Abortion & Eugenics

[Sukerkin]

But we're still ignoring the space between mere trivialities such as hair and eye color and congenital health problems such as Down's Syndrome. What of the parents who want a child gifted enough physically to play rugby at a professional level, or predisposed to a high intellect? Not quite so trivial in terms of widespread adoption of such choices; it would seem that a nation of such designer babies would in just a few generations fulfill the eugenics dream of a nearly 'undesirable' free society. Would it not?

Hmmm ... {ponders}

For me, it is much easier to argue convincingly to not create 'pre-broken' humans than it is to argue for opting in for 'extra shiny' humans. After all, altho' we are not consciously aware of it, all of us are programmed by our own genes to select a partner whose genes are compatible with our own - enough differences to shake up the mix a bit but not so many as to make our offspring too different from ourselves.

 

[cdunn]

I think that's a well-thought-out opinion, but again, it sidesteps the question of eugenics by simply referring to 'trivial' reasons for abortion. What of non-trivial reasons?

Well, that's going to depend on what you pick to determine her obligation to the not-yet-human foetus. If that reason is greater than the obligation, then it is 'non-trivial', then full speed ahead. I would hazard that if the selected traits are likely to benefit the eventual child, or the society around them, -and- outweigh the personal risks to the woman, then you can make a significant argument. That, I expect, can only be answered by the woman bearing the child.

 

[Empty Hands]

There is, to me, a bright line drawn, not at conception, but at consciousness. Once the brain turns on, and we begin to become aware of our existence, it can no longer be denied, in any fashion, that we are now human beings.

That bright line turns out to be pretty murky, unfortunately. Even when "brain waves" can be detected in the fetus, that is not consciousness, at least not yet. Isolated neurons in a cell culture dish will display "brain waves" of their own, and no one thinks a handful of neurons firing in a plate is self-conscious. When neurons begin firing in the fetus, the connections are still too simple to support consciousness. At some point consciousness is definitely there, but no one can pinpoint a moment where it emerges. My opinion? It's going to be a slow continuum, like very slowly waking up from a deep sleep, and there is no single moment we will be able to point to that defines the beginning of consciousness.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Hmmm ... {ponders}

For me, it is much easier to argue convincingly to not create 'pre-broken' humans than it is to argue for opting in for 'extra shiny' humans. After all, altho' we are not consciously aware of it, all of us are programmed by our own genes to select a partner whose genes are compatible with our own - enough differences to shake up the mix a bit but not so many as to make our offspring too different from ourselves.

Again, though, to the topic of abortion as the means to obtain either one...we do seem to shy away from thinking about that, don't we?

 

[RandomPhantom700]

Again, though, to the topic of abortion as the means to obtain either one...we do seem to shy away from thinking about that, don't we?

Are you trying to generate discussion of the choice itself, or more the whether such choice should be permitted?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Well, that's going to depend on what you pick to determine her obligation to the not-yet-human foetus. If that reason is greater than the obligation, then it is 'non-trivial', then full speed ahead. I would hazard that if the selected traits are likely to benefit the eventual child, or the society around them, -and- outweigh the personal risks to the woman, then you can make a significant argument. That, I expect, can only be answered by the woman bearing the child.

And now we have the issue that has confronted the very topic of eugenics in general. Benefit to whom? And by what standards? Who decides? A very large, wealthy, and powerful society once decided the benefit to society was to have a human population without Jews in it. Granted that this was government control of the eugenics concept, but it was also urged via propaganda on every German citizen, to bring forth pure-blooded Aryans to populate the world. Towards the end, women were even urged to forgo marriage if they could only become rapidly and continuously pregnant with the desired sort of child...

It was, of course, the end of the eugenics movement as an acceptable and social movement; but when one is talking 'betterment of society', it of course takes us to 'by what definition'?

 

[cdunn]

And now we have the issue that has confronted the very topic of eugenics in general. Benefit to whom? And by what standards? Who decides? A very large, wealthy, and powerful society once decided the benefit to society was to have a human population without Jews in it. Granted that this was government control of the eugenics concept, but it was also urged via propaganda on every German citizen, to bring forth pure-blooded Aryans to populate the world. Towards the end, women were even urged to forgo marriage if they could only become rapidly and continuously pregnant with the desired sort of child...

It was, of course, the end of the eugenics movement as an acceptable and social movement; but when one is talking 'betterment of society', it of course takes us to 'by what definition'?

I didn't say they were easy questions. Just the ones that we have to ask.

 

[Empty Hands]

If you agree that selecting (via abortion) against defects is OK, then is selecting for advantages also OK?

No, I don't think it's OK. Like I said though, I'm not sure this position is defensible, because logically there isn't that big of a difference. It makes me uncomfortable. Plus, as a biologist, I know what would actually be involved in this process, and not many people would be comfortable with it. Both to obtain the knowledge by experimentation and in the actual process of creating a new child. You would have to make many genetic changes and then allow the fetuses to come to term to truly determine the effect of a genetic change, especially since most traits are multigenic. Some of those genetic changes will have horrible effects, so you would be creating people knowing full well that some would be suffering. Creating the altered embryos in the first place would also involve manipulation beyond which most people are comfortable. When we do it in mice, it's fascinating. I have no desire to see people treated the same way.

Genetic engineering against a specific disease is less fraught, at least for single gene diseases that are well understood. Our biggest killers are heart disease and cancer though, not rare genetic diseases.

And what if we're talking not about actual defects (such as Down's Syndrome) but genetic predisposition to certain problems, such as a marked increase in risk of some dread disease, which the child might or might not eventually contract?

I suppose it would have to depend on the specifics. Not very satisfying, but there it is. Some predisposition alleles have a very large influence on disease incidence, and are near guarantees of catching the disease. Those I don't have too much of a problem with, although it is still a problem because we are betting on statistics rather than the actual presence of a disease or defect. Most predisposition alleles however have a very small effect on their own, and I couldn't see aborting just because one such gene was present.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Are you trying to generate discussion of the choice itself, or more the whether such choice should be permitted?

I am trying to examine the concept of abortion as an inalienable right of the mother versus possible situations where abortion might be considered both immoral and wrong even by those who support a woman's right to choose. I am trying to imagine if there is a point at which a person in favor of legal abortion would say "Well, no, not if *that* is your reason." Otherwise, it would appear on the surface that one is trapped (and I am not trying to trap anyone, just noting it) into defending even eugenics when applied to abortion. And that seems an uncomfortable situation to find oneself in.

There is no 'ah-ha' or 'gotcha' here, I assure you. My thoughts were towards the concept of abortion as an absolute right as seen against various backdrops, including the concept of eugenics.

 

[Empty Hands]

Just so everyone knows what we are talking about. This is the most common method for generating animals with specific, targeted genetic changes, either to add or subtract. You can see why this would make people nervous. You would dissociate one embryo, and then injected the altered cells into another embryo. You would be generating chimeric, hybrid people that are the combination of 2 individual embryos. Very few people would be comfortable with this in humans.

Other methods will no doubt be developed, perhaps based on viruses or transposons, but this is the state of the art right now.

 

[Empty Hands]

I am trying to examine the concept of abortion as an inalienable right of the mother versus possible situations where abortion might be considered both immoral and wrong even by those who support a woman's right to choose.

There are actually plenty of pro-choice people who think that abortion is wrong. They just believe that the consequences of outlawing abortion is worse. I'm sure nearly every pro-choice person could come up with a situation in which they think abortion is wrong, but still thinks the consequences of outlawing are worse. Very few people think that abortion is a positive moral good, and most people who think it is a neutral moral good stop thinking so around the end of the 2nd trimester. Consequences, consequences though stay their hand from desiring governmental regulation.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Genetic engineering against a specific disease is less fraught, at least for single gene diseases that are well understood. Our biggest killers are heart disease and cancer though, not rare genetic diseases.

I would not presume to have your knowledge of genetics, but is it not true that we have identified some genetic markers that appear to convey predisposition both to and against certain forms of cancer and heart disease? I recall reading just the other day about a gene that appears to convey the predisposition to being thin (in this case, even to the point of being too thin). A side-note, but it was also fascinating to me because it appears that this particular gene appears in about half of the children taken away from parents in the UK for 'failure to thrive', which would tend to imply that their parents were thought not to be feeding them, when in fact the children were genetically predisposed to unnatural thinness...

I suppose it would have to depend on the specifics. Not very satisfying, but there it is. Some predisposition alleles have a very large influence on disease incidence, and are near guarantees of catching the disease. Those I don't have too much of a problem with, although it is still a problem because we are betting on statistics rather than the actual presence of a disease or defect. Most predisposition alleles however have a very small effect on their own, and I couldn't see aborting just because one such gene was present.

So you would say that there is a tipping point, but you're uncomfortable defining at what point the balance would change, then? Not trying to put words in your mouth. And in the case of abortion, if a woman's right to choose an abortion is absolute, would it not be up to her, whether or not a level of statistical comfort had been reached? Could we as a society even enquire?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Other methods will no doubt be developed, perhaps based on viruses or transposons, but this is the state of the art right now.

Actually, I was thinking of even more basic stuff. Not genetic manipulation, but selection ala Mendel with genetic tests to determine efficacy. We've discussed parents intentionally choosing mates for their presumed desirable traits, or in the case of sperm/egg donors, choosing genetic material for the same reasons. This is no more difficult than selective breeding of plants in a garden. But it is fraught with random chance and the possibility of error. Combine this with genetic testing during pregnancy that allows for early detection of unintended combinations versus intended ones, and abortion based upon a negative result. This is not the same as genetic recombination outside the womb, and considerably closer to being a possibility in real life, yes? Or am I mistaken on the technicalities here?

 

[RandomPhantom700]

I am trying to examine the concept of abortion as an inalienable right of the mother versus possible situations where abortion might be considered both immoral and wrong even by those who support a woman's right to choose. I am trying to imagine if there is a point at which a person in favor of legal abortion would say "Well, no, not if *that* is your reason." Otherwise, it would appear on the surface that one is trapped (and I am not trying to trap anyone, just noting it) into defending even eugenics when applied to abortion. And that seems an uncomfortable situation to find oneself in.

There is no 'ah-ha' or 'gotcha' here, I assure you. My thoughts were towards the concept of abortion as an absolute right as seen against various backdrops, including the concept of eugenics.

In that case, yes, I'm willing to defend a mother's right to abort, even if it means defending something resembling eugenics. Not only is it a privacy law principle as explained in Roe v. Wade, but there's also the slippery slope concern. If one is to right now change the rules because eugenics aren't a sufficient reason, how few leaps in logic would be needed to say "oh well you have enough money, you don't have a reason to abort because of economic hardships."

The only scenario I can imagine that woudl induce a "Ok, come on now, really?" from me would be a woman who is constantly returning to a clinic for abortions. I don't believe that's a frequent occurrence, but that's the only scenario that would really give me pause.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

FYI, I never heard of this movie until now, but I think I need to track it down...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiocracy

I was reading about eugenics, which lead to the concept of dysgenics (that is, we're getting dumber because stupid people breed and intelligent people don't) and from that to this movie. Looks interesting, sad, and funny.

 

[Empty Hands]

I would not presume to have your knowledge of genetics, but is it not true that we have identified some genetic markers that appear to convey predisposition both to and against certain forms of cancer and heart disease?

Yes, but they are complex multigenic clusters. A single gene only has a small effect on the chances of developing heart disease. Some specific forms of cancer (like BRCA2 with breast cancer) have a stronger gene predisposition associated with them, but again, in general, most single genes only change the chances by a small amount.

So you would say that there is a tipping point, but you're uncomfortable defining at what point the balance would change, then?

Yes, that sounds about right. A definitive answer would require a lot more thought.

And in the case of abortion, if a woman's right to choose an abortion is absolute, would it not be up to her, whether or not a level of statistical comfort had been reached? Could we as a society even enquire?

Yes, that's about right. My comfort or discomfort for the reasons for abortion are separate from the question of legality. Trying to outlaw these practices would not work IMO, for the reasons I detailed in my first post.

 

[Empty Hands]

Actually, I was thinking of even more basic stuff. Not genetic manipulation, but selection ala Mendel with genetic tests to determine efficacy.

That would work for one or two genes, which one parent had and one parent did not. Let's say one parent had a nasty form of BRCA2, and one did not. Your method would work very well for selecting an offspring that did not have that disease gene.

However, if you want a gene that neither parent has, or if you want to improve a complex trait like intelligence or physical ability, then most of the time the process I posted would be necessary.

 

[cdunn]

And now we have the issue that has confronted the very topic of eugenics in general. Benefit to whom? And by what standards? Who decides? A very large, wealthy, and powerful society once decided the benefit to society was to have a human population without Jews in it. Granted that this was government control of the eugenics concept, but it was also urged via propaganda on every German citizen, to bring forth pure-blooded Aryans to populate the world. Towards the end, women were even urged to forgo marriage if they could only become rapidly and continuously pregnant with the desired sort of child...

It was, of course, the end of the eugenics movement as an acceptable and social movement; but when one is talking 'betterment of society', it of course takes us to 'by what definition'?

Thoughts I've thunken: The other end of things is that what eugenics as practiced in the early 20th century treads on is the right to self determination, precisely as an abortion ban treads on it. However, the attendant right of choice of reproduction belongs to the individual. A man and woman may choose to attempt to reproduce together, an individual may choose not to reproduce, but that choice must belong to them. That is the key, to me, right there. A woman may choose to abort because she doesn't care for what her potential child is likely to grow to be, but she cannot be forced to abort by another.

 

[Em MacIntosh]

The shallow people will support eugenics, others will be forced to compete, those too poor will fall further behind. Nothing seperates the poor from the rich like access to medical technology. Sickening as it is it'll be a passing trend: 3 years pass every year now. In another two years, 10 years will go by every year. It won't take long until we can not only manipulate but directly customize the genes for traits that just don't exist in the human genome right now (beetle shell fingernails, bio-polymer foot-soles, silk glands etc). Shortly after that they'll be able to write our own compact codes from scratch for self-assembling artificial cells. Then those cells will become further miniaturized and sophisticated. People will be replacing worn-out body parts in the same fashion as they "select" their "children". Some people may become fully artificial. The same technology will have been developed with a ubiquitous overlap with the development of artificial intelligence, indeed the blurry line between humans and machines will get blurrier. This may change the nature of our understanding of words like life, consciousness and love.

I'm already more disconnected from the youth than I am from my grandparents. I see the erosion of what we percieve as respect and...care, for lack of a better word. The youth have already changed the nature of work ethic and punctuality won't matter as much as your connectivity in five years. Like privacy, certain things we consider to be essential freedoms or things we consider right and good will fall below the radar of concern and fade into obscurity in favor of other concerns that haven't solidified yet.

I don't think it's too hard to draw a line between genetic "defects" and eye or hair color, skin pigmentation or predispositions to sports or music. I do agree it'd be hard to police but not impossible, considering we'll likely lose most of our privacy anyway in the future (even in a democratic free market republic).

 

[Nomad]

FYI, I never heard of this movie until now, but I think I need to track it down...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiocracy

I was reading about eugenics, which lead to the concept of dysgenics (that is, we're getting dumber because stupid people breed and intelligent people don't) and from that to this movie. Looks interesting, sad, and funny.

IMHO, the concept of the movie was much better done than the execution. It got really old and (not surprisingly I guess) really dumb about halfway through.