NWR: genetic selection

louisvillebride21

Right now, that's where doctors discretion comes in. Legislation really, really needs to catch up with these developments.

thesportsgal21

Personally, I don't think I would ever do IVF. I've always wanted to adopt at least one child. And I'm terrified of getting pregnant with 6 kids at once. And I don't want my husband to leave me for a 22 year old and go parading around in ed hardy tees.

[Deleted User]

As far as IVF and picking out the best embroys. I get thatreally lynda? you get that? but you just said this:Just let nature takes it's course. does not compute.

mwhitson14

Sorry y'all I went over to the dark side for a minute. I personally am not a fan of genetic selection, but I also am not a fan of IVF. There are far too many babies that need to be adopted.

mocha beans

I'm on the fence about trait selection.  And since I just watched a Law and Order SVU episode about a woman who murdered her son with TaySach's, it's on my mind.I think that selecting for genetic disorders, or not selecting as would actually be the case, is a dicey thing.  For one, with the way technology is advancing, many of the genetic diseases that people have may be curable, or at least more livable, in the future, maybe not the very far future.  If you remove an embryo or abort a fetus that have a genetic disease, how would you feel if in 5 years, a cure is found?Secondly, we aren't god or mother nature.  On the grand scheme of things, I'm not confident enough in modern science's ability to mess with genes and not inadvertently screw something else up.  Don't get me wrong, we're pretty damn smart compared to where we once were, but every new discovery opens up even more questions.  Personally, I would prefer to just not mess around much with something that mother nature has spent billions of years perfecting, and still is.Thirdly, what about the possible societal implications, like Gattaca as mentioned?  You can select for any number of traits suddenly, but what if some are more expensive?  Like intelligence, or athletic ability.  Over the generations, you're going to have the preselected, elite class, born with silver genes.  No trust fund baby could top that advantage, IMO.  We'll wind up with a huge societal gap between the "naturals", and the different degrees of "selecteds", some with more advantages than others.  It's an interesting philosophical question of whether we are advanced enough as a species to not use such abilities to advance some segments over others, or whether we'd treat it like money and hoard the good genes to increase our familial genetic fortunes.

LP11509

Navy - that's funny.  The idea of me trying to learn Japanese is definitely laughable. Louis - I wouldn't have genetic selection done to make my baby deaf.  But FI and I have talked about maybe trying to adopt a deaf baby in the future.Ciaram - it IS hard to keep up with.  hope you're able to get back into it in the future!

tlv204

I can see couples doing IVF soley for the genetic selection and not because they can not conceive naturally. This is what terrifies me. Society freaks me out enough right now and I think 75% of people I meet need to be knocked down a few pegs and think too highly of themselves. If all of the wealthy people in the world can suddenly play God even more than they do now, people will think there's not anything they can't control, which I think just leads to terrible people. (not everyone who does IVF or anything like this, I'm just making a generalization about the kind of people that would pay to do this for no reason)Also, off topic, DH was telling me the other day that someone has developed a missile thing that can control evaporated water so well that it may be used in St. Louis to control precipitation. However, thanks to DH's bad story telling skills, he tends to leave out important details, like his source, and for all I know he could have completely made it up

louisvillebride21

Very good points, Mocha. It really is a slippery, yet fascinating slope. But if you're going to play the God card, would He have given us this knowledge, ability to do the things we're able to do? I really don't know how I feel about this. I think I'm for selecting for health issues, a little less with gender and not at all with trait selection.

tlv204

Thirdly, what about the possible societal implications, like Gattaca as mentioned? You can select for any number of traits suddenly, but what if some are more expensive? Like intelligence, or athletic ability. Over the generations, you're going to have the preselected, elite class, born with silver genes. No trust fund baby could top that advantage, IMO. We'll wind up with a huge societal gap between the "naturals", and the different degrees of "selecteds", some with more advantages than others. It's an interesting philosophical question of whether we are advanced enough as a species to not use such abilities to advance some segments over others, or whether we'd treat it like money and hoard the good genes to increase our familial genetic fortunes. That's exactly what I'm worried about. CREEPY.

lyndausvi

Sorry for the confussion. I get that if you choose to go the IVF route for infertilty than it makes the most sense to pick out the healthest embryo that would make it through a pregnancy. Why put in an embryo that is unhealthy and might miscarry (natures way of aborting a unhealthy child).  Outside of picking one that can go full term.  I do not get excluding an embryo simply because it might have a gene that may cause a disease 50 years from now.  In 50 years that 'bad' gene might not be even be an issue.

mocha beans

I think genetic selection would be awesome; we could really improve the species, eliminate all those genetic diseases, give predisposed disease resistance, select for qualities that are better suited for different environments, ect.  But it is such a slippery slope, I don't think we're mature enough as a society to handle it well.Another thing, we genetically alter our food and seeds all the time, and the companies that do the altering actually own patents on the genetic structures that they create by altering a living cell.  So, could that be extrapolated to people's genetic code?  You have Great Big Healthcare create a genetic code that you then have implanted to make baby Tommy.  Well, since GBH created the code, do they own Tommy because they own the patent on his code?  THAT is terrifying, given the behavior of most of corporate America.  I have no doubt some well paid attorney could get a positive outcome in that lawsuit.

panda&squishy

[i]Outside of picking one that can go full term. I do not get excluding an embryo simply because it might have a gene that may cause a disease 50 years from now. In 50 years that 'bad' gene might not be even be an issue. [/i] But in 50 years the "bad" gene might still be an issue, there's no way to know what medical advance will have been made by then. And if it's something that can real affect quality of life, like MS for example, why no just choose the embryo that doesn't have that gene if you're already in there?

louisvillebride21

I see, well, the things they are testing for now (mainly Tay Sachs (sp?)) are guaranteed to get for the most part. I believe it is a recessive gene carried by the father and some women also have the recessive gene. So if they are to have a male child, the chances of it having it are very great. And not 50 years from now, right at birth.

louisvillebride21

Sorry, it manifests itself around 3-5 months old. It is also prominent in certain ethnic groups.

[Deleted User]

lynda - what i'm asking is this: how can you be in favor of, or accepting of, any aspect of ivf, if you believe that nature should take its course?

aierardi

That's SO wrong!! There are so many health problems that can go along with dwarfism other than height...I really don't see much of a difference between purposefully subjecting your child to that and choosing to smoke crack when you're pregnant. They're both detrimental to the baby's health.... and you're doing it for your own selfish reasons!! Why not just love the child the way it is?!

Bippy

Bad, bad, very bad.

mocha beans

What about Stephen Hawking and his ALS?  What if his parents had had the ability to test and screen out the embryos with ALS, and had?  We'd likely be a lot further back in astrophysics.  Insert any other variables, and we could end up doing more damage to our future than we know.

Bippy

And, I totally get what you're saying, Jill.

jamm2019

I agree.  I think the Dr. made the correct decision.  I think nature should just take it's course.

TurtlesAllTheWayDown

why do you have a problem picking eye color? It doesn't hurt anyone, one way or the other. FI has beautiful blue eyes and I would love for our kids to have that eye color.Well I'd also love for my kids to have FI's blue eyes, but I'll take my chances. Also, this all costs money. IVF without any tests, really, costs money. Amnio tests cost money. What about those who want to get pregnant naturally or don't have money to have their babies tested and designed? Eventually we'll end up with a huge rich/poor disparity - only the rich will actually have better physical traits, like much higher intelligence and above-average athletic skills, not JUST more money. It would be like creating a super-race. And I have heard of other people who have the same concerns as LP. Who's to say that being deaf, or having red hair, or even Down Syndrome are something to be culled out of the population? Do those people have less worth?I also am against IVF, or at least uncomfortable with it for myself, FWIW.