Liberal Eugenics.

If you ask most what the word 'eugenics' means to them, then they tend to mumble that it's 'something to do with Nazi's'.

Of course, the Nazi scientists did explore the field, but the field itself is not 'bad' - like most scientific discovery, it is benign, it is how it is applied that is key.

The term 'Liberal Eugenics' simply means;

'Liberal eugenics is an ideology which advocates the use of reproductive and genetic technologies where the choice of enhancing human characteristics and capacities is left to the individual preferences of parents acting as consumers, rather than the public health policies of the state'

More here..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_eugenics

Now, is there a case for supporting people's freedom to use this science, if they so choose? There could be many positive outcomes, but then again, I remember the deaf couple, who in order to ensure they had a deaf baby, used a donor who had come from five generations of deafness. In other words, they orchestrated it so that their baby would be robbed of one of his senses. I cannot support that.

However, if it could be used to reduce the chances of many of the conditions that blight our species, then sure, why not, after all, one advantage we have over other animals is our ability to create - and that is what this advance would be doing, using our intelligence to make things better.

I am undecided, I can see the positives, and I can see the abuses.

You?

 

Wow. That's freaky. I was just about to start a thread asking about this very subject. I remember someone accusing liberals of favoring eugenics and I wanted to ask them precisely what they were talking about.

I'm not sure what the words "parents acting as consumers" means, in the above context.

So ... thinking that people should choose for themselves who they want to reproduce with, or what traits they think they should encourage in humanity? That's what people mean by 'liberal eugenics?' Like it's a bad thing?

I'm missing something, here.

 

Is it really that bad to make sure that we don't de-evolve as a species?

I know it's associated with genocide and all that but that isn't what eugenics is at all. I believe that it becomes bad when it's forced upon by the state.

 

Unfortunately Jack The word "Liberal" in the description does not mean what you think it does.

wiki:

 

Where in the opening post does he suggest it means that?

 

Eliminating genetic deseases = unquestionable good.

Shifting the genetic tendencies of an entire population = absurd.

It's really a pipe dream anyway. Let people tinker with their genes if they want, nature will show them the mistake of that in the end. In the end, societies that accept multiculturalism end up with individuals screwing enough random people that such fantasies will never be a reality.

 

They are really the same thing if "liberal eugenics" is to be widely available.

 

No they're not. People are much more willing to utilize genetic engineering to cure severe deficiencies than they are to engage in preferential selection of traits.

In the end, most people won't utilize any sort of genetic engineering on their children. Most people will do the same thing their parents did--screw some random person and have a child. Quite possibly by accident. At most people will just get screened for genetic issues to be aware of, and maybe some aggressive gene therapy to deal with devastating congenital diseases. I can't really see designer babies being anything but a passing fad.

If nothing else, a lot of people would probably be insulted by the idea that their genes aren't good enough and need fixing. People's egos will be enough to stop the worst abuses in most cases.

 

Curing severe deficiencies= shifting genetic traits of a population. But I understand what you're referring to.

I agree that not many people will probably go for it.

 

It would, at least to me, mean this.

Rather than leave it entirely down to random chance, parents would be able to select qualties that they found essential and/or desirable, in that child.

However, here is the thing.

There were a deaf couple that had a kid that was deaf.

They did that on purpose, they found a donor who was almost certain to give them a deaf child.

That is wrong, no?

 

Like I say, no science is evil or good, per se.

It is all in the application of it.

 

It is, and that is a shame.

The benefits are many.

That has been held back, due to said associations.

Wrong that they are.

 

Well, that's the thing. I'm not deaf, so I can't say.

 

You don't need to be deaf to see that to rob a baby of one of it's key senses, on purpose, is cruel.

Do you?

 

Well. I guess it's in how you look at it. They're not robbing a baby of one of its senses, they're actually working very hard to give it any existence, which it wouldn't have without them.

I've known some deaf people. They seemed to live lives as worthwhile as anyone's.

 

That there life is worthwhile is not in question.

What I do question are the ethics, or lack of, on purpose, ensuring the baby is deaf. I bet most deaf people wish they could hear.

I am sure that people can go on living a reasonable life in blind, or disabled as well, yet would it be ethical to artificallly ensure it?

 

I don't think it's the same kid, only they're making sure it's the deaf version. There's a kid that probably has normal hearing and a kid that probably doesn't, and they're choosing to give the probably deaf kid a life.

I love music. I would be heartbroken if I lost my sense of hearing. But I've also heard country music, and that usually makes me envy the deaf.

 

I don't mean a couple that chose to adopt a deaf kid, give them a chance!

A lesbian couple in the US have provoked strong criticism by deliberately choosing to have a deaf baby.

Sharon Duchesneau and Candy McCullough, who have both been deaf since birth, were turned down by a series of sperm banks they approached looking for a donor suffering from congenital deafness.

The couple, who have been together for eight years, then approached a family friend who was totally deaf, and had five generations of deafness in his family.

He donated sperm which was used to impregnate Sharon Duchesneau.

A hearing baby would be a blessing. A deaf baby would be a special blessing .

Baby Gauvin McCullough is now four-months-old, and has a slight amount of hearing in one ear.

The couple have said they will let him decide when he is older if he wants to wear a hearing aid.

The man has already donated sperm for the couple's five-year-old daughter Johanne, who is profoundly deaf and can only communicate through sign language.

Bonding

The women, both in their 30s, are part of a growing movement in the US which sees deafness as a cultural identity, not as a disability.

Many oppose surgery to correct deafness.

While she was pregnant, Ms Duchesneau said: "It would be nice to have a deaf child who is the same as us.

"I think that would be a wonderful experience.

"You know, if we can have that chance, why not take it?

"A hearing baby would be a blessing. A deaf baby would be a special blessing."

The women, from Bethesda, Maryland, are both mental health therapists and deaf therapists.

They told the Washington Post they believed they would make better parents to a deaf child, because they would be better able to guide them.

They say their choice is no different from choosing what gender the child would be.

Ms McCullough added: "Some people look at it like 'Oh my gosh, you shouldn't have a child who has a disability'.

"But you know, black people have harder lives. Why shouldn't people be able to go ahead and pick a black donor if that's what they want?

"They should have that option. They can feel related to that culture, still bonded with that culture."

Reaction

Stephen Rooney, spokesman for the British Deaf Association, told BBC News Online: "The real issue is not whether people are trying to design deaf babies, but how society currently denies deaf children to enjoy the same rights, responsibilities, opportunities and quality of life as everyone."


To deprive a baby of a natural faculty is unethical behaviour

Peter Garrett, LIFE

But the couple's decision has attracted fierce criticism.

Peter Garrett, research director for LIFE, told BBC News Online: "This is another example of reproductive technology running riot.

"To deprive a baby of a natural faculty is unethical behaviour."

He said the principle could be extended to deliberately having a baby which was blind, or a dwarf.

"We are saying no to deselecting a baby because it is deaf, and no to deliberately choosing to have a deaf baby."

But Dr Richard Nicholson, editor of the Bulletin of Medical Ethics, said: "This is an inevitable result of deciding that we allow people to have a choice over what sort of child they are going to produce."

Dr Vivienne Nathanson, head of science and ethics at the British Medical Association, said: "There are two sides. In general, is this a good or a bad thing.? I think most people would say it was a bad thing.

"But in this individual case, I think this is on the borderline of concern about the 'slippery slope' of designer babies."

Nancy Rarus, a member of staff at the US National Association for the Deaf said: "I can't understand why anybody would want to bring a disabled child into the world."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1916462.stm

 

It's really hard to tell much of anything since this technology isn't covered by any insurance group that I'm aware of. So the choice, for most people, isn't any moral issue of the "rightness" of it or even possible dangers. The choice turns out to be, like everything else in american healthcare, Can I afford it.
Pretty poor choices for the greatest nation in the world.

 

I think the idea that this lesbian couple deliberately tried to make a deaf baby is kind of crazy, but I don't think it should be illegal or prohibited. I'm sure there are plenty of straight deaf couples with a genetic basis for deafness who marry and have children. We don't try to say they shouldn't be allowed to have kids.

I think ultimately parents should have the right to determine their kid's genetic makeup. As the technology expands to make that possible, I don't want anyone else (*cough * cough * the government) trying to take that on for themselves.

 

I frame the question internationally, and not with specific ref to the US.

That maybe changes the dynamic a little.

 

Really?

I think it is pretty low to be honest.

Would you breed your dog to give birth to a litter of puppies that could not hear? It would be seen as cruel if you did, and this seems selfish and cruel to me.

Different were it the other way around, and they were eliminating the deafness.

 

While were on this subject I may as well pose a controversial question that might be seen as as "Nazi like" for some...

Would it be moral for the government to offer monetary/material incentive for people with low IQs or genetic defects to voluntarily be sterilized?

 

No.

For one thing, there are a lot of very good people who may not score especially high on an IQ test. There are lots of very evil people who would score very high on an IQ test. As such, it is no measure of a person, nor is it even a measure of what they contribute, to society, or as a family person.

Actually, I am with Howard Gardner, who believes that the IQ test itself is a piece of scientific measurement which belongs in the Dark Ages.

As for genetic defects, which precisely?

Some genetic defects(sic), are not especially undesirable or debilatating.

In cases of a high chance of a baby born (for example) blind, I would prefer to see it so that the odds on the baby being born blind could be decreased, to almost zero, if possible. However, no, I would not incentify someone with a genetic disorder of some sort to not have children.

 

I have often talked about groups on this forum that are seeking "utopia". Communists, socialist, progressives, and many others, all have their own little slant, on what the perfect society would be. A place where no one suffers, or goes hungry. Where everyone is productive and useful.

The fatal flaw in all of those dreams is that utopia cannot exist, because it would take perfect people to run them. People that are completely incorruptible, non physically or mentally handicapped (everyone must work), and everyone must be of a "greater intelligence" (or so they would tell you) then what is currently found in the general population. One group finally got around to the idea, that rather then trying to educate people, who in their minds were just woefully "un-educatable", they proposed the idea of just breeding better people.

These were the eugenists. And it is not confined to the Nazis, they were just the most visible proponents of it . This is one of the reasons why I always say to beware people that believe in utopia. Because once you believe that a perfect society is possible, then in you mind almost anything might suddenly become justifiable to achieving that goal. I mean really.... what trumps utopia?