Genetic Testing and choice

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-11-2008
Genetic Testing and choice
49
Sat, 01-26-2008 - 9:51pm

With genetic testing and posible engineering seeming more and more the reality of our near future, many believe that screening/engineering for disease, sexual orientation and gender will become common place.

 "Pascal's Wager," which states that believing in God costs you nothing if you're wrong, and wins you everything if you're right.

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-03-2007
Sat, 01-26-2008 - 11:50pm

...and how different would that be from IVF couples who create 8 blastocysts, find the one that is male or not carrying the disease, or whatever else they wanted, implanting that one, and discarding the rest?

Hmm. Ideally, I think it's wrong to abort based on sex, orientation, hair color, etc.

I think that in this country, a woman would have a hard time finding a physician willing to abort on the basis of sex, etc. I can also see that this would be difficult to legislate, so it would have to be the kind of moral stance we trust the physician with.

Another argument: since we know from global data that criminalization of abortion does absolutely nothing to prevent it, it is likely that the woman intent on aborting any male fetuses would find a way to get it done, legal or not. And if that's so, might as well make it controlled and safe (and provide the opportunity to get that woman some mental health screening and support).

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-11-2008
Sun, 01-27-2008 - 12:01am

I have a hard time with people creating fertilized eggs only to destry them once they pick and choose the one that they want.

 "Pascal's Wager," which states that believing in God costs you nothing if you're wrong, and wins you everything if you're right.

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-17-2007
Sun, 01-27-2008 - 12:48am

"As far as criminizing abortion not preventing it - there are many things detered by their illegality. Many women who would abort would not if it were not a legal option. Many would have and keep the child or adopt out the child. Many would also become more devout regarding birth control and prevention. Would that not make sense?"

Unless you define life as beginning at conception (as certain presidential candidates would like), which would eliminate a very large number of contraceptive forms- IUD's and Mirena, the pill in all its forms (because it could possibly stop a fertilized egg from implanting), and probably some others that I haven't yet thought of.

I remember reading a study that showed the numbers of abortions in the U.S. prior to 1973. I don't know how credible it is, but this is the best I've got on this subject.

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/graphusabrate.html

The numbers, yes, were lower, but that's before you consider the fact that the only ones that were recorded were the ones that were either prosecuted (abortion provider got caught) or had a terrible result (e.g. woman died from a botched abortion).

I did some research for this post and found an interesting study done by the Guttmacher Institute, which I have attached here. There is an interesting table that shows the dramatic increase in the number of abortion-related deaths in Romania between 1965-1990, when abortion was outlawed.

That said, I think that abortion based on gender is abhorrent. But I don't think outlawing it solves the problem. If you make it illegal in China, people will just go back to what they did for the last hundred years prior to amniocentesis and ultrasound- either kill the child at birth or leave them abandoned on an orphanage doorstep. I consider myself a radical feminist (radical coming from the word "radix," which means root), which means that I feel you must get at the root of the problem in order to fix it. Making abortion illegal in China is not going to solve the cultural misogyny that is running rampant there. Like the U.S., you must address why people do what they do in order to get them to change their behavior for the better.




Powered by CGISpy.com


Thanks

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-17-2006
Sun, 01-27-2008 - 1:22am

~Are PC women, who are PRO WOMAN, really ok with girls being aborted because parents want a boy?

 

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-15-2006
Sun, 01-27-2008 - 10:19am

As wobbit said:

"...and how different would that be from IVF couples who create 8 blastocysts, find the one that is male or not carrying the disease, or whatever else they wanted, implanting that one, and discarding the rest?"

I don't think this is any different than what is already being done now.

And no, angil, I'm not okay with it. There are many immoral or ethically poor choices that people make, but I'm not charged with purifying them and making them follow my morals. That is utterly impossible.

If abortion is available for rape, but not for someone who wants to abort due to gender that person could simply lie and say it was because they were raped. Then what? Do we force them to go through a 12 hours long session with a therapist to see if they think she "really was" raped or make them take a polygraph? When does the investigating end? And what kind of additional pain and trauma would this impose on women who really were raped?

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket
Photobucket 

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-10-2003
Sun, 01-27-2008 - 10:28am

It's a case of "Nuniya" : None of you (or my) business. I doubt I would "approve" of many reasons for abortion- and prolly many MORE people have when they GET pregnant and decide to continue it, LOL. But as long as the abortion are not taking placing after 24 weeks, I don't need, nor do I want, to know the reasons. It's a case of each PERSON either crossing their line of ethics or not.
.
.
.




Edited 1/27/2008 10:32 am ET by erosia_raunch
iVillage Member
Registered: 05-09-2007
Sun, 01-27-2008 - 10:41am

<

 

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-11-2008
Sun, 01-27-2008 - 11:06am

What is Nunyia?


So selective termination over posible homosexuality, sex or predisposition to future illness = NOT the health or well being of the mother in any way - are perfectly acceptable reasons to terminate life?

 "Pascal's Wager," which states that believing in God costs you nothing if you're wrong, and wins you everything if you're right.

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-31-2004
Sun, 01-27-2008 - 11:29am

I do not consider it moral to screen based on anything but serious health issues.

ETA: that doesn't mean I'd make it illegal.




Edited 1/27/2008 11:32 am ET by lianne_67
baby siggy
iVillage Member
Registered: 01-25-2008
Sun, 01-27-2008 - 11:45am
Hell no!!

Pages