Friday, November 2, 2012

Blog #8

Read this article and reflect. What do you think? Compare and contrast this to the hearing community.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/mar/09/genetics.medicalresearch

9 comments:

  1. This issue is a very sensitive one. I’m not sure how I feel about all of this, but picking your child seems kind of excessive. The thing that got me the most, though, was how the embryos with deafness genes would be automatically discarded. Why do they deem deafness to be so bad? This just makes me wonder what other ones they decide to throw away. Is it just the deaf genes or is it blind genes, short genes, and red-head genes too? I agree with Lichy’s argument that deaf people should have the right to throw away a hearing embryo as well, but do they need to be thrown away at all? Why can’t they be kept for stem cell research if they are going to kill the embryo anyway?

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think the manipulation of genetics is a very, very sensitive topic. This article pointed out several ethical issues. First of all, I don’t agree that you should be able to make a “designer baby”. I think that couples should accept who their baby is, whether they think it is perfect or not. I don’t like that the couple wanted to genetically alter a baby to make him/her deaf but I also don’t like that the bill says that embryos with a deafness marker will be discarded. Why would you discard an embryo because the baby will be deaf?!? Being deaf is not the end of the world and I think people with the pathological view came up with this idea. I think people want to discard any embryo that would have a “disability”. Who decides what is a disability and whether that embryo should become a child? The article also points out that the bill has been very controversial from the start but the government will probably not change their minds. I liked reading the article for the information but I didn’t agree with most of the content. In my own opinion, I feel like science should have stayed away from genetics and choosing embryos for specific markers. I think having a child should happen naturally and parents shouldn’t be able to pick and choose.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I haven't decided if I am for or against genetic manipulation. I understand why people want to do it, but on the other hand, is it fair to disturb human nature? I'm undecided on the issue. But I do understand why this couple would want to have another Deaf child. It is their way of life that they want to raise a child with the same way of life. This is comparable to a hearing family wanting a hearing child. But I don't know if genetic modification is the way to go about this. Couldn't the family adopt a Deaf child rather than direct nature in an unnatural way?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I really like that you brought up adoption. I agree that adoption is a better option than "building" a child unnaturally. Messing around with genetics seems so wrong. But at the same time if people wouldn't have explored options, IVF would never have been developed and that has proved to be good so far.

      Delete
    2. I like your point about disturbing nature. We are entitled to do some many things and handed so many options in our daily lives. But genetic alteration should not even belong in the cards. If people would realize that they don't need to be the same as everyone else there wouldn't be this problem. I feel society has some people brainwashed into thinking you need to have certain characteristics to fit it with the norm. I agree with you and we should just let things be the way they were meant to be.

      Delete
  4. I agree that embyros shouldn't be thrown away at all. Good point. I understand that a family wants a child who will be part of the Deaf world (if the parents are Deaf) or hearing world (if the parents are hearing). But having a child should be a blessed moment in any parents life. The family did say that they would accept a hearing child as well, but if that's true, why are they attempting to genetically modify a child?

    ReplyDelete
  5. I disagree that the goverment shouldn't tell us what to do with our bodies. When it comes to tatoos and piercings- I'm a freedom of expression advocate. but without the government stepping in and laying down some ground rules, it would be legal for every person to be shooting heroine on a regular basis. I understand these are two extreme example, but I think genetically modifying embryos is somewhat government ground. I think a parent should be able to say they want particular traits for their children to obtain, but I also understand that the government doesn't want a bunch of genetically modified robots inhabiting the country.
    Like I stated in my original post, I am undecided on the issue because I understand both sides- but I do believe the government should have some say in this issue. But I also think it should be fair. If a hearing family wants to throw away Deaf embryos, a Deaf family should be able to throw away hearing ones.

    ReplyDelete
  6. In my statement, I also agreed that embryos should not be thrown away! Also, you know this is an controversial topic because many TV shows have brought up this issue.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Genetically engineering is certainly making progress. Unfortunately, it seems that sooner or later we will relying on such process for most things. The choice to discard embryos is indeed a step too far. Choosing whether your child will be hearing or not should not even be a choice. Let them be born naturally and without modifications. I hate to say it, but it seems that with today's society we have to be perfect and flawless to "fit in." In my opinion, just let it be the way it was meant to be: there is no problem being who you are regardless of anything.

    ReplyDelete