"Some bioethicists worry that selection based on certain traits in embryonic screening expresses to the world that people with certain traits are less valuable (“the expressivist objection”). This is particularly pertinent for members of disabled communities, such as people who are deaf or blind, traits that may be routinely selected against.
Flanigan acknowledges that one can feel hurt that some of their particular traits are not selected for by other people. However, this harm is not too different from the harm one may feel when selected against in dating."
.
I can't see that THIS can be a plausible objection ! It is a sound selection policy !
Women HAVE ALWAYS SELECTED [ in their own opinion at least ! ] the best possible MATE !
Time might well decide my reproductive opportunity; my next milestone birthday is 50, hers 40. Far less concerned about an accident than I was at 28.
I do get my care at a Catholic university hospital. I don’t think they’d do the snip-snip on me, but there are many places nearby if I wanted to do that.
But the ethical considerations are another matter altogether. I don’t think it’d be fair for us to try to raise a child. That he/she would already be deprived of grand parents is one thing (my dad is gone, my mom is in memory care), but there’s a lot *I* couldn’t do that I think it’s important for a kid to have a dad do.
But none of my experiences affect my thinking on this.
Having a kid is a roll of the dice. It’s not something you should select for.
I can see the argument for things that are certain to manifest, but I’d prefer parents do things prior to fertilization.
I agree with the sentiment about mate selection. That said, I do worry about selection based on things that might not manifest. Where does the selection stop? I am disabled from a disease with unclear, but likely not genetic, origin (MS). In the event my wife and I have a child, he/she will almost-certainly have blue eyes. Will my varied heritage manifest in other ways?
(My faith also teaches against such experimentation….)
Sean......so sorry to hear that you are afflicted with MS ! Not fun at all and certainly a debilitating condition to have . Whilst NOT genetic it does carry more risk that an offspring will be susceptible to it ! Modern treatments are improving the duration of life and lessening the severity of MS , and hopefully in your life-time there will be an actual cure. But there is , and can be , no guarantee about most things in life !
You can be as healthy as possible , no signs of weakness or disease , handsome as Adonis ......and still get killed by a bolt of lightning ! But one thing you can guarantee with any certainty is that your "varied heritage WILL manifest itself in other ways" ...........and like the MS.............it all depends on how YOU handle it from there !
As for your faith.....Jesus was a healer ! Look at Lazarus ! If that was NOT a great experiment then I don't know what else you could call it ! A miracle perhaps ?
Understand you see read it comment sleep school🤩
"Some bioethicists worry that selection based on certain traits in embryonic screening expresses to the world that people with certain traits are less valuable (“the expressivist objection”). This is particularly pertinent for members of disabled communities, such as people who are deaf or blind, traits that may be routinely selected against.
Flanigan acknowledges that one can feel hurt that some of their particular traits are not selected for by other people. However, this harm is not too different from the harm one may feel when selected against in dating."
.
I can't see that THIS can be a plausible objection ! It is a sound selection policy !
Women HAVE ALWAYS SELECTED [ in their own opinion at least ! ] the best possible MATE !
.
Time might well decide my reproductive opportunity; my next milestone birthday is 50, hers 40. Far less concerned about an accident than I was at 28.
I do get my care at a Catholic university hospital. I don’t think they’d do the snip-snip on me, but there are many places nearby if I wanted to do that.
But the ethical considerations are another matter altogether. I don’t think it’d be fair for us to try to raise a child. That he/she would already be deprived of grand parents is one thing (my dad is gone, my mom is in memory care), but there’s a lot *I* couldn’t do that I think it’s important for a kid to have a dad do.
But none of my experiences affect my thinking on this.
Having a kid is a roll of the dice. It’s not something you should select for.
I can see the argument for things that are certain to manifest, but I’d prefer parents do things prior to fertilization.
I agree with the sentiment about mate selection. That said, I do worry about selection based on things that might not manifest. Where does the selection stop? I am disabled from a disease with unclear, but likely not genetic, origin (MS). In the event my wife and I have a child, he/she will almost-certainly have blue eyes. Will my varied heritage manifest in other ways?
(My faith also teaches against such experimentation….)
Sean......so sorry to hear that you are afflicted with MS ! Not fun at all and certainly a debilitating condition to have . Whilst NOT genetic it does carry more risk that an offspring will be susceptible to it ! Modern treatments are improving the duration of life and lessening the severity of MS , and hopefully in your life-time there will be an actual cure. But there is , and can be , no guarantee about most things in life !
You can be as healthy as possible , no signs of weakness or disease , handsome as Adonis ......and still get killed by a bolt of lightning ! But one thing you can guarantee with any certainty is that your "varied heritage WILL manifest itself in other ways" ...........and like the MS.............it all depends on how YOU handle it from there !
As for your faith.....Jesus was a healer ! Look at Lazarus ! If that was NOT a great experiment then I don't know what else you could call it ! A miracle perhaps ?
Regards and best wishes , Trevor.