I'm not so sure...

[Closet Desire]

...about the "same sex" thing.

Some of the most disturbing things I've seen about genetic manipulation involved hetero couples with ulterior motives such as the recent case in which a child was designed to be a compatible tissue donor for sibling with a terminal genetic disorder.

It doesn't sound like a lot of "science" was involved in this one. It had predictable results as is often the case with hetero couples who are genetically deaf. Casting aside artificial means don't we all engage in bit of choosing what our children will be like? By and large people couple with people of similar culture, social standing, and heritage. I'm sure this has to do with deeply seated desires that attract us to one person over another.

Personally I am a bit put off by deliberately conceiving a child who will be disadvantaged or have a "cultural identity" (a rose by another other name), but maybe we shouldn't be so quick to condemn. After all, there are lots of children who are disadvantaged by a lack of love and committment from their parents for a multitude of reasons.

 

[Zamdrist]

Personally I am a bit put off by deliberately conceiving a child who will be disadvantaged or have a "cultural identity" (a rose by another other name), but maybe we shouldn't be so quick to condemn. After all, there are lots of children who are disadvantaged by a lack of love and committment from their parents for a multitude of reasons.

After mulling this around in my head overnight my position softened on this issue some. After all, had the child be natually concieved deaf, I thought, was a blessing for those two.

But nevertheless, I don't think it's too much of a leap to expect that people come by their disabilities honestly.

I'm not at all religious, I don't go to church, In fact I'm an unbeliever. But I can't help believing that God would look down and frown on this.

 

[Closet Desire]

Bizarre...

...clicked reply to post ended up with a new thread...sorry to all those who are confused. I sure am.

 

[Ishmael]

...about the "same sex" thing.

Some of the most disturbing things I've seen about genetic manipulation involved hetero couples with ulterior motives such as the recent case in which a child was designed to be a compatible tissue donor for sibling with a terminal genetic disorder.

It doesn't sound like a lot of "science" was involved in this one. It had predictable results as is often the case with hetero couples who are genetically deaf. Casting aside artificial means don't we all engage in bit of choosing what our children will be like? By and large people couple with people of similar culture, social standing, and heritage. I'm sure this has to do with deeply seated desires that attract us to one person over another.

Personally I am a bit put off by deliberately conceiving a child who will be disadvantaged or have a "cultural identity" (a rose by another other name), but maybe we shouldn't be so quick to condemn. After all, there are lots of children who are disadvantaged by a lack of love and committment from their parents for a multitude of reasons.

First of all, I'm glad that this issue got it's own thread.

I wish that the root article had not gone on about the 'parents' being a lesbian couple. I'm not all that concerned about the 'parents' sexual orientation.

I see two issues with regard to the child. THe first being that they have purposely selected for a genetic handicap, deafness. And that they have steadfastly stated that the child will NOT be allowed to take advantage of any scientific means to correct the problem, ie cochlear implants.

To the first issue. In a random birth as might be encountered in the natural scenario there is always a chance for genetic defects to creep in. We are all well aware of this. However, this is a case where the defect was purposely selected for. Do the 'parents' have the moral right to do this? More importantly, does the medical profession have the moral right to give in to the 'parents' wishes? While the deaf may take a positive attitude and look at their affliction as a 'blessing', it still remains a handicap. Enough so that those that are hearing impaired qualify for government subsidies. As a society do we want people to purposely select for children that will be born feeding at the public trough? And does this constitute a form of pre-conception child abuse? I can't help but wonder how couples that have terminated a WANTED pregnancy because of the detection of a serious genetic defect feel about this.

The second issue relates to the post partem treatment of the child. Once again, do we have a case of child abuse? Assuming that this is a correctable defect, and the article implies that it is in this case, are the parents purposely handicapping the child to satify their own views of the world? In a free society, I can envision no law that we would want to pass to force the parents to take advantage of the corrective measures. That is just another step on the road to complete governmental intervention in the raising of our children. But just what does this say about the parents and their parenting abilities? And should the government be forced to subsidize a child that has been purposely handicapped by the parents. I agree that the child is not at fault, but it still remains that the handicap is correctable. Is it reasonable for the government to require that the parents make every effort to do so before the child qualifies for the public dole?

Just some thoughts and questions.

Ishmael

 

[Cheyenne]

Back to the original thread...

http://www.literotica.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=76491


The article being discussed and original comments are at the thread above for anyone interested.