3 ms·

Thinking that the genotype adds value to a person's existence. If this is good, then eugenics is good as well, or at least 'not that bad.'

PeterisP 13y ago
A better genotype does add value to a person's existence - For example, all other things being equal, a healthy person both individually feels better and is better for society than the 'same' person with a genetic defect that causes a horrible death in his/her childhood. If we can fix that, then it's a noble cause. If a genotype doesn't add value to existence, then it can't be called a "better genotype", then it's simply a different genotype. And, by the way, "If X, then eugenics is not that bad' is in no way an acceptable argument against or for X; it's worse than irrelevant.
- pfortuny 13y ago
  No, that is what I contend: a better genotype makes no sense because there is no such thing as a "better" person from the physical standpoint. That is what I contend and that is why I take the natural conclusion: if you can "choose" between people based on their genotype, then you are treating them as 'things', not as 'people'. Which is what leads to eugenics, for example, with people with Down syndrome. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21555947 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21555947). "It is worse than irrelevant," I do not know why: I assumed the Parent was against eugenics, that is why I tried to make him realize it.
  - PeterisP 13y ago
    My personal moral opinion is that it would be extremely good if there was some way to make the kids/embryos with Down syndrome be cured, preferably before birth (because earlier in development there are less irreversible changes). And if we had such a cure (as far as I know, we currently don't and won't for quite some time), then not applying it wouldn't be okay - not using that cure would be pure evil, and comparable to torture or, say, forcibly denying someone their eyesight or hearing or limb.
    - pfortuny 13y ago
      I now realize I have made myself not as clear as I supposed, sorry. I wanted to refer only to "designing" children and/or "choosing them", not to, for example, a cure for Down's syndrome (assuming there could be one): what we have achieved with prenatal diagnosis is -in this case-, I reckon you will agree with me on this, is equivalent to eugenics. I do not think medical interventions (apart from say quarantines for contagious diseases etc) should be compulsory: illness and its acceptance is part and an important one of our lives. Suffering is unavoidable, and one can lead a very human and happy life in sickness and pain. But this last point is something on which I have not made up my mind clearly yet, certainly. But torture? It would depend on too many issues to compare not giving a treatment with torture. I might agree in some cases (very easy, very cheap and a "huge" rate of succesa). But I am digressing. Thanks for your points anyway, this is a thorny and difficult topic.
      - PeterisP 13y ago
        Our current practical possibilities for many severe genetical defects (many of them less common but much harsher than Down's - say, an expected lifespan measured in weeks) in essence is a choice of (a) suffer or (b) early prenatal detection followed by abortion. Unlike my earlier example (if a cure existed), this is not a nice choice to make, it's rather horrible; but I've had both the opportunity and need to think about it seriously and I wouldn't (couldn't) judge anyone who chose (b) in such situation, although it can be labeled as eugenics. Thus, I have a deep dislike for reasoning such as "X leads to eugenics, ergo X is bad". Eugenics is a loaded, biased label. Any decision should be judged as okay or evil on its own; and if okay decisions lead to the label eugenics, then it doesn't make them less okay in any way and shouldn't affect the evaluation of that decision. However, the word 'torture' and denying senses comes from me earlier reading about (hopefully rare) incidents of deaf parents intentionally choosing (via selective artificial insemination) to have kids that will be permanently deaf as well. I don't agree with that and consider it equal to, say, those parents cutting the ears of their infant after birth. And from that comes the reverse argument - if the procedures become cheap, easy and safe, then in practice 'not-fixing' a damaged gene is almost the same as intentionally damaging a gene; since you could easily have had both options; chose the damaged one; and forced that choice and consequences on the kid. The main difference is choice of action vs choice of non-action, which are psychologically perceived differently; the Trolley problem is the classic example.
shiftpgdn 13y ago
So you're saying children with severe genetic defects shouldn't be aborted?
- pfortuny 13y ago
  You get the idea. That is what I think, definitely.

PeterisP 13y ago

A better genotype does add value to a person's existence - For example, all other things being equal, a healthy person both individually feels better and is better for society than the 'same' person with a genetic defect that causes a horrible death in his/her childhood. If we can fix that, then it's a noble cause. If a genotype doesn't add value to existence, then it can't be called a "better genotype", then it's simply a different genotype. And, by the way, "If X, then eugenics is not that bad' is in no way an acceptable argument against or for X; it's worse than irrelevant.

pfortuny 13y ago
No, that is what I contend: a better genotype makes no sense because there is no such thing as a "better" person from the physical standpoint. That is what I contend and that is why I take the natural conclusion: if you can "choose" between people based on their genotype, then you are treating them as 'things', not as 'people'. Which is what leads to eugenics, for example, with people with Down syndrome. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21555947 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21555947). "It is worse than irrelevant," I do not know why: I assumed the Parent was against eugenics, that is why I tried to make him realize it.
- PeterisP 13y ago
  My personal moral opinion is that it would be extremely good if there was some way to make the kids/embryos with Down syndrome be cured, preferably before birth (because earlier in development there are less irreversible changes). And if we had such a cure (as far as I know, we currently don't and won't for quite some time), then not applying it wouldn't be okay - not using that cure would be pure evil, and comparable to torture or, say, forcibly denying someone their eyesight or hearing or limb.
  - pfortuny 13y ago
    I now realize I have made myself not as clear as I supposed, sorry. I wanted to refer only to "designing" children and/or "choosing them", not to, for example, a cure for Down's syndrome (assuming there could be one): what we have achieved with prenatal diagnosis is -in this case-, I reckon you will agree with me on this, is equivalent to eugenics. I do not think medical interventions (apart from say quarantines for contagious diseases etc) should be compulsory: illness and its acceptance is part and an important one of our lives. Suffering is unavoidable, and one can lead a very human and happy life in sickness and pain. But this last point is something on which I have not made up my mind clearly yet, certainly. But torture? It would depend on too many issues to compare not giving a treatment with torture. I might agree in some cases (very easy, very cheap and a "huge" rate of succesa). But I am digressing. Thanks for your points anyway, this is a thorny and difficult topic.
    - PeterisP 13y ago
      Our current practical possibilities for many severe genetical defects (many of them less common but much harsher than Down's - say, an expected lifespan measured in weeks) in essence is a choice of (a) suffer or (b) early prenatal detection followed by abortion. Unlike my earlier example (if a cure existed), this is not a nice choice to make, it's rather horrible; but I've had both the opportunity and need to think about it seriously and I wouldn't (couldn't) judge anyone who chose (b) in such situation, although it can be labeled as eugenics. Thus, I have a deep dislike for reasoning such as "X leads to eugenics, ergo X is bad". Eugenics is a loaded, biased label. Any decision should be judged as okay or evil on its own; and if okay decisions lead to the label eugenics, then it doesn't make them less okay in any way and shouldn't affect the evaluation of that decision. However, the word 'torture' and denying senses comes from me earlier reading about (hopefully rare) incidents of deaf parents intentionally choosing (via selective artificial insemination) to have kids that will be permanently deaf as well. I don't agree with that and consider it equal to, say, those parents cutting the ears of their infant after birth. And from that comes the reverse argument - if the procedures become cheap, easy and safe, then in practice 'not-fixing' a damaged gene is almost the same as intentionally damaging a gene; since you could easily have had both options; chose the damaged one; and forced that choice and consequences on the kid. The main difference is choice of action vs choice of non-action, which are psychologically perceived differently; the Trolley problem is the classic example.

shiftpgdn 13y ago

So you're saying children with severe genetic defects shouldn't be aborted?

pfortuny 13y ago
You get the idea. That is what I think, definitely.