IVF
As bit of twist from some of the 'surprise' pregnancy stories on here, Mrs Smurf has a couple of friends kind of doing the opposite and I really have to bite my tongue about it when we see them.

Mr & Mrs Friend have been trying to get pregnant for a long time. A very long time. They're both in their mid-30's but just weren't able to manage it (I don't know the ins and outs of why). No pun intended.

So they've decided to go along the IVF root. Now I should say that I don't agree with IVF. I think the world is too full as it is and there are plenty of kids that need adopting already. Nature is saying no for a reason. But having a baby has become all consuming for Mrs Friend. She's even made them move house to a different county so they can get the IVF treatment in the first place (apparently different counties have different rules as to whether you can have it).

Recently Mrs Friend has also been diagnosed with Secondary Progressive Multiple Sclerosis. In a few years she is going to be wheel chair bound basically. Mr Friend is in the armed forces and spends a lot of time overseas. Has this made her think again about having kids? What kind of life will the child have? How will they look after the child? What happens to Mr Friend's career? How he's going to have to cope with caring for her and a child?

No, none of it matter. All the matters is pushing out a baby. This 'need' for a child is all consuming and I find it disturbing and wrong.

Fair enough, I don't understand how women feel or how the biological clock gets a grip on you, but surely common sense must fight through that?

*Edit* I should have also added that I know Mr Friend is worrying about the whole situation. But he is a really sweet, caring guy and he loves her very much and so just wants to give her what she wants.
(Big Smurf Brush me daddy-O, Wed 23 Apr 2008, 11:50, 120 replies)

The degenerative disease is probably a factor in her decision
She wants to have a child she can appreciate before it really takes it's hold, I can't blame her really.
Mr Friend has a choice, if he decides to have the baby I'm sure things will work out, hopefully grandparents or friends would help out with the child...

*goes back to goat sex*
( Bert Monkeysex is waiting for the mods to delete him, Wed 23 Apr 2008, 11:55, closed)

Hmmm...
"Nature is saying no for a reason." False. Nature's just a wanker like that.

"Different counties have different rules." They all have the same rules, currently govered by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. Some counties are able to free up more spending, that's all.

"Disturbing and wrong." Wrong? So they're blameable for wanting a child? Were they as fertile as most, there'd be nothing you could do. And fertility problems are a medical problem, for which IVF is a (partial) solution. So - and I'm cutting a lot of argument out here - what you're essentially saying is that the infertile shouldn't have access to IVF because of the nature of their medical problem - ie their infertility. Odd.

"What kind of life will the child have". A perfectly good life, I'd wager. Why would it not?
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Wed 23 Apr 2008, 12:07, closed)

*passes cake knife*
*starts to hum Ribena Banana*

*reduces otherwise intelligent debate to childish insults about middle classness*

*realises he himself would undoubtedly be considered just as middle class and that someone has post a photo of him raping a goat and feels embarrassed*

In all seriousness, I can sympathise as my initial gut reaction was along the same lines as yours, but thinking more about it I agree with Enzymes points.
(Bazongaloid, Wed 23 Apr 2008, 12:16, closed)

@Enzyme
Serious question:

Has medicine (as a concept and practice) ruined the genetic fitness of the human race?
( Cawl, Wed 23 Apr 2008, 12:18, closed)

@Kaol
As an uninformed, uneducated ignoramus, I would say, yes. Surely any kind of medication that fights off a disease for you is stifling evolution? -without medication those who can fight off the disease would survive and their descendants would be stronger for it..?
So what we'd eventually be left with is a weak race, who would be unable to fight off infection without medicine.

This is why I don't take my medication.

EDIT But that's not to say that I think all illnesses should go untreated, I just think that medication shouldn't be the answer to every disease or condition.
( Bert Monkeysex is waiting for the mods to delete him, Wed 23 Apr 2008, 12:24, closed)

@Burt
I didn't mention evolution, because that implies a selection pressure.
Even without medicine, it's possible that there'd be minimal selection pressure on the human race.
( Cawl, Wed 23 Apr 2008, 12:28, closed)

Let me try and explain a bit more
I know, I know, mine is not the popular point of view. To try and explain myself further with regards to your comments Enzyme:

Yes, nature is a wanker. But I believe nature should always be allowed to run it's course without interference, to a certain degree. Now cures for cancer etc etc I'm fine with. But I stand by my point that if you are unable to conceive naturally then consider adoption. I know it's not an easy route to take, but I think it's a better one than IVF.

I'm fairly sure they did not 'fit the requirements' for IVF in their home county.

I mean I find her attitude is 'Disturbing and wrong'. Not just hers, but all these women who have a craving for a child and nothing will stop them (we've seen a few stories about this on here as it is). I don't mean it in a nasty sense, I mean it in a 'I really don't understand it' sense. Being a bloke, I don't think I ever will.

As for my 'what kind of life will it have' comment, I'm thinking if nothing changes, she is going to have to take care of a child, pretty much on her own. I'm not saying it's impossible to take care of newborn baby in a wheelchair, but, say the babies on the floor, how do you get it? What happens if there is an emergency, such as a house fire? Now the two people I've known with MS are able to look after themselves perfectly well, but do still need help with certain things.

But I know this isn't going to happen. I know Mr Friend is going to have to give up a career he loves because the woman he loves wants a child.

And to make myself absolutely clear, yes, with the world currently the way it is, I do not believe infertile people should be given IVF.
(Big Smurf Brush me daddy-O, Wed 23 Apr 2008, 12:29, closed)

@Kaol: Fitness for what?
Inasmuch as we're longer lived and healthier than we were even a century ago, it would seem the opposite.

I think I see what you mean - inasmuch as the severely disabled live when, not so long ago they would have died soon after birth, it could be suggested that we're countering natural selection. Indeed, some might have kids on their own, and pass on the genes that caused the disability.

There's two problems with this account, though. The first is that many, if not most, serious disabilities have nothing to do with genetics; of the remainder, many will not be passed on (because genetics is complicated like that. A somatic-line mutation is different from a germ-line mutation - the former won't be passed on). And, of course, each child is the product of two gametes, so there's a good chance that a mutation on one chromosome will be conpensated on the other. (That's why girls are much less likey to be haemophiliacs: it's a problem on the X-chromosome. Since girls have two of these, they'd have to be very unlucky to have the same problem on both - although it's possible.)

The other reason is more of an ethical point, which is that medicine is - quite properly, I'd have thought - concerned about the suffering of this person here, rather than any group to which he or she belongs.

I don't have any particular problem with eugenics - I think it's admirable to try to engineer people to be healthier, brighter and so on. (Have a look at Agar's Liberal Eugenics and Harris' Enhancing Evolution on this - Harris is my boss, and I've just written a paper saying that his argument isn't as strong as he thinks it is, but he's still worth reading, because many of his claims are correct.) But that's a long way from what you were talking about...
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Wed 23 Apr 2008, 12:31, closed)

Isn't it the case though
that survival of the fittest, (where 'fittest' means in this case most intelligent/successful in life) doesn't really apply any more as so many of the fittest members of society are choosing not to breed, whereas the chavs are at it like rabbits?

I'm a physicist - I don't really understand biology, so shoot me down as you will, Enzyme. I'm willing to learn.
( K2k6 has a proper job these days, Wed 23 Apr 2008, 12:36, closed)

@Smurf
"I believe nature should always be allowed to run it's course without interference, to a certain degree."
But how do you draw the line? And why should nature have the final say on anything in the first place?

"If you are unable to conceive naturally then consider adoption."
I'm sympathetic to this, actually. I think it would be admirable if people considered adoption over IVF - I don't think that the genetic link to a child is all that morally important. However, the fact that something's admirable isn't the same as it being required, and it's not even sufficient to establish that someone who does the oppsite is not equally admirable as well.

"I'm fairly sure they did not 'fit the requirements' for IVF in their home county."
I couldn't possibly comment, so I won't. None of my business.

"I mean it in a 'I really don't understand it' sense. Being a bloke, I don't think I ever will."
Sing it to me, brother! I don't get it, either. But that's not nearly enough to talk about it being "disturbing and wrong". You need to give some reason as to why that should be - what mistake would have been made by those who disagree.

"As for my 'what kind of life will it have' comment, I'm thinking if nothing changes, she is going to have to take care of a child, pretty much on her own. I'm not saying it's impossible to take care of newborn baby in a wheelchair, but, say the babies on the floor, how do you get it? What happens if there is an emergency, such as a house fire? Now the two people I've known with MS are able to look after themselves perfectly well, but do still need help with certain things."
For sure. Maybe - for the sake of the argument - a child born to a disabled parent will have less than the best possible life. But the same applies to just about every child anyway. Most - hell, all - parents are suboptimal: that's not the same as poor, though. So I don't see why we should apply different standards to the disabled.

I don't think that there is a right to reproduce - and that's only partly because I don't think that there're any rights of any sort - but I'm willing to say that there's a liberty to do so, and that others have a prima facie duty not to get in the way.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Wed 23 Apr 2008, 12:40, closed)

Erm....
If we take the line about the survival of the fittest and avoiding medicines and so on then surely the natural development of that argument is to shun all technological advances.

Shall we burn the wheel now?
( chickenlady b3ta's very own Elizabeth Taylor, Wed 23 Apr 2008, 12:40, closed)

@chickelady
*sings* "This wheel's on fiiiire..."

@K2k6: From a genetic PoV, fitness simply means the fitness to pass on genetic information to the next generation. Remember that, from the genes' perspective, we're nothing but machines: males are zygote machines, females zygote machines with an incubation machine attached.

We don't share the genes' perspective. But I'm not sure what "fitness" means. Most - almost all - people have a life worth living. What else could you want?
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Wed 23 Apr 2008, 12:43, closed)

Burn it! Burn it!
*gets matches in anticipation*
(Bazongaloid, Wed 23 Apr 2008, 12:44, closed)

Difficult moral arguement.
For the record, I agree with the comment that there are plenty of children crying out for adoption. I have a friend who is in no way maternal, doesn't want her own kids, BUT has stated that in the unlikely event that she changed her mind, she would go down the adoption route. I would too, and transfer that logic to dogs and cats as well...

Reading between the lines, so many people seem to have kids so that there's someone to look after them when they're older... might this be a consideration in this case? I sincerely hope not.

Your last comment "he loves her very much and so just wants to give her what she wants" - completely the wrong reason to bring a life into the world, as has been stated many times before. Both parents should want it equally; it appears that the balance is somewhat skewed.

But that's just my initial thoughts on the subject - obviously I don't know the people involved. Like so many others (and I'm glad I'm not alone) I just don't understand this apparent biological urge to have your own kids when there are so many out there crying out to be loved - or maybe the adoption process is even more stressful than trying to conceive naturally or with assistance.

Good luck to them, whatever happens.
( Davros' Granddad a voice of calm reason in a world of spastics., Wed 23 Apr 2008, 12:44, closed)

One film you have to see then...
is Idiocracy..

you cant buy it in the shops as it has had a bit of a rough ride due to who it was taking the p#ss out of. (i.e. its paying audience)

its very funny... and basically picks on the fact the world is getting dumber because smart people selectively have children when the moment is right, whereas dumb people just keep popping em out.

check it out on IMDB... availabler at all good torrent outlets.
(Dan dan dan They tik urh jerbs!!!, Wed 23 Apr 2008, 12:45, closed)

@Al
Matches could be classed as a technological innovation. You're either going to have to wait for a lightning strike or start rubbing sticks together.

Or perhaps climb a convenient volcano.
( K2k6 has a proper job these days, Wed 23 Apr 2008, 12:47, closed)

Thanks Enzyme
I was just interested as to your opinions from an ethical point of view.

I understand things on the genetic level, did a biology/zoology degree.

I'm talking about things that wouldn't perhaps be seen as resulting in someone being "severely disabled" in the eyes of society today.

Take away medicine, and even relatively minor problems could cause serious damage.

Poor eyesight, colourblindness, susceptability to appendicitis, poor hearing, those kind of things.

In a hunter-gatherer sense, if you can't see the difference between the red berries and the green berries, you could be screwed.

I'm afraid I'm stumbling about a bit, but what I'm really asking is "has medicine harmed the state of huanity, if we were suddenly to face life without it?"
( Cawl, Wed 23 Apr 2008, 12:48, closed)

I come for the goat sex,
but I stay for the educational content of b3ta.

@Dan -When I was younger I confused the word 'idiocy' with 'idiocracy', thus resulting in everyone at school thinking I was an idiocrat.
( Bert Monkeysex is waiting for the mods to delete him, Wed 23 Apr 2008, 12:48, closed)

@Davros
how does a dog or a cat adopt a child, they can't even open their own dinner, let alone fill out all the necessary paperwork?

@Kaol

*curses*
*starts rubbing sticks*
*enjoys the gently warming sensation*
(Bazongaloid, Wed 23 Apr 2008, 12:51, closed)

@Enzyme
Yes, I see what you mean about fitness meaning only being able to pass on the genes. But if smart people breed less than daft people, does it then follow that the human race will dumb down on average, as in Idiocracy? Or is it the case that we've always been pretty thick on average anyway and important technological and social advances have been discovered and led only by the top slice of the intelligence spectrum, which won't vary that much?
( K2k6 has a proper job these days, Wed 23 Apr 2008, 12:52, closed)

@Kaol...
Well, I suppose that in one sense that's an imponderable. In another sense, we could point out that that we did perfectly well without modern technological medicine for most of our evolutionary history. Having said that, many animals self-medicate, and there's evidence that some have at least an inkling of what they're doing, as when they seek out particular soils or astringents as anti-parasitics.

In another sense, though, your question is perplexing: it seems to amount to asking whether we'd have survived as well without the things that helped us survive. Sorry if I've missed your point.

(Didn't know you were a biologist, btw. Hopefully my - no doubt over simplified - account will have been handy to some others.)
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Wed 23 Apr 2008, 12:52, closed)

al...
I meant...

Oh, sod it, you know what I meant, you blighter...

Defrocked already, I see...
( Davros' Granddad a voice of calm reason in a world of spastics., Wed 23 Apr 2008, 12:54, closed)

@Davros
yeah, i was worried someone might steal my username, also I got caught on camera sexing a goat, and then having my face ejaculated on by Bert Monkeysex.

Wasn't my finest hour.
(Bazongaloid, Wed 23 Apr 2008, 12:56, closed)

@K2k6
Well, exactly what constitutes intelligence is a moot point anyway - there was something in New Scientist on that just before Christmas. My suspicion, though, is that there's not all that big a range of intelligences - there'll be a bell curve, for sure, but it'll be very elongated along the y-axis.

Several people have been worried about evolution's tendency to level down - but it doesn't happen. The very bright are freaks who can appear anywhere.

I think.

*Feels email to PZ Myers coming on*
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Wed 23 Apr 2008, 12:56, closed)

IVF...
A family member of mine has gone down this route.

It was highly successful, and they're now proud parents.

The parental instinct has *nothing* at all to do with common sense.

I'm a wee bit surprised at you smurf...
( Humpty Dumpty was Pushed Is unaware of having any limits., Wed 23 Apr 2008, 12:57, closed)

Well...
I like Enzyme as much as kittens, but have to disagree on some points I'm afraid.
Having spent 7 years working with special needs children, I'd say that realistically, Mr & Mrs Friend might be better with a puppy. Or, even better, a rescue dog.

*awaits flaming*

In all my years of nursey / carey / childy work, and in life, I've come across the all-consuming desire to procreate so many times. Now, I'm not saying any of the following might apply to Mr & Mrs Friend, however, many of these couples shared common thought patterns / hopes / rose-tinted spectacles:

1) Many think of having a baby; not a teenager / young adult and the various challenges associated.

2) Not many couples seriously consider the possibility of having a child with learning/physical/mental difficulties. Bringing up a child in this world is the most challenging (and mostly joyous) feat I've ever undertaken. And mine is a good'un. Having worked with autistic kids and countless "syndromes", I *know* I couldn't cope with one of my own. Being bitten, kicked, punched, spat on 'n' shat on, screamed at etc. for a six hour shift is one thing. (Also, ecstatically rewarding when progress is made...) Coping with such a child at home for the rest of the time is a different kettle of fish. But so many people planning families think it won't happen to them - and even if it does, they will cope. Love for the child will conquer adversity etc. (Myself included, until I worked with these kids.) People expect babies to be totally dependant for care of physical needs such as feeding, bathing, changing nappies/diapers. What if independance is never an option?

3) Sadly, I've seen the desire for a baby become obsessional, obliviating all other aspects of what was once a healthy relationship.

Sorry if this sounds callous - that is not my intention. Also, I've described the worst behaviors here - many of the autistic kids I've had the pleasure of knowing have been a delight to work with. Many have special places in my heart - I will never forget them.

Throwing a disabled mother into the picture? MS is debilitating in so many ways - and worst of all, it's unpredictable.

Apologies if any of my comments seem harsh, but I have experienced most angles involved.

Good luck in every respect to Mr & Mrs Friend.
( Tourette's ( . )( . ) has a monkey hair in her fried egg, Wed 23 Apr 2008, 13:01, closed)

@ Enzyme
Yeah, I'm an Entomologist/Herpetologist, only a BSc though.
I'm not using it though, not a fan of lab-work, and that's where the jobs are.

I'm having trouble asking the questions here, I'm a bit vague!
Erm...

Would you say that the increases in "negative traits" (ie, disabilities) are proportional to the growth of population size, or has the development of medicine made much of a difference?

That's a fairly obvious answer though, I'd guess... *has confused himself*
( Cawl, Wed 23 Apr 2008, 13:03, closed)

@Enzyme
Further to your point about defining intelligence, it also depends on where the origin on the x axis is. If you take the amoeba as the baseline, then the range of human intelligence is going to appear as a sharp spike at the top end. But if you base it on, say, chimpanzees, it would be a much broader curve.

I suppose the most important factor for our evolution is how intelligent you need to be to survive as a human. Which nowadays is almost irrelevant, given the health care available.

It would be interesting (but effectively impossible) to be able to quantify intelligence to see if and how the human race as we know it has changed over the last few tens of thousands of years.
( K2k6 has a proper job these days, Wed 23 Apr 2008, 13:06, closed)

@Kaol
The availability of ultrasound, pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PIGD) and embryo-selection, amniosentesis, selective abortion and so on means that we are less in the lap of the gods than we were a generation ago, so I suppose that there might be fewer disabled people being born in the West.

You also have to take into account, though, the social aspect of disability. I don't think that the social model is entirely convincing, but it's true that some things are disabilities only in a certain context. Dyslexia, for example, is only a problem in literate societies (in fact, I believe that it's only a problem in alphabetic societies: it doesn't matter in Chinese, for some reason). Is it a disability? Yes. I think so. Is it "inherently" a disability? I think not. The same applies to, say, myopia, and doubtless to many other things, too. Deafness is the controversial one at the moment: there's a long-running debate about deliberately selecting for deafness. Some people think that that's a disability: others (mainly deaf themselves) disagree.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Wed 23 Apr 2008, 13:08, closed)

@K2k6
I was thinking about a snapshot of human intelligence as a whole. There have been some studies done, and (iirc) Jews have the highest average IQ - but there's really nothing in it. Plus IQ will depend a lot on cultural factors - if you're literate and used to doing tests, then you'll natually score more.

On the whole, all humans are about the same, with a few genii and a few stragglers at each end. As a species, we're remarkably boring.

I reckon we probably are more intelligent than we were - we are gnerally healthier, have a higher birthweight, and so on, and that can only help intelligence to be maximised. If you're malnourished and born to a malnourished mother, your brain simply won't develop as much (I'd have thought). A couple of generations of good feeding ought to iron that out, though. We're probably smarter than the first farmers, but not much smarter than the first people to be born on a farm, if you get my drift.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Wed 23 Apr 2008, 13:11, closed)

^ Enzyme said BELL
*snigger woop*
( Tourette's ( . )( . ) has a monkey hair in her fried egg, Wed 23 Apr 2008, 13:15, closed)

Quotation Time. Ish
From one of the Patrick O'Brien novels. Stephen Maturin (physician, naturalist and dope-head) is musing on babies and the parents thereof. Observing a tall, handsome, well-fed and healthy father and a mother described as the beauty of the world, he wonders that they have produced such a run of the mill baby. As beauty and healthy people tend to attract, and therefore reproduce, if you used the analogy of dog or horse breeding, the 'rich' should stand twenty feet tall, while the 'poor' ran about their feet like pygmies.

Or something like that.

What I am attempting to get at, is that the old humans haven't really been evolving for some time, just adapting their environment to suit.
(osok Rebel without a clue, Wed 23 Apr 2008, 13:16, closed)

@ al
Have you tried rubbing two boy scouts together?
OR TWO GOATS? ;o)
( Tourette's ( . )( . ) has a monkey hair in her fried egg, Wed 23 Apr 2008, 13:16, closed)

@Tourette's
...keep going... nearly there...

*fwaps*

Oohhh! How about goats dressed as boy scouts?

*spluffs*
( Bert Monkeysex is waiting for the mods to delete him, Wed 23 Apr 2008, 13:19, closed)

@ tourettes
thank god you turned up, I've been trying to bring this conversation into the gutter for a while now, but they seem to be intent on ignoring all potential willy gags.

I've tried rubbing myself between two boy scouts. Is that close enough
(Bazongaloid, Wed 23 Apr 2008, 13:19, closed)

I don't understand the deaf thing
Why would someone purpfosefully select an embryo that's definately going to be deaf? By all means leave it to chance but on purpose?
I had a deaf mate at uni and we argued about this a lot. The deaf people argueing for this right appear to think that deafness is a social thing and not a disability. How can something that negates an integral sense not be a disability?
If there was a choice to have a fully functioning child why would someone not go for that? By choosing to have a child with a disability you expose them to a load of disadvantages because unfortunately the world isn't perfect. Why do that to a child?
(The Ginger Penguin la la la la la la, Wed 23 Apr 2008, 13:21, closed)

Ahem
b3ta.com/questions/kids/post146254#post146302

For goats.
( chickenlady b3ta's very own Elizabeth Taylor, Wed 23 Apr 2008, 13:21, closed)

@Enzyme
"On the whole, all humans are about the same, with a few genii and a few stragglers at each end"

Hmm, have you ever visited Dundee? The curve changes a bit!
( K2k6 has a proper job these days, Wed 23 Apr 2008, 13:21, closed)

@chickenlady
We've seen your other goats, now show us your fanny!
( Bert Monkeysex is waiting for the mods to delete him, Wed 23 Apr 2008, 13:23, closed)

@ Enzyme
Honey, I only disagreed with a couple of points in your first response. By the time I'd typed mine, this thread had gone beserk.

On the subject of intelligence, personally I place more value on emotional intelligence than the academic variety.
( Tourette's ( . )( . ) has a monkey hair in her fried egg, Wed 23 Apr 2008, 13:24, closed)

@Enzyme
"Dyslexia, for example, is only a problem in literate societies (in fact, I believe that it's only a problem in alphabetic societies: it doesn't matter in Chinese, for some reason)."

I've often wondered about this. I'm learning Japanese in an on-off, really half-arsed way and thought that is must be a nightmare if someone over there was dyslexic. Apparantly you need to be familiar with around 5000 characters to get through a newspaper.
( Boss Keloid Got your mother's maiden name tattooed on my arm, Wed 23 Apr 2008, 13:24, closed)

careful bert
we could bring down the wrath of our erstwhile prime minister with comments like that!

But seriously, show us your minge, er, fanny, like he said.
(Bazongaloid, Wed 23 Apr 2008, 13:25, closed)

@Boss
Apparently it has something to do with the characters being pictographic, rather than alphabetic though. Dyslexics see pictures better than they see words.

@al, it's ok Prime Minister PJM knows I'm only after her goats.
( Bert Monkeysex is waiting for the mods to delete him, Wed 23 Apr 2008, 13:27, closed)

@ Bert/Spunky
I'm looking for photos right now....a nice picture of my lovely Fanny. She was a fantastic goat.
( chickenlady b3ta's very own Elizabeth Taylor, Wed 23 Apr 2008, 13:31, closed)

@ Spunky Bert & al
I am an Asda badge....

Always "Happy to help"

So, we could keep it vaguely on topic by discussing the evolution of poo disposal?

xxx
( Tourette's ( . )( . ) has a monkey hair in her fried egg, Wed 23 Apr 2008, 13:33, closed)

@chickenlady
Was? Is she dead...?

...Goat necrophilia, here I come!
( Bert Monkeysex is waiting for the mods to delete him, Wed 23 Apr 2008, 13:33, closed)

@Ginger Penguin
There's a difference between selecting a deaf embryo and deafening a hearing one, though. If you're genetically deaf, then being born deaf is the only chance you'll get to exist at all - so it's hard to see how you'd have been harmed by not being implanted. So the "How could they do that" argument seems misplaced, unless you think that the deaf are better off not being born at all. It's harder than you'd think to establish why choosing a deaf embryo would be wrong - the firmest claim I can formulate is that there's something less-than-admirable about the parents who'd make such a choice, but I'm not happy even with that - I can't say why they're less than admirable, and even if my claim's right, it doesn't amount to saying that they're wrong.

@K2k6: I have family in Dundee...
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Wed 23 Apr 2008, 13:34, closed)

I used to be into...
Bestiality, flagellation and necrophilia.
Then I decided it was flogging a dead horse.
( Boss Keloid Got your mother's maiden name tattooed on my arm, Wed 23 Apr 2008, 13:34, closed)

@chickenlady
By what standard is the fantasticness of goats measured?
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Wed 23 Apr 2008, 13:35, closed)

@ All
This is way heavy for the rough end of a Wednesday!

And to maybe clarify a bit more about my comment (as per Humpty's comment above). It's not the fact that she wants to be a mother that I find disturbing, that's normal. It's the overwhelming desire to have a kid and damn the consequences. I don't detest the idea of little Smurfs (although I doubt that will happen and if it does, I want to go adoption), but it's not the right time.

Maybe it's just me being idealist. I was lucky enough to have been born in to a fairly middle-class family amd I had a fantastic upbringing. And I want any child of mine to have an even better upbringing than I did, as I'm sure do a lot of parents. However I wouldn't want to have a child at this stage of my life because I wouldn't be able to provide it with the upbringing I want it to have. Financially anyway. I want the best for it.

And I don't think they are doing that. I'm not saying it would have a bad upbringing, but I think it could have a better upbringing.
(Big Smurf Brush me daddy-O, Wed 23 Apr 2008, 13:35, closed)

@Enzyme
well standard measurements are based upon the goatse scale.
(Bazongaloid, Wed 23 Apr 2008, 13:37, closed)

@Enzyme
They have my deepest sympathies!

At least I only work in the place.

Well, when I say 'work'...
( K2k6 has a proper job these days, Wed 23 Apr 2008, 13:37, closed)

@Enzyme again
re@ your comments about deaf embryos, I don't think the debate is normally about deaf child or no child, the most recent debate I have heard is deaf people saying your shouldn't operate on the foetus before it's born to enable it to hear, they say you should allow the child to make it's own decision later on.

Now being deaf is much less of a problem now than it used to be, but, as a huge music lover (i'm not huge btw) not being able to hear would be a major bummer for me so I can't see why, given the choice, you would actively want a child to miss out on being able to hear.

I think this is the argument the ginger penguin is getting at.
(Bazongaloid, Wed 23 Apr 2008, 13:40, closed)

@al
In that situation, though, there's a whole bunch of other stuff going on: the bodily integrity of the host (or "mother", as it's sometimes called), the risk of miscarriage, and so on. It may not be in the child's best interests to have such an operation, and, as such, there might be a good reason not to go ahead at the moment. Once its capable of making its own decision, the picture changes somewhat.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Wed 23 Apr 2008, 13:43, closed)

@al
Yes, that's a much better way of putting it! Ta!
(The Ginger Penguin la la la la la la, Wed 23 Apr 2008, 13:44, closed)

@ Enzyme
A goat is judged to be fantastic if, in the case of a female (a doe, or more commonly, a nanny)...

a)She's friendly
b)She doesn't break wind while you're milking her
c)She produces a large quantity of creamy milk
d)She's a good mother
e)She eats well - goats, contrary to popular opinion are actually very picky eaters. No one wanting to keep their grass down should get a goat - goats eat up - hedges and trees, rather than sheep who eat down - grass. That said, a goat will browse a little on grass, but give them a fruit tree and they'll demolish it - branches and all...then turn it into high quality milk.

Fantastic animals.

And they'll eat a good deal of your kitchen waste too - but not anything with meat in it, onions are also poisonous to them (any of the allium family, so garlic is out too), as are raw potatoes.

@ Bert, I'm still looking, but while you're waiting have a photo of my cock instead...


( chickenlady b3ta's very own Elizabeth Taylor, Wed 23 Apr 2008, 13:45, closed)

@ al
Eh?
( Tourette's ( . )( . ) has a monkey hair in her fried egg, Wed 23 Apr 2008, 13:46, closed)

@Enzyme
fair point about the other factors, but the articles I have read (or heard on't telly) about the situation have centred on the fact that deaf parents don't view the deafness as a disability and say the children should be born like that. Which I would say is unfair to the child as whether or not you view deafness as a disability, they are still missing out on a huge part of life, not just music, but things like hearing birds in trees, hearing very fast cars coming before they knock you down, that sort of thing.
(Bazongaloid, Wed 23 Apr 2008, 13:46, closed)

Nice Cock!

(Bazongaloid, Wed 23 Apr 2008, 13:48, closed)

@ Spunky Bert
Do I have to add all your pseodonyms to my list of friends to ensure I catch all your stuff?

*squeals like a kid but doesn't spluff*
( Tourette's ( . )( . ) has a monkey hair in her fried egg, Wed 23 Apr 2008, 13:49, closed)

:o(
Does everyone think I'm a twunt now?
(Big Smurf Brush me daddy-O, Wed 23 Apr 2008, 13:50, closed)

@al
I agree. There's part of me that just doesn't buy their claims. Still, it's hard to see how the child would have been wronged by being brough to birth deaf. (Not only is there a difference between "bad" and "not good", but there's also one between "bad" and "wrong" on which I'm capitalising here.)

Hmmm. Have to go to a seminar in a mo. Shame. I'm enjoying this...
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Wed 23 Apr 2008, 13:51, closed)

@Bigsmurf
who are you, and what did you have to do with this post?

oh!

no, I don't think your a twunt, I thought your argument had some valid points. And I also agree with the stuff that tourettes said. But Enzymes argument was also filled with merit. Soooooooo. I'm still on the fence

*gets splinters in ringpiece*
(Bazongaloid, Wed 23 Apr 2008, 13:52, closed)

@Smurf.
Not at all. I'm enjoying the debate!
(This is my day-job - I'll happily talk ethics and related matters until everyone else has died.)


@Tourette's: No need. The magic of the t'computerz means that he'll follow you around in all his guises...
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Wed 23 Apr 2008, 13:53, closed)

@ Big Smurf
Not at all!

Despite my occasional silly posts I think it's great that your original post has generated this depth of discussion.

Where else would you get the finer points of ethics and biology coupled with goat sex?
( chickenlady b3ta's very own Elizabeth Taylor, Wed 23 Apr 2008, 13:54, closed)

@Enzyme
ah, you got caught out by the wily tourettes, she disguised a cunning spunk gag in an otherwise reasonable request there.
(Bazongaloid, Wed 23 Apr 2008, 13:56, closed)

@Chickenlady
Coupling with goats combines biology and ethics.

(Incidentally, Peter Singer of Princeton University and author of several books on applied ethics has recently published a paper on bestiality. No joke: it's called Heavy Petting. I disagree with Singer on many things, but that is genius...)
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Wed 23 Apr 2008, 13:57, closed)

@ Chickenlady
So, if one of the qualities defining a fantastic goat is producing large quanTITies of creamy milk, what does that say about our friend Bert?

Would he make a splendid goat / parent?
( Tourette's ( . )( . ) has a monkey hair in her fried egg, Wed 23 Apr 2008, 13:58, closed)

@ Enzyme
Bestiality...now there is a whole ethical minefield...Fascinating stuff, no really! Informed consent...hmm.
( chickenlady b3ta's very own Elizabeth Taylor, Wed 23 Apr 2008, 13:59, closed)

@ Tourettes
I think Bert could probably be milked in large quantities...by hand of course.
( chickenlady b3ta's very own Elizabeth Taylor, Wed 23 Apr 2008, 14:00, closed)

Count yourself lucky, Smurfy
One of my posts this week generated about 16 on topic, discursive responses and 136 goat-shagging how-many-cars-have-you-tested-the-suspension-in fest.
( Davros' Granddad a voice of calm reason in a world of spastics., Wed 23 Apr 2008, 14:01, closed)

@D's G
You love the goat/dogging posts, don't dare say otherwise!

@tourette's my stuff gets everywhere, you'd be hard pressed to catch it all.

And chickenlady, damn, I love your big, gorgeous cock.
( Bert Monkeysex is waiting for the mods to delete him, Wed 23 Apr 2008, 14:10, closed)

Well...
I've again managed to miss tonnes while I was out for lunch.

I'll just wait for things to get flowing again, then ease myself into the action.
( Cawl, Wed 23 Apr 2008, 14:11, closed)

@ Big Smurf
No, you are not a twunt at all. You are a concerned friend to Mr & Mrs Friend. Your concerns are all valid - proving you to give much more than the proverbial shit.
I agree with the all-consuming need for pushing out a baby being disturbing and wrong, in this case. But then again, that's pure speculation on my part as I don't know these people. Like I said in my BIG ONE ^ up there, from the information you've given I think the better option for Mr & Mrs Friend and their as yet non-existent child, would be a rescue dog.
( Tourette's ( . )( . ) has a monkey hair in her fried egg, Wed 23 Apr 2008, 14:12, closed)

@Kaol
well, if you want to ease yourself in with some photoshopping, there is a picture of chickenladys cock up there that looks ripe for abuse.
(Bazongaloid, Wed 23 Apr 2008, 14:12, closed)

@tourettes
I love that you spared us the possibility of missing a rude word anywhere in your posts by highlighting them.

huh huh spared

*doesn't really understand rude words*
(Bazongaloid, Wed 23 Apr 2008, 14:15, closed)

@Al
Nah, I'm done photoshopping today.
I'd need another picture of you, as well...
( Cawl, Wed 23 Apr 2008, 14:15, closed)

@al
You mean like this?

( Bert Monkeysex is waiting for the mods to delete him, Wed 23 Apr 2008, 14:17, closed)

That is friggin great!
and well done on your second CDC.
(Bazongaloid, Wed 23 Apr 2008, 14:19, closed)

Who needs photoshopping skills, eh?
I'm on fire!

(I literally cannot stop giggling at myself like a little girl for that one. I'm such a twat)
( Bert Monkeysex is waiting for the mods to delete him, Wed 23 Apr 2008, 14:22, closed)

*puts Burt out with a tin of watery baked beans*
*worries about his position as Official Artist*
( Cawl, Wed 23 Apr 2008, 14:24, closed)

Phew! Thank you.
And a special thanks to Tourette's. Myself and Mrs Smurf have decided to go the 'lots of rescue cats' route. Between my weird clotting genes (Factore V Leiden Heterozygote, as Enzyme was talking about Zygotes above) and Mrs Smurfs thyroid issues, I think we're better off not pro-creating!

Who currently holds the record of 'Most Beastiality Replies to Topic'?
(Big Smurf Brush me daddy-O, Wed 23 Apr 2008, 14:25, closed)

@ al
I do it subconsciously. 'Fraid I speak that way too....

I hope I never grow UP

*snik woop fnaar*
( Tourette's ( . )( . ) has a monkey hair in her fried egg, Wed 23 Apr 2008, 14:27, closed)

@Big Smurf
I'm not sure who has the most replies, but it's odd, if you start a post with bestiality, it fades out quickly: See www.b3ta.com/questions/kids/post146092

If you start with an honest topic, like this: www.b3ta.com/questions/kids/post145631 it all goes downhill very fast.
( Cawl, Wed 23 Apr 2008, 14:31, closed)

Ref the Deaf (didja see what I did there?)
The most recent re-incarnation of the whole deaf-foetus/baby argument was a completely deaf couple who wished to go the IVF route, and select an embryo for deafness, the rest of course being chucked in the skip.

Their argument was that they did not regard deafness as a disability, and to have a hearing child rather than a deaf one would be pandering to a society that regarded deafness as a disability.

You can see their POV, but he still came across as a self-satisfied twat on Radio 4 and I wanted to slap him a few times.

Ethics? Random violence is much more satisfying.
(osok Rebel without a clue, Wed 23 Apr 2008, 14:31, closed)

@ osok
Agreed.
I tell you what though, I always find it hard to see things from the point of view of blind people...

Sorry :(
( Cawl, Wed 23 Apr 2008, 14:34, closed)

@ Big Smurf
You're welcome. I'm glad you've made a joint resposible decision to adopt rescue animals. The bonus is, they are much quicker to house-train than childlets! ;o)

That's exactly why I have one child and then got him a rescue dog for a sibling. I'm not in the best of health, physically or mentally, so I know a second child was never an option - I would have struggled in every respect, therefore rather than potentially fuck up a human life, we all love our special dog to bits. She is part of our family.
( Tourette's ( . )( . ) has a monkey hair in her fried egg, Wed 23 Apr 2008, 14:37, closed)

christ, you lot have had a busy lunchtime
but you know what? So have I. I had lunch with a bioanthropologist. She was able to tell me that the most recent work in determining how intelligence manifests itself shows that it is probably purely environmental, i.e. it doesn't matter a whit about genes, so smart people needn't panic about breeding.

(There was a brief aside up there where K2k6 asked if smart people not breeding would lower the population's intelligence, so I thought I'd contribute something on that because this looks like an interesting thread.)

(As you were.)
( crackhouseceilidhband Fuck off back to Mumsnet, Wed 23 Apr 2008, 14:59, closed)

What kaol said
and illustrates my point further up this thread perfectly.

Fun though. (Is the only thread that hasn't gone off topic across 200 replies CHCB's wanking Wednesday from the guilty pleasures thread a few weeks back)?
( Davros' Granddad a voice of calm reason in a world of spastics., Wed 23 Apr 2008, 15:17, closed)

Deaf IVF parents
I read the story on the deaf parents and I just thought it was horribly unfair of them. Ok, so they say deafness isn't a disability and society is discriminating against them by not allowing them to select a deaf baby, but I just feel sorry for the baby. I wonder how that child will feel growing up unable to hear music, etc, and knowing that his parents chose that fate for him. It was an interesting point Enzyme made about it being the difference between being alive and deaf and not existing at all, but I'm not sure I fully understand that as I don't think a child exists before it is actually formed if that makes sense.

I should point out that although I am a woman I don't have the gene that makes me go soppy at the sight of a new born and I get most irate when female colleagues bring them into my office so that other females may coo and sigh accordingly. I don't begrudge people children and I will probably want one myself one day, but if I were unable to have them then I would certainly look at adoption.

I know that it's all very well me saying that now and if I were to be in that situation for real I may feel differently, but at the moment that is my humble opinion.

The debate on how much science is good science has been getting more and more heated with each new discovery it seems. People argue that it would be good to use science to remove defective genes, however, what about that big controversial new story a couple of years ago about a scientist stating genetic science could be used to pick out superficial characteristics like blonde hair and blue eyes. I know this isn't quite reminiscent of the days of Hitler, but it does raise ethical questions.

That's my two penneth anyway!! I shall continue to lurk now.
( Kitty v1.0 desperately naive, Wed 23 Apr 2008, 15:55, closed)

^
re: "wonder how that child will feel growing up unable to hear music"

I'm not being facetious, but they won't know. They won't have a comparative basis.
( crackhouseceilidhband Fuck off back to Mumsnet, Wed 23 Apr 2008, 15:58, closed)

true dat
I can't imagine how it must feel either way, one of the debates my boss and I have had were 'which do you think would be worse, losing your hearing or being born without it'. I suppose they say you can't miss what you never knew but surely they would be a little resentful about what they were missing out on. The main loss I would think would be that of music, it's so much a part of society, it would be hard to not feel like you're missing something I would imagine.
( Kitty v1.0 desperately naive, Wed 23 Apr 2008, 16:18, closed)

@Kitty
You're on exactly the right lines. If your only chance ever to exist meant that you'd be deaf, you wouldn't have been harmed by being brought into existence, and I don't think you'd have been wronged, either. So if a parent had chosen a deaf embryo, the child it would grow up to be wouldn't have grounds for complaint.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Wed 23 Apr 2008, 16:26, closed)

Deaf people and music
Saw a documentary once where a deaf guy listed dancing in clubs as part of his social life. Loved it. When asked how he knew what the music was doing, his (signed, obviously) reply was that he could feel the drums and bass vibrating, and thus knew what to do. Cut to scene of him socialising and he was like a young John Travolta on the dancefloor.

Ironically I've seen some people with perfect hearing dance like they'd never heard music before...
( Davros' Granddad a voice of calm reason in a world of spastics., Wed 23 Apr 2008, 16:36, closed)

With you on this one
Just a sort of case study, which I think is a testimony to the occasional selfishness in some of these cases- my mum is currently working with a 12 year old boy, who has severe mental disabilities. He can't talk properly (he is currently just learning to say the alphabet), he can't look after himself, and is entirely incapable of having any sort of independance in his life. He is also just getting to the age where he realises this. His mother, after her third daughter, was told that there was tissue in her womb, and that if she were to get pregnant, the child would be mentally disabled. She got pregnant, because she wanted another kid. I know it's not the same thing, as this woman knew from before conception that her child would have no quality of life, but I do think that it is a testimony to the overriding need to have a child that some women have, to the point that it occludes thinking about the life of the child you are about to have. I personally, if I had MS, would need a kick up rthe arse to realise quite how selfish I was being, regardless of hormones.
( Madam Marlboro wonders if you've found her yet, Wed 23 Apr 2008, 16:43, closed)

^ This
is possibly one of the most selfish things I've ever heard. She knew any more babies would be disabled, yet went ahead and got pregnant anyway, even though she has 3 (I assume) perfectly healthy kids?

*Shakes head*

I know you can't legislate for this kind of self-centered behaviour, but honestly, what the fuck was she thinking? The child is going to grow up needing care as well, it seems - who foots the bill when the parents have shuffled off this mortal coil? Who takes on the care responsibility? And what the bloody hell was the father thinking in all of this (assuming there is a stable father-figure lurking somewhere in the background)?

While I sympathise with anyone who has a child and then finds out he/she has whatever disability, to create a new life in the full knowledge that the poor kid will be severely disadvantaged and have little quality of life from day one is nothing short of reprehensible.
( Davros' Granddad a voice of calm reason in a world of spastics., Wed 23 Apr 2008, 17:05, closed)

The deaf couple
I think the real issue with the deaf couple who were having IVF was that the deaf embryo's are automatically discarded. They are not given the chance to live at all. As in IVF several embryos are implanted at once to give the best chance of success, they were simply arguing that these embryos should be given the same chance as hearing embryos. But I did see the couple arguing their point on BBC Breakfast and they didn't get it across very well.
I agree that the deaf embryo's should be given a chance, and that in some ways, growing up hearing in a family of deaf (they have another child who is also deaf) could be pretty hard. So they're not arguing that they should be able to choose only deaf embryos, just that they shouldn't be discarded. As a deaf person you would presumably feel like this was tantamount to saying that you shouldn't have been given the chance to life.
(Moniker1, Wed 23 Apr 2008, 17:17, closed)

@DG
This brings us precisely to full circle in this thread, when the all consuming need for a baby just takes over an rationale goes out the window.

My ex "G" was similarly compelled not only because her biological clock was ticking with all the subtlety of Big Ben, but also because she saw having a baby as a "cure" for the pain she was carrying around as a result of her own dysfunctional childhood. She had some serious issues, yet in her mind these would all go away once she had a gurgling bundle in her arms.

It doesn't work like that, babies aren't a magic cure-all. Instead, they bring extra stresses and will cause an already fragile relationship to break. I could see that, but she couldn't, such was her need to have a baby.

And a great many people are the same, they'll just get pregnant because they need to with nary a thought as to how they'll cope once the child grows up. Then no doubt they'll be hassling their kids to reproduce so that then can hold their grandchildren in their arms.
(Bicycle Repairman "you're also a bit of a wanker", Wed 23 Apr 2008, 17:30, closed)

@Moniker1
It makes for interesting but emotive thinking.

Would I, for example, choose to have a child knowing there is a chance it could inherit my manic depression?

Er, actually I'm undecided on that one. (Adoption is probably pretty much out, though. If I have to renew my driving licence on a yearly basis then I don't hold out much hope of being handed a child.)
( crackhouseceilidhband Fuck off back to Mumsnet, Wed 23 Apr 2008, 17:36, closed)

100!
ya boo.
( crackhouseceilidhband Fuck off back to Mumsnet, Wed 23 Apr 2008, 17:37, closed)

^CHCB
Yes, this is also a question I have asked myself. Could I bring a child into the world knowing it stood a chance - however small - of one day going through that?

*edit*

Arse. I was hoping for a topical and thought provoking ton.
(Bicycle Repairman "you're also a bit of a wanker", Wed 23 Apr 2008, 17:39, closed)

^it's a tricky one.
I find life pretty unbearable at times (understatement). Could I really watch a child suffer the same thing?

Add to that the knowledge that pregnancy in bipolar women can trigger a severe psychotic episode (puerperal psychosis), even with meds. Nice...

Oh, and sleep loss is a huge trigger for me. That'd make the first few months fun.
( crackhouseceilidhband Fuck off back to Mumsnet, Wed 23 Apr 2008, 17:46, closed)

@CHCB
Too true. My hubby suffers from depression, as does his mother (and her sister while we're at it- so badly she had a lobotomy in the days when that was considered a 'good' thing) and his dad had a breakdown. His dad has seriously suggested to me that perhaps we shouldn't have children together. And that did get me thinking- was it selfish of me to want to have this mans babies?
Having said that many of the most creative and intelligent minds ever to have lived have suffered from mental disorders in one way or another so it's not so black and white... as ever! I think we'll risk it.
(Moniker1, Wed 23 Apr 2008, 17:49, closed)

CHCB
Without understanding the issues of bipolarity, which may or may not be inherited or a byproduct of one's upbringing, it's very difficult to comment.

However, regardless of your medical condition you're certainly giving it much more consideration than many people. That alone should be applauded.

edit - a good many highly creative and intelligent people I know are borderline barking. The lines blur sometimes.
(Bicycle Repairman "you're also a bit of a wanker", Wed 23 Apr 2008, 17:49, closed)

eh
I was just using it as an example really, but yes, I have thought a lot about it.

Although all the causes aren't fully known, it is in part genetic. There's an 8% chance that a child will inherit bipolar disorder from one bipolar parent (it goes up to 20% if you include major depression).
( crackhouseceilidhband Fuck off back to Mumsnet, Wed 23 Apr 2008, 17:55, closed)

Errr
Sorry to steer this backwards, but I still fail to see who actively choosing to have a child which is deaf from the off is a good idea. It's hardly a social issue, as ours is a very noisey world, and often you'll hear danger before you see it. Where it is a social issue though, is that communication with the average individual will be difficult as not everyone is fluent in sign and there'll always be some who will ostracise, or be otherwise unsympathetic to, the child for lacking the ability to hear.

IF i am missing something here, I'll readily accept enlightenment. I'm no biologist or sociologist or whatever.
(Impuritan, Wed 23 Apr 2008, 18:05, closed)

^
I think it boils down to:

better to be born and have a life than to have no life at all.

That probably lacks some of Enzyme's rather clever subtleties.
( crackhouseceilidhband Fuck off back to Mumsnet, Wed 23 Apr 2008, 18:07, closed)

@ PJM & CHCB
I do think there is a hereditory element to mental illness. Be it genetic or learned, or perhaps a combination of the two. My father has been a depressive as long as I've known him, as was his mother (she was so bad she was prescribed Lithium).
That's why I stopped at Sweary Junior. Having been a depressive since childhood, my post-natal depression fucked off the scale completely. My boy has seen me rocking on the floor in the foetal position when he was 4 or 5 years old. I know I've inflicted irreparable damage in his early years.
Apart from not being physically capable of another pregnancy (likely I'd end up in wheelchair) no way would I consider putting the whole family through the same turmoil/distress.

Despite this ^ SJ is now a well adjusted sociable and compassionate young chap - he has more empathy in his little finger than the majority of adults I've come across. Thanks to effective medication, much therapy and a loving, patient, supportive DG, I've been mostly stable these last few years.

Hooray for SSRIs!
Hooray for DG!
( Tourette's ( . )( . ) has a monkey hair in her fried egg, Wed 23 Apr 2008, 18:09, closed)

@CHCB
Surely though, by extension of those being born deaf know no different, that those who are not born would not know life. I don't know, i suppose it depends how you define life.

I'm not a callous guy, honest.
(Impuritan, Wed 23 Apr 2008, 18:17, closed)

CHCB
Have to disagree - there are some people out there that are so severely disabled that they just cannot function and need round the clock care. No speech, no motor function, no comprehension of what's going on around them...

That's no life, so I'd argue that people like that would have been better off not being born (which in itself brings the discussion nicely (? - maybe not the best use of words) back to abortion. If you knew that your unborn child was going to be completely dependant on you and other people for its entire life, would you go through with it?
( Davros' Granddad a voice of calm reason in a world of spastics., Wed 23 Apr 2008, 18:23, closed)

@Davros
That's the really big question isn't it, at what point do you say, this child will have no quality of life if it is carried to full term.

In terms of the deaf embryos debate, the idea that you want to just implant all embryos regardless of whether they will be deaf or not actually seems perfectly reasonable. It's the equivalent of if they were concieving naturally in that respect.

I agree that it is messed up if you catergorically know that any child you have will be totally dependant upon you for ever and you still go through with it.

Incidentally, how many people here suffer from depression of some sort, incredible, I've never met anyone else (apart from my mother that is) that's had it (or at least that's admitted to having it). Nice and reasuring that I'm not weird.

Well, not that weird anyway. Th goat thing isn't that weird. Is it?
(Bazongaloid, Wed 23 Apr 2008, 18:58, closed)

@Davros
It's a hard one. I know another girl who is just that- basically all her motor functions are rerouted constantly so that she can never learn an action. She's now 18, has enough brain to hate herself and her lack of life, and takes it out on her parents by refusing to make any effort any more. Much as they love her, her mother has no life (father still works). In a way, it boils down to- are you ready to sacrifice your life for that of a child, knowing that no matter how much love, care and attention you lavish on them, they will never achieve anything. Her mum is now trying to deal with the fact that her daughter will live to 30 (if lucky) and then she will be in her 60s, with a big 30 year hole in her existence.
( Madam Marlboro wonders if you've found her yet, Wed 23 Apr 2008, 19:01, closed)

@al
Depressive since 4, self harming at 5. I think we all seek solace in other broken souls.
( Madam Marlboro wonders if you've found her yet, Wed 23 Apr 2008, 19:02, closed)

hmmm
but surely the matter of whether a child of yours is going to be completely dependent on you for all of its life is a separate question as to whether it should exist, i.e. does the fact that it will be a heavy burden to you mean it shouldn't have a life? And who gets to make such a call?

Just musing... I don't have any answers. Besides, if I had my way there wouldn't be anyone else on the planet except a select group of people I had permitted to exist.
( crackhouseceilidhband Fuck off back to Mumsnet, Wed 23 Apr 2008, 22:18, closed)

@ CHCB
Ahah!
Now that's a whole nuther can of worms....
It depends on the interpretation of dependant. Are any of us truly independant? I think not. In our society we depend on so many services..... that's another tangent.

Heavy burden - another, even bigger can of worms. On whom would the burden be? The child / parent / taxpayer? Burdens vary too, be they physical, psychological, or just plain cuntful.

Another question you threw in, who gets to make the call?
Brings so many other queries to mind....
How to differentiate between existence / some modicome of quality of life?
How do we measure quality vs quantity of life?

Fucked if I know. But this weeks question has been the most thought provoking since I signed UP to this website.
( Tourette's ( . )( . ) has a monkey hair in her fried egg, Wed 23 Apr 2008, 22:55, closed)

As far as IVF is concerned
then surely it makes logical sense to chose those embryos which are most viable - 'perfect' for want of a better word.

The choice of parents once a child has been conceived but not yet born but discovered to have some sort of handicap/disability...That's a tough one.

For my part, because of personal family experience, I chose not to have an amniocentesis test precisely because if I'd been told my child (or children, as it turned out) was going to be born severely disabled I'm not sure I could have aborted them.

Call it putting your head in the sand if you like.

I'm very much of the opinion that the variety of human ability and disability makes for a more caring society. We may not think our society is a caring one a good deal of the time but in many ways we are.

Rid society of all variety in abilities and we lose something of our humanity.
( chickenlady b3ta's very own Elizabeth Taylor, Wed 23 Apr 2008, 23:22, closed)

@tourette's
you missed a BIGGER there too.
(Bazongaloid, Thu 24 Apr 2008, 8:42, closed)

@Madam Marlboro
What makes you think that a disabled child would have no quality of life? That seems like rather a big claim to me...
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Thu 24 Apr 2008, 9:30, closed)

Quality of life?
Well, being too lazy to find the original poster, I cannot quote verbatim from this but the gist of the post was that someone here knows a girl of eighteen years old who suffers from a disorder whereby her motor functions are constantly being rewired and the gist of it is that she cannot take for granted that her nervous system will allow her to "remember" how to walk from one day to the next... The condition itself is immaterial, but the illuminating post about the girl's state of mind is very relevant.

The upshot is that after eighteen years, she's given up trying to lead any sort of life and she's wishing she'd never been born. I assume that she retains her full mental faculties, yet is a prisoner in a defective body.

Clearly just being alive isn't enough, no?
(Bicycle Repairman "you're also a bit of a wanker", Thu 24 Apr 2008, 10:46, closed)

How do you define quality of life anyway?
Is being loved and cared for enough if you're incapable of doing anything for yourself? And what if you're in the situation where you're completely aware of your physical limitations? I can fully understand why the young lady mentioned feels the way she does.

Morning, by the way.
( Davros' Granddad a voice of calm reason in a world of spastics., Thu 24 Apr 2008, 11:17, closed)