Silent0n3_1 t1_jeadbvq wrote
Does anyone commenting here have kids? Genuine question.
Let's say a number of embryos and their prospective parents had the ability to lessen the chance of a debilitating disease of the one chosen for fertilization. By making that choice, is that equivalent to increasing the likelihood of the flourishing of another human being?
If, once in the throes of an opioid induced overdose, does it remove the personal choice and individuality of the victim, who has a percentage chance of recovering "naturally", to apply a Narcan treatment to reverse the effects? Does it affect the outcome of future human evolution to choose to treat that person?
It smacks of pro-life "It's God's will" arguments then paired with the naturalistic fallacy of "violating genetic evolution" to say no in these scenarios. Wearing glasses for short sightedness is a violation of genetic evolution. If you wear them, you should be dead from a predator already and not be able to have kids. Does anyone here wear glasses or contacts?
The argument of "insidious capitalism" is the tool that will lead to the Gattaca scenario is drivel as well. Will there be unscrupulous actors? Yes. In every system, in every environment, capitalist, socialist, communist, etc. there are always bad actors. In Soviet Russia, athletes were routinely doped, and it was state sponsored by a communist regime. So much for capitalism being the only source of evil. At least you are given the choice rather than having the state choose for you.
I have had friends who went through the process on this very subject, and none of the drivel brought up was ever a part of the process or even a concern. The parents knew it was only a probabilistic decrease of their health concerns and not a guarantee. They also knew that of the 2 kids they had with it, one was a "better quality" embryo than another. Both kids were born anyway and are enjoying a happy family life. The "better quality" embryo is in more trouble on a daily basis than his brother. Go figure.
If I had the choice to screen my future possible embryos as a choice I would do so because I have also seen what it is like to have a child born with a debilitating genetic disease, and if a choice could be made prior, or the risks lowered, it is a no brainer when presented with the reality of that choice. From the child suffering in the hospital treatments and anguish of the parents seeing their child suffering while it is happening, to the economic consequences of the entire family losing the college money of siblings to afford the treatments for the afflicted child. If these arguments were to be believed, the family would not give these treatments because "Gattaca!" bs. But they do, because we're human and love our children regardless.
How about posing this way - if you had the choice of possibly lessening the suffering of other human beings through knowledge, would you deny yourself that choice? Would you just say, "meh, that's nature for you" to just roll the dice without trying to get a better outcome?
And then, if you could lessen the possibility of your own child suffering through knowledge, would you choose to do so? Or would you just say "I'll roll the dice, because if my child suffers, that's God's plan."
TuvixWasMurderedR1P t1_jeb91yd wrote
I don’t see why the Gattaca/eugenics parallels are “drivel.”
Put yourself in that Rawlsian “veil of ignorance.”
Pretend you’re a disembodied soul and can end up absolutely anywhere in the world, and in any body. Now what if you’re the one with a debilitating disease, or you’re the parent to the child with one, and you’re too poor to access this service.
Or let’s say you were born already several generations into this gigantic social experiment, but you happen to belong to a line of people who had been “left behind” by this technology, as it were. What are the real implications for living as a member of that biological underclass?
Are those lives that can sincerely said to be better off because of this?
Why is being critical of this technology “rolling the dice,” but its uncritical embrace is somehow not also a gamble?
Shield_Lyger t1_jebj3h8 wrote
> Pretend you’re a disembodied soul and can end up absolutely anywhere in the world, and in any body. Now what if you’re the one with a debilitating disease, or you’re the parent to the child with one, and you’re too poor to access this service.
Then you're in the same situation that you would be in if the service had never been created. The presumption that no lives should be improved unless all lives are improved strikes me as vapid. Ridding the world of opportunity is not a good solution to the problem of opportunity hoarding.
Silent0n3_1 t1_jebhw1o wrote
I don't have to pretend. A member of my family has a child with a debilitating disease, and she goes through hell while in the hospital with him. We all still love him and support her as much as we can while watching both of them go through hell. That's what most families do. I have no idea what the wandering soul parable has to do with anything that touches real lives other than to obfuscate with abstraction.
As far as being "left behind," yes, that is less ideal as we extrapolate in time the effects when compared to the group lucky enough to have first access vs those who don't. But that is also just empty moral finger wagging.
To condemn those who were able to take the first doses of antibiotics or vaccines that became available as "unethical" because there were groups in other countries that didn't have them available at the same exact time is empty of any real criticism. Maybe to deny them access is what you mean. That would be immoral.
The hope, I would think, is that this technology is allowed to grow and become more cost efficient so that, one day hopefully sooner rather than later, those "left behind" will also be able to have the choice to engage with this technology. That it is cheaper, safer, more effective, and thus able to become more widespread.
Also, note the wording of "choice." The choice to engage or not. Just like vaccines, who have plenty of superior moral fingers wagging at the perceived opposition in regards to the existence and utilization of that technology.
Do we regret my family experience? No. He is a gem that we love and care for. But if we could even just lower the possibility of it happening to others in the future? Then unequivocally, the answer is yes.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments