6 ms·

These two children should have never been born. No one should be born with Tay-Sachs, a genetic disease.

by DaveExeter 5y ago

Kye 5y ago
Eugenics has a somewhat fraught past. Everyone who tried it thought they were doing their victims a favor.
- DoreenMichele 5y ago
  ^ This. In the United States today, approximately 1 in every 27 Jews is a Tay-Sachs carrier. https://healthresearchfunding.org/17-good-statistics-tay-sachs-disease/ https://healthresearchfunding.org/17-good-statistics-tay-sac...
  - Kye 5y ago
    I had no idea. I just used my "wait, no, that's eugenics" heuristic. Now I know! One day it's "we should save these kids from a difficult life," the next it's "we need symbols to tell undesirables apart," the next it's "we have too many people in camps and nowhere to send them." People like me ended up in those camps next to the Jews, so I'm not keen on the noise that starts the landslide.
    - ethbr0 5y ago
      There's an unfortunate truth that proponents of equality are going to have to deal with at some point: we are biologically different, to greater or lesser degrees. That's a fact. And it's only going to be more of a fact the deeper we dig into our genetic code. But it's how we respond to and deal with that that determines whether we commit good or evil.
      - zionic 5y ago
        > that proponents of equality are going to have to deal with We both know that will never happen. They’ll never “deal with” the flaws in their religion, they’ll just ignore it like all the others do.
        ethbr0 5y ago
        I have more optimism. Dogmas are hard to cast aside, but gradually things progress forward.
  - dogma1138 5y ago
    Israel performs pre and post conception screenings for TS and a few other genetic diseases that are common within the Jewish population. Just calling every genetic screening designed to prevent actual suffering eugenics is pretty nonsensical.
    - DoreenMichele 5y ago
      Just calling every genetic screening designed to prevent actual suffering eugenics is pretty nonsensical. It's also putting words in my mouth since I said no such thing.
      - dogma1138 5y ago
        Apologies then just your reply seemed to indicate that you were agreeing with these screenings and the termination that follows them being eugenics. My litmus test for eugenics requires an ideological and social engineering component. Simply telling parents well if you bring a child to the world they’ll die within 2 years and suffer greatly isn’t that. Neither is offering them other tools such as using a sperm or egg donor or adoption.
        DoreenMichele 5y ago
        The OP to which I declined to reply says: No one should be born with Tay-Sachs, a genetic disease. I agreed with a reply to that suggesting such an extreme and unnuanced statement amounted to eugenics since the only means to actually ensure that no child will ever be born with X genetic disease would require rather extreme measures that go far beyond providing testing and options.
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
        s1artibartfast 5y ago
        There is a difference between saying something shouldn't happen, and it should be prevented by any means necessary. I really shouldn't smoke. I don't endorse SS officers killing me if I do.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > Eugenics has a somewhat fraught past. That's...an understatement. > Everyone who tried it thought they were doing their victims a favor. No, not everyone who did it thought that they were doing their victims a favor. Quite a lot saw their victims as people who ought to be sacrificed for the good of others, and if they thought they were doing them a favor it was only in not murdering them outright as well as preventing them from reproducing. Of course, some eugenics practitioners didn't bother avoiding outright murder, e.g., the Nazis.
  - Kye 5y ago
    This is a bit of a tangent off me pointing out someone's suggestion was eugenics. I'm not sure what I'm supposed to take away from this comment. We obviously can't read the minds of eugenics pushers, and very few openly admit their True Aims, so there's not any point trying to litigate it here.
- seo-speedwagon 5y ago
  1. Tay-Sachs is not limited to a single ethnicity. Carriers exist in the population in general. 2. Assuming you’re referring to the fact that being a carrier is more common in Ashkenazi Jews, you’re aware that there are a number of genetic screening programs run by Jewish organizations, right?
disabled 5y ago
Dude, there are people who have children with Tay-Sachs, who are NOT ethnically Jewish at all. 1 in 250 people in the general population is a carrier for Tay-Sachs. Also, literally everyone is a carrier of mutations for extremely devastating diseases. You just do not know which ones. This is from a US government website covering Tay-Sachs (https://www.genome.gov/Genetic-Disorders/Tay-Sachs-Disease https://www.genome.gov/Genetic-Disorders/Tay-Sachs-Disease): “While anyone can be a carrier of Tay-Sachs, the incidence of the disease is significantly higher among people of eastern European (Ashkenazi) Jewish descent. Approximately one in every 27 Jews in the United States is a carrier of the Tay-Sachs disease gene. Non-Jewish French Canadians living near the St. Lawrence River and in the Cajun community of Louisiana also have a higher incidence of Tay-Sachs. For the general population, about one in 250 people are carriers.”
- bradleyjg 5y ago
  Non-Jewish French Canadians living near the St. Lawrence River and in the Cajun community of Louisiana also have a higher incidence of Tay-Sachs. Traced back to a single particularly fecund Jewish ancestor I believe.
- stefan_ 5y ago
  I don't understand, the parent said nothing about Jews at all. Nonetheless, given the incidence among them, they also happen to be pioneers in prescreening for this very genetic defect.
  - tasha0663 5y ago
    Yeah, that's weird. Either the association is so strong with some people that they can't see Tay-Sachs without immediately thinking Ashkenazi, or there was a stealth edit to the comment.
    - DaveExeter 5y ago
      No stealth edit! Genetic testing can identify carriers, so if Tay-Sachs has been (mostly) 'vanquished' from the Ashkenazi community, it can be 'vanquished' completely. https://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/18/science/using-genetic-tests-ashkenazi-jews-vanquish-a-disease.html https://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/18/science/using-genetic-tes...
nootropicat 5y ago
You're right, but socially and organizationally it's more practical to fix the problem via gene therapy rather than institute compulsory abortions after a genetic test. Unfortunately due to the barbarity of Nazi Germany even rational eugenics programs are taboo in the West, and trying to fight that is a losing battle.
- tasha0663 5y ago
  > Unfortunately... rational eugenics programs are taboo in the West Fortunate! That's very fortunate! > rational eugenics No such thing unless your basis for it is incomplete or corrupted.
  - BuyMyBitcoins 5y ago
    Voluntary screening of prospective parents for genetic disorders doesn’t seem malicious to me. Especially if they already know they are at high risk. If my partner and I realized we would have a child with an inherited burden, we’d probably adopt instead. You could say this counts as Eugenics, but maybe people just need a different word since Eugenics is so tainted.
    - tsol 5y ago
      Then you get into more difficult discussions. Like what constitutes a "inherited burden? Down syndrome? Is it okay to develop policies where few to no people with down syndrome will exist? How about autism? Can we get rid of people who might be liable to get depression, or just be really short? There is so much to screening for genetics, and not simply because the word eugenics is tainted.
      - dekhn 5y ago
        I'd leave these questions to the biomedical community, as they have the ability to deal with nuanced questions like this. Given the amount of different behavior covered by autism, it doesn't seem useful to use that as an example. I think if there was a test for Down's syndrome and a gene therapy cure, that would almost certainly be deployed, and advocates for people with Down's aren't going to have a big problem with that. People learned from the autism speaks debacle.

These two children should have never been born. No one should be born with Tay-Sachs, a genetic disease.

Kye 5y ago

Eugenics has a somewhat fraught past. Everyone who tried it thought they were doing their victims a favor.

DoreenMichele 5y ago
^ This. In the United States today, approximately 1 in every 27 Jews is a Tay-Sachs carrier. https://healthresearchfunding.org/17-good-statistics-tay-sachs-disease/ https://healthresearchfunding.org/17-good-statistics-tay-sac...
- Kye 5y ago
  I had no idea. I just used my "wait, no, that's eugenics" heuristic. Now I know! One day it's "we should save these kids from a difficult life," the next it's "we need symbols to tell undesirables apart," the next it's "we have too many people in camps and nowhere to send them." People like me ended up in those camps next to the Jews, so I'm not keen on the noise that starts the landslide.
  - ethbr0 5y ago
    There's an unfortunate truth that proponents of equality are going to have to deal with at some point: we are biologically different, to greater or lesser degrees. That's a fact. And it's only going to be more of a fact the deeper we dig into our genetic code. But it's how we respond to and deal with that that determines whether we commit good or evil.
    - zionic 5y ago
      > that proponents of equality are going to have to deal with We both know that will never happen. They’ll never “deal with” the flaws in their religion, they’ll just ignore it like all the others do.
      - ethbr0 5y ago
        I have more optimism. Dogmas are hard to cast aside, but gradually things progress forward.
- dogma1138 5y ago
  Israel performs pre and post conception screenings for TS and a few other genetic diseases that are common within the Jewish population. Just calling every genetic screening designed to prevent actual suffering eugenics is pretty nonsensical.
  - DoreenMichele 5y ago
    Just calling every genetic screening designed to prevent actual suffering eugenics is pretty nonsensical. It's also putting words in my mouth since I said no such thing.
    - dogma1138 5y ago
      Apologies then just your reply seemed to indicate that you were agreeing with these screenings and the termination that follows them being eugenics. My litmus test for eugenics requires an ideological and social engineering component. Simply telling parents well if you bring a child to the world they’ll die within 2 years and suffer greatly isn’t that. Neither is offering them other tools such as using a sperm or egg donor or adoption.
      - DoreenMichele 5y ago
        The OP to which I declined to reply says: No one should be born with Tay-Sachs, a genetic disease. I agreed with a reply to that suggesting such an extreme and unnuanced statement amounted to eugenics since the only means to actually ensure that no child will ever be born with X genetic disease would require rather extreme measures that go far beyond providing testing and options.
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
        s1artibartfast 5y ago
        There is a difference between saying something shouldn't happen, and it should be prevented by any means necessary. I really shouldn't smoke. I don't endorse SS officers killing me if I do.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
dragonwriter 5y ago
> Eugenics has a somewhat fraught past. That's...an understatement. > Everyone who tried it thought they were doing their victims a favor. No, not everyone who did it thought that they were doing their victims a favor. Quite a lot saw their victims as people who ought to be sacrificed for the good of others, and if they thought they were doing them a favor it was only in not murdering them outright as well as preventing them from reproducing. Of course, some eugenics practitioners didn't bother avoiding outright murder, e.g., the Nazis.
- Kye 5y ago
  This is a bit of a tangent off me pointing out someone's suggestion was eugenics. I'm not sure what I'm supposed to take away from this comment. We obviously can't read the minds of eugenics pushers, and very few openly admit their True Aims, so there's not any point trying to litigate it here.
seo-speedwagon 5y ago
1. Tay-Sachs is not limited to a single ethnicity. Carriers exist in the population in general. 2. Assuming you’re referring to the fact that being a carrier is more common in Ashkenazi Jews, you’re aware that there are a number of genetic screening programs run by Jewish organizations, right?

disabled 5y ago

Dude, there are people who have children with Tay-Sachs, who are NOT ethnically Jewish at all. 1 in 250 people in the general population is a carrier for Tay-Sachs. Also, literally everyone is a carrier of mutations for extremely devastating diseases. You just do not know which ones. This is from a US government website covering Tay-Sachs (https://www.genome.gov/Genetic-Disorders/Tay-Sachs-Disease https://www.genome.gov/Genetic-Disorders/Tay-Sachs-Disease): “While anyone can be a carrier of Tay-Sachs, the incidence of the disease is significantly higher among people of eastern European (Ashkenazi) Jewish descent. Approximately one in every 27 Jews in the United States is a carrier of the Tay-Sachs disease gene. Non-Jewish French Canadians living near the St. Lawrence River and in the Cajun community of Louisiana also have a higher incidence of Tay-Sachs. For the general population, about one in 250 people are carriers.”

bradleyjg 5y ago
Non-Jewish French Canadians living near the St. Lawrence River and in the Cajun community of Louisiana also have a higher incidence of Tay-Sachs. Traced back to a single particularly fecund Jewish ancestor I believe.
stefan_ 5y ago
I don't understand, the parent said nothing about Jews at all. Nonetheless, given the incidence among them, they also happen to be pioneers in prescreening for this very genetic defect.
- tasha0663 5y ago
  Yeah, that's weird. Either the association is so strong with some people that they can't see Tay-Sachs without immediately thinking Ashkenazi, or there was a stealth edit to the comment.
  - DaveExeter 5y ago
    No stealth edit! Genetic testing can identify carriers, so if Tay-Sachs has been (mostly) 'vanquished' from the Ashkenazi community, it can be 'vanquished' completely. https://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/18/science/using-genetic-tests-ashkenazi-jews-vanquish-a-disease.html https://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/18/science/using-genetic-tes...

nootropicat 5y ago

You're right, but socially and organizationally it's more practical to fix the problem via gene therapy rather than institute compulsory abortions after a genetic test. Unfortunately due to the barbarity of Nazi Germany even rational eugenics programs are taboo in the West, and trying to fight that is a losing battle.

tasha0663 5y ago
> Unfortunately... rational eugenics programs are taboo in the West Fortunate! That's very fortunate! > rational eugenics No such thing unless your basis for it is incomplete or corrupted.
- BuyMyBitcoins 5y ago
  Voluntary screening of prospective parents for genetic disorders doesn’t seem malicious to me. Especially if they already know they are at high risk. If my partner and I realized we would have a child with an inherited burden, we’d probably adopt instead. You could say this counts as Eugenics, but maybe people just need a different word since Eugenics is so tainted.
  - tsol 5y ago
    Then you get into more difficult discussions. Like what constitutes a "inherited burden? Down syndrome? Is it okay to develop policies where few to no people with down syndrome will exist? How about autism? Can we get rid of people who might be liable to get depression, or just be really short? There is so much to screening for genetics, and not simply because the word eugenics is tainted.
    - dekhn 5y ago
      I'd leave these questions to the biomedical community, as they have the ability to deal with nuanced questions like this. Given the amount of different behavior covered by autism, it doesn't seem useful to use that as an example. I think if there was a test for Down's syndrome and a gene therapy cure, that would almost certainly be deployed, and advocates for people with Down's aren't going to have a big problem with that. People learned from the autism speaks debacle.