Wanting Babies Like Them, Parents Choose Genetic Defects

I am sorry, but that is one of the dumbest thing that I have ever heard in a long time. Every time a woman becomes pregnant, it is a crapshoot, but there is nothing much that can be done about that. It is true, that if a woman has an amnio, and finds that the fetus has a severe defect, it is her perogative to abort the pregnancy.

To PURPOSELY attempt to create a child with a defect,is, IMO, the height of stupidity.



Rich, shared culture???? It is a tragedy when children are born into this world with a severe defect. If you give birth to a child with a disability, and you are a decent person, of course you will love and nurture him/her. But to actually choose to produce a defective child??? I think that the entire concept quoted above is political correctness, gone beserk!!!

We-e-llll...

I haven't finished reading the article (I started to, in the paper), because it was pissing me off (for opposite reasons than the ones stated here). Will finish it and come back here later.

This is where I stopped reading (for now):



"Mostly deaf" is a meaningless phrase. Is he deaf or not? If he's deaf, then hearing aids won't necessarily help him. I am deaf and don't wear them, because they're useless for me. "Withholding" overlays a value judgment that is not upheld by what little facts are provided.

It's phrased in such a way that it would naturally elicit a shocked and scandalized response -- "those evil parents!" But from what little information is given (when actual facts are looked at without sensationalistic language), it could easily be that they're making the most responsible choice for their son.

This is shoddy reporting.

Note, that's separate from whether I think people should do this. Mostly, no. But this reads like something from the National Enquirer. A bit of nuance and context, please.

I fully stand behind parents who would like their children to become midgets.

The more midgets in this world, the more tv shows about the sad, sexless lives midgets lead, which means more porno for me. And by porno, I mean tv shows about midgets.

OK so the rest of the article was actually better. (And the guy is a doctor who writes, not a journalist per se.)

I certainly agree with this:



I think this is an interesting question, not sure how to formulate my stance. I'm not against genetic testing and selection as a concept -- when it would prevent really severe/ painful disabilities, for example. The eye-color-type stuff worries me even if it's basically harmless. Sex selection (which is not uncommon) worries me more. So as a continuum with those things, selection for disability bothers me, but I do think that there are aspects (for Deafness particularly) that are rarely fully understood. For example, would selection for hearing -- not allowing any Deaf babies to be born -- necessarily be a good thing? How do you feel about it if it's extended to gay people -- if a gene is found and no babies with the gay gene were allowed to be born? Gayness was very recently (and in some quarters still is) thought to be every bit as much of a defect as deafness.

Anyway, that's a bit far afield and nobody has to answer, but it is some of what I have in the back of my mind as I read the article.

I imagine this will be an evolving esthetic.

Some genetics will be deemed undesirable: cystic fibrosis, tay sachs, sicle cell, etc.

Some genetics will no doubt be deemed desireable, and some will fall into a middle ground. Sex selection, for example, will probably even out eventually.

As for dwarfism or deafness, neither of these is necessary a barrier to reproduction. I can't speak to the quality of life issues on these, however.

For myself, I would not choose for my children to have poor vision or color deficiency. Both have been a hassle.

One of my special needs kids hopes to have a "brain damaged child because they're so cute."