Posted on 01/20/2007 9:02:08 AM PST by KantianBurke
CHICAGO, Illinois (AP) -- The power to create "perfect" designer babies looms over the world of prenatal testing.
But what if doctors started doing the opposite?
Creating made-to-order babies with genetic defects would seem to be an ethical minefield, but to some parents with disabilities -- say, deafness or dwarfism -- it just means making babies like them.
And a recent survey of U.S. clinics that offer embryo screening suggests it's already happening.
Three percent, or four clinics surveyed, said they have provided the costly, complicated procedure to help families create children with a disability.
Some doctors have denounced the practice. Others question whether it's true. Blogs are abuzz with the news, with armchair critics saying the phenomenon, if real, is taking the concept of designer babies way too far.
"Old fear: designer babies. New fear: deformer babies," the online magazine Slate wrote, calling it "the deliberate crippling of children."
But the survey also has led to a debate about the definition of "normal" and inspires a glimpse into deaf and dwarf cultures where many people do not consider themselves disabled.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
Are they out of their minds? Deliberately handicapping a human being so they get a chance to be on Oprah? Idiots!
That's what this is all about, really, the chance to get a sob story of ones' own.
Hardly child abuse ~ concern about it is fundamentally RACISM people, RACISM!
Not all genetic differences are defects ~
Oh, and I should add that the entire 'deaf' community was against it as well because it wouldn't conform to their 'culture'.
What was the line in 'Jurassic Park'? Something about wanting to do something so badly but never stopping to think about whether or not you ought to do it? Medical research should be used to move forward. Another example of the need to make people feel good about themselves. The 'feelings' crowd at it again.
The most obvious problem is that IVF "begets" or produces more offspring than will be implanted in your womb. That results in two really inhuman options: (1) killing your "surplus" offspring (or storing them in frozen form until they deteriorate and are ultimately dumped); or (2) using the embryo as a human experimental subject, without any of the safeguards essential to its moral status as a nascent human being.
The third problem is that the entire process of ovum extraction, sperm collection, in vitro fertilization, and so forth, has already reduced human procreation to an laboratory procedure resulting in a product who/which is a commodity in commercial transaction.
The entire distinction between a human being, a lab animal, and a bit of biological property is in smithereens.
So we (Americans) are right back where we were at the time of the Dred Scott decision of 1857, with the law unable to distinguish between a human being and a piece of property. Except at a potentially worse degree of complexity, since the human genome can now be altered through the introduction of heterologous genes, and the embryo manipulated into forms of abnormal development, so that distinguishing between "human" and "not-human" becomes almost impossible.
When Aldous Huxley wrote "Brave New World," he assumed --- didn't he? --- that people would want to prevent this from happening. There must be somebody out there who is thinking strategically about how to stop this whole race to total depersonalization.
Passing laws against IVF is the only practical way to stop this dehumanizing human children. I think it should be banned.
One more comment.....the people who claim to be 'for the children' are certainly not thinking about the children in this instance.
Child abuse, evil, the epitome of selfishness. Just sick.
Yep, and I agree with that reason. You naturally want your children to be like you. Of course, on this thread, I knew somebody would dredge up this deaf story. My own daugther is deaf with a cochlear implant. She is much more comfortable in a room with deaf kids, vs hearing people who she does not understand, and who do not understand her. While I would not purposefully have a child with any disability, I understand where some parents are coming from.
The "entire" deaf community in the whole world, or the deaf community these people are associated with.
FWIW, S and F was made probably in 1999. The world of CIs and the acceptance by the deaf community has increased immensely. I should know.
Good grief. You mean that ethics questions are ONLY NOW beginning to appear? This implies, of course, that partial birth murder, Peter Singer, cloning, transhumanism, embryonic homicide-related stem cell harvesting, and the rest of the entire litany of liberal crimes against children have so far gone without generating ethics questions. Two things will happen. The uproar over this latest crime will abate, and the practice will be accepted as normal. And, strap on your seat belts for the bumpy ride ahead as even more murderous and monstrous crimes arise, because human nature is such that these maniacs will never be sated.
Just when you think it can't get any worse.
If someone can rationalise this away, why not disfiguring the child after it's born? Why would that be a crime then?
bangs head on desk
I disagree. If it were blindness instead would that work?
People wear glasses and get cornea transplants all the time.
Just because someone is more comfortable in a group of people with whom they share a disability, does that really justify forcing them to live in a world with that disability? Why can't she still interact with other deaf children even if she can hear some. Not everyone who is labeled as deaf is completely deaf, they can hear some. So then what? They're rejected by BOTH groups?
Seems that some deaf people take real pride in their deafness, like these folks who would inflict it on their children, and then complain about how hard it is, or the hearing world doesn't understand them. If it's so great, then they shouldn't so play the martyr.
The idea of purposefully causing disabilities in children strikes me as absolutely monstrous!
"My own daugther is deaf with a cochlear implant. She is much more comfortable in a room with deaf kids,"
I'm sure she is. But the point of the story was that the little girl was the one that wanted the implants and her parents were the ones that discouraged it.She wanted to be able to 'hear' like her school friends.
She would probably still be more comfortable in a familiar environment,but the option of hearing was totally discouraged and she wasn't given the choice.
And 'wanting your children to be like you' may be an ambitious ideal,which almost all parents aspire too,and may be more comfortable for the parents, but I find it to somewhat limiting, to say the least.
You are right that most will not feel 'comfortable' outside of that environment, but the option, if asked for, should be available to allow a person to decide for themselves.
And as far as 'dredging up' that story, it sounds to me that is more uncomfortable for you to hear it because it may hit too close to home. But I also find it odd that you would be irritated by the story considering you made the choice to allow your daughter to at least have the hearing experience.
Sometimes choices can be uncomfortable, especially when you may not agree with them.
Maybe because I wasn't born deaf my understanding of what that life would be like maybe a bit biased. But I have had friends that were deaf, and there wasn't a choice to have their youngest son remain deaf, they decided, probably like you, that at least the option should be available.
Your daughter may never feel comfortable around hearing people, but, who knows, with time that may change.
Children can, and usually do, surprise us.
"The "entire" deaf community in the whole world, or the deaf community these people are associated with. "
I was referring to the 'deaf community' associated with this story. I.E. Friends, family, associates.
Because - the ability to speak has nothing to do with intelligence.
No, I am actually uncomfortable at this point with the decision I made to get my daughter a CI, something she really does not want. If she takes it off when she is 18 or 21, all the more power to her.
I am well aware of the facts of that story, but it is a very old story - at this point, 8 years old. So much has changed within the Deaf and deaf community regarding cochlear implants. And, its ONE story. While the Sound and the Fury is a good story, it is not the ONLY story, and it is ONE perspecctive.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.