Hacker News Reader

Comment by kulahan | Hacker News Reader

Because it's a form of eugenics, however far down the spectrum it may be.

edit: I mean to imply here that the overton window is shifted, basically.

Correcting what is essentially a developmental defect (albeit a defect that occurs in the germ cells rather than in the womb) isn't eugenics. It's not caused by any genes carried by the parents, it's caused by a failure in the development process, specifically meiosis. Would preventing fetal alcohol syndrome be eugenics? It's caused by changes in gene expression from alcohol exposure after all.

Using a loaded term such as "defect" is exactly eugenics sophistry.

Is "birth defect" a eugenically-charged word? I've never heard it used in such a manner, just as a matter of fact.

don't seriously engage with people who would rather morally grandstand and tone police than have important conversations

Stating something is sophistry is not tone policing. Pointless to explain this to those who lack critical thinking skills in the first place. Rather, it is you who are doing the policing from a self-assured conservativism so common to the HN crowd, it is time someone pointed this out. There's no good faith engagement under such a context.

If you want to call it an error, or simply a change, I'm happy to make the argument on those terms. Changes in the development process that leave a child disabled for life, but which can be prevented, such as FAS through alcohol abstinence, spina bifida through folic acid intake, and (if this research can be translated into a treatment) Down Syndrome through the targeted removal of the superfluous chromosome, should be prevented. And don't tell me kids with these conditions aren't disabled, because that dog won't hunt.

None of your arguments fly. Try to think like an programmer--kick the corner case of the arguments. I'm not suggesting anything other than pointing out that most arguments on here have been well trodden by ethicists and even they have no consensus. My personal belief about the specific issue is not even relevant. My objection is the low quality of argument (by several commenters) demonstrating a kind of prejudiced take, I find that the most offensive.

Here you moved from defect to disabled. I don't have to personally say that a group are/aren't disabled, to yet again point out your argument rests on an assumed definition otherwise yet another form of word loading. This is a really basic critical thinking skills example independent of the topic.

Are you suggesting that by aborting a fetus with Down Syndrome, the fetus is then cured of Down Syndrome? You’re not really correcting the developmental defect insomuch as eliminating the fetus that had the defect.

The context here is that there's evidence crispr CAS-9 can be used to repair damage to the genome by specifically targeting and deleting the extra third chromosome inside a living cell. I don't know why you'd assume I'm talking about abortion.

people should stop accepting that all forms of eugenics is "bad" - it's become so morally loaded that people like you are afraid to bite the bullet. We should be ok with having discussions about whether avoiding bringing children into the world with greatly reduced quality of life (or even pain-filled existences) is something we should be doing even though it's "eugenics"

I actually think it's reasonable to accept terms as they are if their definition has a long history. If eugenics means a system of forced sterilization intended to unfairly prevent certain people from having kids, (and it has for over half a century) that's fine. I can come up with another term to refer to practices such as embryo screening and we can all agree that eugenics was a very bad thing and would be bad if we tried to bring it back in the future. What I object to is then using a very loaded term outside of that original context to smear people that are making very hard choices, like parents trying to conceive a healthy child

There's a huge range of chromosomal anomalies. You don't see the vast majority of them because the pregnancy self terminates. It's something the human body is already doing.

People with down syndrome are great people who live rich lives. But along with developmental disabilities they suffer from a great many health problems and have severely shortened life spans. Perhaps the future is such therapies will be able to initially focus on these secondary effects.

I don't think methods of preventing chromosomal anomalies are eugenics, since such anomalies are already not inheritable.

It's not eugenics, because Down syndrome is not inherited. There is no Down's genes to eliminate. Terminating down syndrome babies doesn't reduce the rate of Down syndrom in the next generation, and nobody is doing it for that goal.

Down syndrome can totally be inherited. If a mother has Down syndrome, the risk of passing the genetic condition onto their future children is 35% to 50%.

Only a few percent of Down’s syndrome cases result from Robertson translocations and may be inherited.

If the mother carries the translocation, the rate of recurrence isn’t much more than 10%. If it’s the father, it’s significantly less.

The main evil of WW2 eugenics was preventing certain people from having children based on arbitrary rules.

Aborting a fetus with trisomia so that the couple can try again for a healthy child is nothing like that.

It's no less arbitrary than deciding that gypsies, who engage in petty crime and mistreat their children, forcing them to become beggars and thieves themselves, should not reproduce. If anything, Down kids probably bring more good to society than gypsy kids. And forced sterilization is arguably more ethical than forced abortion. Same things goes for alcoholics and drug users. Privately, most people agree with this position. The idea that eugenics is inherently bad is very unsound and doesn't withstand scrutiny.

Can't agree here. Regarding gypsies it boils down to the culture and rates of stunting, as evidenced by families who broke off the former and prevented the latter.

The way people with trisomia function in society is also a product of our nurturing culture. It's only recently, when such people started living longer lives thanks to advances in medical science, that their intellectual development gained more attention and it was revealed that they can actually be more independent than commonly believed.

That being said it all requires a huge amount of effort and if a person with trisomia has siblings, they're very likely to be deprived of attention. Additionally, if they're a first child, they're the only one due to this. That is what makes it a net negative.

> if they're a first child, they're the only one due to this

Are you saying people don't have more kids after having a first kid with Trisomy 21?

Dating apps and services with a beauty/salary standard and long prison sentences for the worst criminals are also a form of eugenics. Many kinds of societal and political changes have a eugenic or dysgenic effect on the population, and I'd prefer to live in a society that has more eugenic policies.

People in privileged or powerful positions often would.

People have an aversion to the word "eugenics" because it's often connected to atrocity propaganda from World War II.

I'm not suggesting that every country should have genetic purity tests and policies on the level of Israel, just that we should understand that policies affect what kinds of people are more likely to be produced.

What policies post World War II have had eugenic effects on the population?

The policy forced sterilization of indigenous people that went on from the postwar period up until the start of the 21st century is an excellent example.

No they aren't, because they're not directed at anyone in particular.

When you consider with which woman to conceive children, consciously or unconsciously, you are engaging in eugenics. It’s fine. Forced sterilizations aren’t but we’re not talking about those.

There isn’t a set of magic words people use (eugenics, isms/phobias) where the person accused of said word must prove that’s not the case before he can continue. “It’s eugenics” isn’t a reason to shut someone down.

I don't disagree, but this doesn't change general opinion on the topic. People don't like discussing the idea that we should just delete anyone not up to standard.

A 3 month old fetus is not a person and therefore doesn't count under "anyone"

That's a bit arbitrary though, isn't it? I mean, are newborn babies really people? The Romans didn't think so. I don't see the big philosophical difference. They can't earn money or pay taxes, and are 100% dependent on parental care and resources.

And how about sleeping people? I mean they're unaware of their surroundings. Are sleeping people real people? Sure, they'll inevitably wake up in a few hours, if nothing goes wrong. Same as how a fetus will inevitably develop into an adult and be fully conscious, if nothing goes wrong.

> Same as how a fetus will inevitably develop into an adult and be fully conscious, if nothing goes wrong.

Unless it dies in pain and suffering hours, days, months or a few years after birth due to a defect that we already know can never be cured or fixed by other means. Somehow societies that are least interested or capable in providing any aid to these traumatized families revel the most in their suffering.

That's a special case and the same argument / situation can apply to adults too. But only with extreme caution in both cases.

You say that as if that's an accepted fact. Many people agree with what you say. Many disagree.

There's no scientific evidence for what you're saying.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com