ChatterBank1 min ago
Birth screening
10 Answers
Imagine a future (and forget the science on this one) where it is possible for parents to screen their unborn children to the extent that any genetically linked /pre-disposed physical or behavioural trait that would likely to come about, should the fetus survive, is known.
If the purpose was to screen for 'defects', classified as "any impediment on an organisms ability to survive and procreate" -and such cases as down syndrome and MS which are tested for now would be covered, would it be logical to include homosexuality on the list?
I.e. The debate at it's heart, is, could homosexuaility be termed a genetic flaw, based on the argument that* an individual would be less likely to survive (in some contexts), but more imporantly, pass on its genes?
And we're assuming here that sexual orientation is at least partially as a result of natual predisposistion as opposed to entirely 'nuture'
If the purpose was to screen for 'defects', classified as "any impediment on an organisms ability to survive and procreate" -and such cases as down syndrome and MS which are tested for now would be covered, would it be logical to include homosexuality on the list?
I.e. The debate at it's heart, is, could homosexuaility be termed a genetic flaw, based on the argument that* an individual would be less likely to survive (in some contexts), but more imporantly, pass on its genes?
And we're assuming here that sexual orientation is at least partially as a result of natual predisposistion as opposed to entirely 'nuture'
Answers
1 to 10 of 10
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by dash_zero. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
It would not be necessary to include homosexuality as it is screened naturally anyway. Now I know I'm probably going to incourage hysterics here but in the normal course of events in the animal kingdom, the gay genes would not be passed on, ie effectively becomming an evolutionary cul de sac. The same is true in humankind as long as the genes are not passed on. No one is saying homosexuality is somehow a defect, just that from an evolutionary point of view that path is a dead end. Animals born with dodgy eyesight get eaten, those born gay do not mate. Just natures way of blocking progress down that path in both the aforementioned examples.
Hand on heart I couldn't honestly say that if there was a way of testing kids for any kind of disibility early in to the pregnancy that I wouldn't do it and indeed possibly terminiate it if the news wasn't good. But then I'm not exactly maternal so that's hardly suprising.
As to the homosexuality aspect, well again, I don't look on that as a disibility or a genetic flaw so it's not something I'd have on my list of things to worry about.
As to the homosexuality aspect, well again, I don't look on that as a disibility or a genetic flaw so it's not something I'd have on my list of things to worry about.
I totally agree with you all in that I don't in any way see homosexuality as a flaw.
The question was more aimed at testing, for those who would consider abortion for something such as Downs, to what level they would prepared to terminate a life if it would not result in their perceived ideal child.
The question was more aimed at testing, for those who would consider abortion for something such as Downs, to what level they would prepared to terminate a life if it would not result in their perceived ideal child.
I think then you may have chosen a poor example, because you've opened up a whole can of worms about whethere people can have a genetic predisposition to homosexuality.
I think in fact they probably can - I know there's the over simplified view above that any homosexual gene would remove itself from the population but I think that's just from people having a simplistic view of genetics.
And nobody gay ever had children did they?
A more interesting case would be a non reversable disfigurement perhaps something like a skin disorder which not life threatening and only threatens the ability to reproduce in terms of finding a partner.
For those of us who don't see a fertilised egg as a life this, like many moral questions is always a case of drawing a line over a continuum.
By your definition abortion would be OK for a boy who'd be born with no testicles but not for a girl with one arm.
And then there's the time limit question.
It's very complex and I can understand those who want to take the simple view and just oppose it completely- but I do think that's a cop out
After all as Germaine Greer once pointed out if every fertilised egg is a life, how many women bless their used sanatary towels? (sorry if it's a bit early for that)
I think in fact they probably can - I know there's the over simplified view above that any homosexual gene would remove itself from the population but I think that's just from people having a simplistic view of genetics.
And nobody gay ever had children did they?
A more interesting case would be a non reversable disfigurement perhaps something like a skin disorder which not life threatening and only threatens the ability to reproduce in terms of finding a partner.
For those of us who don't see a fertilised egg as a life this, like many moral questions is always a case of drawing a line over a continuum.
By your definition abortion would be OK for a boy who'd be born with no testicles but not for a girl with one arm.
And then there's the time limit question.
It's very complex and I can understand those who want to take the simple view and just oppose it completely- but I do think that's a cop out
After all as Germaine Greer once pointed out if every fertilised egg is a life, how many women bless their used sanatary towels? (sorry if it's a bit early for that)
Jake put it way better than I did but I have to agree with everything he said.
On a personal level, if there was a way then yes, I'd probably do it and terminate the pregnancy as well when it comes to severe disibilities. I'm selfish, I make no apologies for it.
But the problem comes with what is a severe disibility? You can make a list of likely candidates but it's subjective to the opinions of individuals. A disfigurement? Missing a limb? Mental disibility? One of the senses not working? As far as I can tell there's no way to quantify it.
On a personal level, if there was a way then yes, I'd probably do it and terminate the pregnancy as well when it comes to severe disibilities. I'm selfish, I make no apologies for it.
But the problem comes with what is a severe disibility? You can make a list of likely candidates but it's subjective to the opinions of individuals. A disfigurement? Missing a limb? Mental disibility? One of the senses not working? As far as I can tell there's no way to quantify it.
Jake's right on the homosexuality example used being not the best, and the question on whether there is a gentic predisopsition for this is an interesting one (I think there is).
If an argument was used that screening could be done only for any characteristic that might impede in procreation, it is, as China Doll, said, impossible to quantify. A girl born with one arm, could be argued to have reduced her ability to attract a mate.
Any any case, it's kind of scary to imagine a future where parents could create their absoulte designer baby, and what that might be...
If an argument was used that screening could be done only for any characteristic that might impede in procreation, it is, as China Doll, said, impossible to quantify. A girl born with one arm, could be argued to have reduced her ability to attract a mate.
Any any case, it's kind of scary to imagine a future where parents could create their absoulte designer baby, and what that might be...
1 to 10 of 10
