdering all babies at the hospital that have brown eyes. The current technology level makes it cheap enough to society to eliminate the low hanging fruit of the most crippling genetic diseases. Eugenics is not limited to concentration camps. There are many moral forms of eugenics. For example: a society could recognize that certain genes impose steep costs, and tax those who choose to impose those genes upon new humans. Society then uses the tax revenue to compensate the victims.
tomjen3 8y ago
As a society we long ago decided that if any couple can't get pregnant, they need medical help. You are getting a lot of downvotes because you are touching close to the subject of eugenics, but at least I think it is good that we are aware of what our assumptions are.
cimmanom 8y ago
So people should be punished for contracting a disease that's known to be often caused by environmental factors that are out of their control?
hanniabu 8y ago
And so the cancer-free version of the Aryan race was proclaimed
- dang 8y ago
  Please don't break the site guidelines by replying to a bad comment with an even worse one. That's exactly the wrong direction to head. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

trdtaylor1 8y ago

Their answer of grafting ovarian tissue into place is a terrible choice, for all the reasons listed. Just make an artificial WOMB, figure out how to cleanly generate sex cells, and provide the immune system information from mother.

cimmanom 8y ago
"Just"?

salamanderman 8y ago

Sidestepping the moral/philosophical flamewar going on here, but aren't there plenty of kids in need of adoption? We're bending over backwards to make sure people can have babies that are genetically related to us, rather than just promoting adoption. It's so selfish and self-centered, and honestly, often racist.