Eugenics, genetics, your kids and mine...

[futurebird.livejournal.com]

An important question looming on the horizon is: "to what extent can couples determine the genetic make-up of their kids."

I have a simple answer: "It's not evil eugenics if a majority of those with the genetic trait advocate helping future children avoid it. "


For example, I'm quite short, this has not really had a positive impact on my life my husband is tall and I'd be quite happy to let his genes take over the whole height thing. I'd have a similar feeling were I abnormally tall. On the other hand it'd make me angry if someone ruled out darker skin for our child, that'd be cowing to the pressure of racism, I think ... and creepy. (dark skin also protects one from skin cancers and painful sunburns) I don't envy the lengths my husband must go to avoid getting burned. My husband has often been quite cheerful about the prospect of his kids not having a hard time with the sun as he has.

So, I think the solution is to ask people who have these traits if they *want* them passed on or not. In that sense, maybe the "looming question" isn't so big-- most couples will naturally want persevere human diversity, but will not have much interest in saving traits that just make life more difficult.

But of course things are not that simple. Many black folks (for example) might have chosen lighter skin (and some might do so today) to protect their child from racism. I find this depressing and my instinct is to find a way to prevent it. But, should the state have any place in such choices?

There are lots of people who would quickly choose to reduce the chance of their child being gay (I doubt being gay is as simple as a single gene, so mercifully it may not be possible to tamper with this without tampering with other traits) --on the one hand, maybe it's good that gay kids don't end up being born to intolerant people, on the other, there are enough intolerant people that, if the genetics of sexuality were simple enough, we'd probably see a sharp decine in the gay population. I think this is really depressing.

Now I treated the height issue like it was simple, but there are probably some short people who feel differently.

I think we could come up with reasonable laws by asking those who have a given gene what they think about people selecting for it or against it.

And now for a incomplete poll:


[Poll #1768916]

PS. Here is a great documentary that relates to these questions.

Comments

[yelena-r0ssini.livejournal.com]

There are many Deaf people who feel that deafness is a culture, as much as or more than an impairment. Are they wrong? Should presumption of their wrongness force them to have children with whom they can't effectively relate and communicate?

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

I don't care what they feel. It's great that they're able to live normal lives and accomplish so much with their disability, but it's not something that a kid deserves to deal with for the rest of their lives just because a parent wants to relate to them. It's extremely selfish.

[not-hothead-yet.livejournal.com]

love that argument.

cuz yeah the only reason people should have kids is because they want to make the world a better place. Of course only certain specific people of a certain background and educational level and blah blah blah privilege privilege privilege should be the ones to decide what that means in fact lets just start making committees to decide who is WORTHY of having kids at all. Then they can elect the committee to decide which kids should be allowed to live and which shouldn't. Cuz anything else is SELFISH

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

Going into a womb and destroying a child's ability to hear is child abuse and mutilation. I don't care how noble their reasons seem for it, being deaf is a disability, not a choice.

Nice job putting up several consecutive straw men though. I bet a little imagined moral outrage felt good for you.

who's strawman?

[not-hothead-yet.livejournal.com]

who said anything about mutilation? Oh yeah, that'd be YOU. Moral outrage? Oh wait, that was you again.

Re: who's strawman?

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

You were the one claiming that I want to decide who should and shouldn't have kids.

[yelena-r0ssini.livejournal.com]

But who's talking about going in and destroying something that's already there, let alone mutilation? I was talking about SELECTING for deafness, either by embryo selection during IVF or perhaps, as technology advances, by making sure certain genes are activated or inactivated as the case may be.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

That's mutilation. Just at a much earlier stage. Whether you're chopping someone's ear off in the womb or augmenting their genes to make sure they don't grow one, there's fundamentally no difference.

here's a tip

[not-hothead-yet.livejournal.com]

people don't have children because they are concerned about what other people like you think about them and their motives. so you might as well get over yourself.

to put it simply

[not-hothead-yet.livejournal.com]

LICK MY DOLLAH

Re: here's a tip

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

Most people who have children aren't actually capable of raising them. At least in America. Appealing to the status quo does not an argument make.

Re: here's a tip

[not-hothead-yet.livejournal.com]

glad to hear your personal assessment. Thanks for sharing. When time comes to pick the committee members for privileging parenthood, we'll call you.

Re: here's a tip

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

Thanks for the hyperbolic leap of logic.

[yelena-r0ssini.livejournal.com]

I don't care what they feel.

Then that's pretty fucked up of you. One would think you'd pay attention to what the people who actually live with the condition think of it, instead of passing your own condescending judgments about the quality of their lives.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

Sorry, I don't support child abuse no matter how noble the reasons sound.