Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

The Bacon Guy · Jun 21, 2006, 02:52 pm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/5079802.stm

Quote:

A new embryo test offers couples at risk of serious genetic diseases a greater chance of having an unaffected baby through IVF, UK scientists say. The test looks at the whole DNA of a cell rather than focusing on a specific mutation in one gene, making it quicker to identify diseases in embryos.

It also allows doctors to check for many more potential illnesses. The team will tell a Prague fertility conference five couples are expecting healthy babies after the test, and IVF. more...

Well, I didn't think anyone would greet this news with anything other than delight. I should have known better. It seems people are able to find moral issues even in this, claiming that it will lead to "designer babies"and "master races". Charming soundbites but do they really have any substance? What are your thoughts?

PatrickHenry · Jun 21, 2006, 05:20 pm

The purpose of the tests? Eugenics...

A case can be made for eliminating babies who will not have healthy lives. They may be miserable if allowed to be born and grow to adulthood. Or maybe they wouldn't be miserable, but would appreciate their lives anyway.

The problem with testing is that parents can choose to abort babies who don't have the specific desired characteristics the parents demand. Like blue eyes, or blond hair, or a powerful physique...

Is genetic variablity in the breeding pool a worthy concept? Mother Nature thinks so...

Scribbler1 · Jun 21, 2006, 06:16 pm

Outlawing such a test would be throwing out the baby with the bathwater. The "master race" or "designer babies" fear is a valid one, IMO. However, I'm sure we have at least two alternatives to prevent another Aryan race. If the test could be engineered to ONLY report birth defects or diseases that would be one way to go and the other way would be to prohibit labs from checking for non health-related traits or to compel these labs and physicians to simply not release that information to the parents.
A properly written and properly administered law(s) could prevent any master races and still help couples avoid the heart-wrenching discovery that their baby will be terrible deformed or will die a lingering death.

Marconius · Jun 21, 2006, 06:31 pm

If the parents want the test its their choice. The religious people wont be forced to take the test or genetically engineer their children when that technology becomes available. What is the problem?

Scribbler1 · Jun 21, 2006, 06:45 pm

Quote:

Quote by: Marconius

If the parents want the test its their choice. The religious people wont be forced to take the test or genetically engineer their children when that technology becomes available. What is the problem?

Re read Patrick's post. The problem is twofold. Hitler wanted a "master race" by selecting couples with the "right" characteristics (blue-eyed, blond-haired, etc) in the hopes an entire race could be created with those desired traits. But instead of that hit-or-miss process you could just have people crank out as many babies as possible and just abort the "wrong" ones.
And Patrick's point about the "gene pool" is legitimate. Mixing of traits passed down from previous generations help maintain a strong and healthy species and tinkering around by avoiding having babies with big noses or the wrong color hair weakens the pool. And people in general are a LOT dumber than Mother Nature.

I only disagree with the idea that people shouldn't have access to such tests simply because of those possibilities as the tests can be restricted to allow use for health purposes ONLY.

Marconius · Jun 21, 2006, 07:19 pm

I agree that genetic variability is a concern but I dont see how this is really much different than the way people use sperm banks today. Or how they choose their mates for that matter. People select for the traits they like every day and there hasnt been a problem so far.

I dont see everyone wanting to have blonde, blue eyed children do you? People have very differing ideas on what traits are the best. Because of these reasons I dont see it as a problem. But having said that, having a child that didnt really look like me would seem odd, I wouldnt do it.

Scribbler1 · Jun 21, 2006, 08:37 pm

Quote:

Quote by: Marconius

I agree that genetic variability is a concern but I dont see how this is really much different than the way people use sperm banks today. Or how they choose their mates for that matter. People select for the traits they like every day and there hasnt been a problem so far.

I'm not sure these sperm banks are that specific regarding the traits of the donor but still it's a crap shoot. The whole point is that this won't happen overnight but little by little certain traits will be weeded out and as shallow as most people are those traits will be all cosmetic.
Picture this, "I'm sorry, Mr and Mrs Einstein, your baby will be born one ugly little cuss. Would you like me to take care of that for you?"

Of course this raises another glaring question, but I'll leave that for someone else to pick up on.

Quote:

I dont see everyone wanting to have blonde, blue eyed children do you? People have very differing ideas on what traits are the best. Because of these reasons I dont see it as a problem. But having said that, having a child that didnt really look like me would seem odd, I wouldnt do it.

YOU might be smart enough to not worry about your kid's future ability to get laid, but be honest, do you have THAT much faith in the general public?

Osborn F Enready · Jun 22, 2006, 07:59 am

I think if parents want to do it, it should be their choice.

That is as much as I can say, because I don't think it should be mandatory.

brien · Jun 22, 2006, 11:56 am

The tests are a valid screening for such conditions that may render a baby helpless for life by a debilitating disease. Beyond that, to begin a system of "designer kids" is very scary in terms of what some people may request in children designs. After screening for diseases, perhaps it is better to adhere to Forest Gump's philosophy of "Life is like a box of Chocolates, you never know what your going to get."

So what · Jun 23, 2006, 08:15 pm

Actually there would be no abortions...PGD or pregenetic diagnosis is done on embryos created thru IVF BEFORE they are ever introduced into the womans uterus where each HEALTHY embryo only has a 25 % chance to implant and devolop even after a successful conception.
In IVF, embryos are transferred to a womans uterus either 3 or 5 days after conception, depending on your clinics' culture medium. PGD is done on day four, the embryo is then usually frozen while awaiting results. Then transferred at a later date
In most cases, embryos that are 'defective' don't ever implant anyway...the amount of genetic birth defects that you would see be tenfold if they did. PGD does absolutely nothing to screen for developmental birth defects like static encephalopathy (common form of mental retardation) or like in my sons case (an IVF baby BTW) was born a congenital amputee due to his little heart throwing a clot at 4 weeks gestation.
PGD is a wonderful diagnostic tool that would save heartbreak and agaony for babies and parents everywhere. It's usually done on families who have had a child die or was born w/ a gentic problem. Or to women who had undergone miscarriages...usually indicative of a genetic proplem. So the test not only saves them from going thru the trauma and agony of another miscarriage, or worse..a still birt. W/ PGD, she could find out what was wrong and then hopefully produce at least one embryo that will beat the odds and survive.

So what · Jun 23, 2006, 08:18 pm

note: I'm not a lousy speller, just still not so great at typing w/ a 2 yr old in my lap.
:)

underbear1 · Jun 24, 2006, 12:07 am

There already are parents abusing sonograms in China and India where male offspring are MORE valued, and female fetuses are aborted.In China they have a 20,000 surplus of male babies, in what is very close to a normal 50/50 split of the sexes. so even more complicated genetic testing will be abused by some parents.

Scribbler1 · Jun 24, 2006, 12:11 am

Hense the reason for restricting these tests so ONLY health problems are disclosed to the parents.

So what · Jul 5, 2006, 09:31 am

Underbear...this thread referred to PGD, not sonograms. The difference is that PGD is performed on embryos that ere not in the womb...a sonogram is performed later. A sono does not show the genetic strain.
Two totally different arguments.

5010 · Jul 6, 2006, 12:47 pm

I don't see a "master race" coming from this level of selection. I think it would be more like a "master trait". Those who have it naturally, would be highly sought. Those who don't have it but procreate with someone who does would have a greater chance of making sure the trait gets to the child.

The trait would have to be pretrty damn good for it to be universally sought. A lot of people are attracted to unique characteristics and probably would not find them so attractive if they were saturated with them.

Jun 21, 2006, 05:20 pm	#2 (permalink) (top)
PatrickHenry 9/11: Inside Job Location: Hawai'i, Big Island Posts: 10,437	The purpose of the tests? Eugenics... A case can be made for eliminating babies who will not have healthy lives. They may be miserable if allowed to be born and grow to adulthood. Or maybe they wouldn't be miserable, but would appreciate their lives anyway. The problem with testing is that parents can choose to abort babies who don't have the specific desired characteristics the parents demand. Like blue eyes, or blond hair, or a powerful physique... Is genetic variablity in the breeding pool a worthy concept? Mother Nature thinks so... "Arms in the hands of the citizens may be used at individual discretion for the defense of the country, the overthrow of tyranny or private self-defense." -- John Adams

Jun 21, 2006, 06:16 pm	#3 (permalink) (top)
Scribbler1 Skeptical Patriot Posts: 7,746	Outlawing such a test would be throwing out the baby with the bathwater. The "master race" or "designer babies" fear is a valid one, IMO. However, I'm sure we have at least two alternatives to prevent another Aryan race. If the test could be engineered to ONLY report birth defects or diseases that would be one way to go and the other way would be to prohibit labs from checking for non health-related traits or to compel these labs and physicians to simply not release that information to the parents. A properly written and properly administered law(s) could prevent any master races and still help couples avoid the heart-wrenching discovery that their baby will be terrible deformed or will die a lingering death. Not a day goes by that I don't see something that reinforces my belief that people are idiots.

Jun 22, 2006, 07:59 am	#8 (permalink) (top)
Osborn F Enready Principled Observer Location: Toledo, Ohio Posts: 13,873	I think if parents want to do it, it should be their choice. That is as much as I can say, because I don't think it should be mandatory. Petition of Redress of Grievances: http://www.givemeliberty.org/default.htm Canadian Lawsuit Against Their National Banks: http://www.freewebs.com/classaction/ Osborn F. Enready

Jun 22, 2006, 11:56 am	#9 (permalink) (top)
brien Iceberg Location: Connecticut Posts: 5,691	The tests are a valid screening for such conditions that may render a baby helpless for life by a debilitating disease. Beyond that, to begin a system of "designer kids" is very scary in terms of what some people may request in children designs. After screening for diseases, perhaps it is better to adhere to Forest Gump's philosophy of "Life is like a box of Chocolates, you never know what your going to get." Brien the Iceberg If you tell the truth you don't have to remember anything. M.T.

Jun 24, 2006, 12:11 am	#13 (permalink) (top)
Scribbler1 Skeptical Patriot Posts: 7,746	Hense the reason for restricting these tests so ONLY health problems are disclosed to the parents. Not a day goes by that I don't see something that reinforces my belief that people are idiots.

Jun 21, 2006, 06:31 pm	#4 (permalink) (top)
Marconius modern ape Posts: 64	If the parents want the test its their choice. The religious people wont be forced to take the test or genetically engineer their children when that technology becomes available. What is the problem?

Jun 21, 2006, 07:19 pm	#6 (permalink) (top)
Marconius modern ape Posts: 64	I agree that genetic variability is a concern but I dont see how this is really much different than the way people use sperm banks today. Or how they choose their mates for that matter. People select for the traits they like every day and there hasnt been a problem so far. I dont see everyone wanting to have blonde, blue eyed children do you? People have very differing ideas on what traits are the best. Because of these reasons I dont see it as a problem. But having said that, having a child that didnt really look like me would seem odd, I wouldnt do it.

Jun 23, 2006, 08:15 pm	#10 (permalink) (top)
So what Molten Ash Posts: 31	Actually there would be no abortions...PGD or pregenetic diagnosis is done on embryos created thru IVF BEFORE they are ever introduced into the womans uterus where each HEALTHY embryo only has a 25 % chance to implant and devolop even after a successful conception. In IVF, embryos are transferred to a womans uterus either 3 or 5 days after conception, depending on your clinics' culture medium. PGD is done on day four, the embryo is then usually frozen while awaiting results. Then transferred at a later date In most cases, embryos that are 'defective' don't ever implant anyway...the amount of genetic birth defects that you would see be tenfold if they did. PGD does absolutely nothing to screen for developmental birth defects like static encephalopathy (common form of mental retardation) or like in my sons case (an IVF baby BTW) was born a congenital amputee due to his little heart throwing a clot at 4 weeks gestation. PGD is a wonderful diagnostic tool that would save heartbreak and agaony for babies and parents everywhere. It's usually done on families who have had a child die or was born w/ a gentic problem. Or to women who had undergone miscarriages...usually indicative of a genetic proplem. So the test not only saves them from going thru the trauma and agony of another miscarriage, or worse..a still birt. W/ PGD, she could find out what was wrong and then hopefully produce at least one embryo that will beat the odds and survive.

Jun 23, 2006, 08:18 pm	#11 (permalink) (top)
So what Molten Ash Posts: 31	note: I'm not a lousy speller, just still not so great at typing w/ a 2 yr old in my lap. :)

Jun 24, 2006, 12:07 am	#12 (permalink) (top)
underbear1 BANNED Posts: 2,630	There already are parents abusing sonograms in China and India where male offspring are MORE valued, and female fetuses are aborted.In China they have a 20,000 surplus of male babies, in what is very close to a normal 50/50 split of the sexes. so even more complicated genetic testing will be abused by some parents.

Jul 5, 2006, 09:31 am	#14 (permalink) (top)
So what Molten Ash Posts: 31	Underbear...this thread referred to PGD, not sonograms. The difference is that PGD is performed on embryos that ere not in the womb...a sonogram is performed later. A sono does not show the genetic strain. Two totally different arguments.

Jul 6, 2006, 12:47 pm	#15 (permalink) (top)
5010 mostly harmless Location: USA Posts: 1,282	I don't see a "master race" coming from this level of selection. I think it would be more like a "master trait". Those who have it naturally, would be highly sought. Those who don't have it but procreate with someone who does would have a greater chance of making sure the trait gets to the child. The trait would have to be pretrty damn good for it to be universally sought. A lot of people are attracted to unique characteristics and probably would not find them so attractive if they were saturated with them. - solo (my site)