[Serttyfd]

That is true, but at the same time you are saying that if you are blind or deaf, that you are less of a person and need to be fixed. I don't think so. What I was trying to say is that that if you are blind or deaf, then you are less abled than the average person, but yet it's now possible for medical science to give you those abilities.

[ddxbovMQ]

And so the time comes to deal with difficult questions...

On the one hand, I think the vast majority of us recoil at the idea of picking hair color, eye color, gender, etc. On the other, if you're a parent of a fetus with a serious defect that can be corrected, it's gotta be hard not to want to go ahead and have it corrected.

I have friends who are expecting twins. One of those twins will not survive long, because it's got just about every defect you can imagine. Something to do with having an extra chromosone or somesuch. Would it be wrong if they could have, somehow, had that extra chromosone removed early on and had a healthy baby? Why or why not?

-Arrian

[15Praxanant]

Come on, rah. Considering Ben's hearing problems and considering the long and infamous history of killing off people who were disabled, Ben's sensitivity to this issue is understandable.

It's true, you did not say what he perceived. But it's crazy for you to "assume that's what you believe."

Hey, he feels free to distort and misinterpret everything that I say, so I was just trying to show how crazy/stupid it is for him to do that. Thanks for playing along and emphasizing my point.

[55TRATTERENRY]

You know there are a lot of prospects for genetically engineered humans. I want my designer baby to have super intelligence, super strength, and crazy eyes that glow blue like the Fremen. I also would like for him to eventually become an immortal god emperor of the known universe.

[car.insur]

Should have clarified. When discussing this idea, we are arguing that the idea states that disabled people are not fit to live.

I disagree with Theben for once. I think this discussion has followed a trend which implied the "disabled" were not worthy of being born, that special parents regret the circumstances of the birth of their special children. You all seem to go directly to the belief that if you could alter the circumstances of your child's genetic code, then you would breed for intelligent aryan athletes.

The number of leaps over alternatives you all made to get to these positions appear to have alarmed Ben, who apparently has differently able siblings. I find it a bit scary that such an independent and quick-to-fight crew would all fall straight into a Star Trek episode, "the Wrath of Khan," without at least considering the value of multiple different frameworks when allowed to choose.

[Qdkczrdi]

Of course a blind or deaf people is less of a person than those that aren't. If you measure humans, it has to be done by some criteria that's going to piss off someone. But by that same token, just about everyone out there is less of a person in some way, because just about all of us are pretty ****ed up. For example, some of us like to stick our naughty parts in the wrong hole.

If you are using these metrics to measure someone's humanity, you have no idea what it is to be human. (Hopefully, you're just trolling.)

[shanice]

As for correcting serious malformations that would result in an early death, I wouldn't have an issue with that whatsoever. That would be an ethical use of that technology, to save the lives of those who would otherwise die.

[casinobonuswer]

At Ben: Darwin wasn't thought well of in his time, certainly not so much as today, but IMO his opinions smack of eugenics which very few people condone these days. I don't see how you reach the conclusion you did wrt your quote of his.

[MineOffedOvex]

All you need to do to object to this is look at popular trends in interior design from 1960 to now. You look at that and then tell me it's a good idea to let the same sort of people design human beings.

I read through the rest of the thread and have found this to be a most compelling argument!

[Mark_NyB]

Eugenics were a mainstream and respected well into the XXth century. Only the outcome of WW2 managed to bury racist physical anthropology and eugenic ideas which were very accepted and respected.

In the XIX century being racist was being a progressive and educated person, believing that all humans were equal was an old religious idea.

Now that so many decades have passed since the horrors of ww2, we will slowly slip back to the old mistakes of the post darwin XIX century and first half of the XX century.

[GitaraMoya]

Example: congenital scoliosis. I don't see a moral problem with fixing that before it develops. That's not eugenics (which I agree is a legit thing to fear). That strikes me as proper medicine. If a procedure had been available in 1976 that would've granted me a normal spine, man, I'd have wanted my parents to have it done.

That is medicine, and such procedures are governed by science and rigorous codes of medical ethics. In most countries you cannot simply "buy" that kind of surgery. However in some limited cases you can, as Michael Jackson's face shows (whoever operated on him last should have had their license taken away).

The problem arises when people start wanting to operate for reasons that aren't medical problems. Aborting kids because they've got the "ghey" gene (if such a thing exists), for example.

Wholesale genetic modification by the rich in areas such as beauty and intelligence are an interesting case, because such things would only have value insofar as others could not get them. You could be sure that the same people advocating them would be attempting to prevent the state from giving them to other people. Large scale activity like this would remove any pretence to meritocracy our society has left and turn it into a society of de facto masters and slaves. I can think of a few people (some posters on this forum) who don't have a problem with such ideas.

There's absolutely no way such a thing should be left to private individuals. The state has proven itself pretty awful at dealing with such things, so it may well prove to be best left as a forbidden fruit.

[oxixernibioge]

Deaf people see better than people who aren't deaf.
Blind people hear better than people who aren't blind.
etc.

That's actually a myth.

[imawlBoli]

Would children be able to sue their parents if when they got older they didn't like the way they looked?

[Indidockobeni]

Kids are a precious resource and a considerable expense. Why should we go about it willy nilly when maybe we can substitute quality for quantity on an already over crowded world.

Eugenics! You sound like a supporter of Margaret Sanger and of the programs instituted in 1930's Germany.

[Frodogzzz]

That is a good point. Who decides what constitutes intelligence? Obviously the parents ultimately, but they'll be under social pressures, if not "sound medical advice", to pick certain traits. Raw intellect will probably be high on the list, but will it be at the expense of artist talent? Mechanical aptitude? etc...

[Lxbsvksl]

AFAIK no human has ever had that.