Hacker News Reader

Comment by derektank | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com