One is not eliminating 'blacks': One is eliminating 'sickle cell trait'. As long as the family is no longer living in a malaria-prone area, that is a good decision that will lead to a healthier offspring. Why would you want your child to have sickle cell any more than you would want her to have spina bifida?

My apologies for trying to put words in your mouth re abortion parameters. Often, the next question in such a discussion is whether allowing early term abortions requires acceptance of later term abortions as well. I was trying 'not to go there' but apparently had the opposite effect.

Jan
(Liked your MiB quote.)

"You are correct: The starting place on this slippery slope, however, is simply to eliminate negative characteristics."

Blacks are genetically more inclined to sickle-cell anemia and several other diseases. Your logic morally justifies their genocide because these are negative characteristics. Do you really want to go there? That is the result of both acknowledging and accepting a slippery slope moral proposition. What is more, once one is on the slope, one can't even see the precarious nature of one's own position. It's like a snowboarding course - it just goes downhill once you jump on.

"So, you ask, where does society's parameters come into play?"

On the contrary, I don't ask society anything. I like the line from "Men in Black": "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it."

Society is full of morons: listening to them for guidance on morality is subjecting one's self to their group stupidity and mob mentality. Remember there are a lot of people who think government should run healthcare, control industry, and restrict firearm ownership. Mob rule got Socrates executed and scorned the heliocentric model of the solar system.

Reality doesn't care how many deluded people there are out there. Appealing to the masses as a debate tactic loses you points in my book. Reality is completely and unalterably indifferent to the foibles and intellectual failure of man.

"Gattica is an entirely different question, as it deals with what you do with the knowledge of someone's statistical genetic nature without regard for their actual accomplishment."

Let's see. Someone is determining someone else's fate (quite literally) based not on anything that person has done but rather on innate characteristics they can not change and a hypothetical future. Hmmmm.... Yup, I guess that's totally different. [/sarcasm]

My answer is: Yes. Everything.

We should allow early-stage abortions if the genome of the fetus has the wrong hair color or lacks musical talent or did not inherit the wings I added to my genome last year. I regard this as a good thing, not a bad thing.

You are correct: The starting place on this slippery slope, however, is simply to eliminate negative characteristics. Do you care if your child has Down's Syndrome? No? Well then, go ahead and have a beautiful and sweet Down's Syndrome child. Do you care if your child has spina bifida? Trisomy 18? If not, then go ahead and have a child who may be born crippled or severely mentally handicapped.

Reproductive choices, like other aspects of the individual, do not (should not) default to the decision of the crowd. If I am 100% white, but I want my child to be 100% African black, and we can introduce those genes into the fetus, then that is my choice - someone else should not be able to make me do this...or prevent it.

So, you ask, where does society's parameters come into play? Right now, society is almost entirely in agreement that a late-term termination of pregnancy, when the fetus would be able to live independently, is not allowed. I agree with that, as I think it is a reasonable rule-of-thumb; I think that 90% of our current society would agree on that. Anything else is the decision of the parents.

Gattica is an entirely different question, as it deals with what you do with the knowledge of someone's statistical genetic nature without regard for their actual accomplishment. Gattica is comparable to pre-judicially not allowing women to take math because women are statistically less math adept than men. This invalidates the actuality of the individual: the most talented person with math that I have ever met is a woman.

Jan

A movie that I have watched over and over again is "Gattica". The question raised is how far do we as a society want to allow genetics to prejudicially determine a person's contributions to society. If we allow abortions for Trisomy 21, what else? Autism? How about Asberger's? To me it is a slippery slope argument of the most grave moral question: the question of life itself.

I think it might make a difference whether brain waves were already present or not.
Ayn Rand was in favor of a woman's right to have an abortion. However, she said, "One may
quarrel about the later [or" latter", I don't remember which she said] stages of a pregnan-
cy, but the essential issue concerns only the first
three months."

"Whats the acceptable justification?"

In China.....that bastion of godless communism, they select for sex so much that they have an oversupply of males! Sometimes they perform "Retroactive abortions" on girls...it is called "Bathing the baby". That is the baby takes a bath and sadly drowns.

I pointed you up for the first paragraph but then wanted to take it back for the last sentence: I do not equate abortion with execution. If someone wants to go ahead and raise a Down Syndrome child, that is fine, but they should not be forced to do so. That Icelandic moms have made virtually 100% decision to not have trisomy 21 children seems logical to me.

Jan
(I put the points back on because I agreed with 3/4 of your post.)

Exactly, if they were attempting to adjust genetic markers (I'm learning more about this every semester as my daughter completes her forensic studies) to remove the trait I would support this, but choosing to eliminate entirely on this basis, while the parents choice, is more than a little disturbing to me. I've encountered some folks with Downs over the years and never thought them mentally or physically deficient. As you point out, who is next? Whats the acceptable justification?

Well, I'm a quarter Irish and 100% Irish on my St. Patrick's Day birthday.

Works for me. Demonstrate financial capability to care for them unassisted and commitment to do so, and you can roll the dice, but then that requirement should hold for all children.

We have demonstrated we can produce an inordinate number of humans. We have enough. The ones we make don't need to start off defective.

Additional population is pretty clearly an example of involuntary servitude by the present population, and subject to some market cost.

This sounds like a case for perfecting the human race, but that was tried under the National Socialists in Germany. Defects were weeded out even down to ethnic and race undesirables. But we live in the age self based on convenience: convenience foods, convenient transportation, low maintenance housing, and convenient children. Nothing should interfere with ones own convenience.

There is no mandated care for defective babies, whether physical or mental. In the case of physical problems great strides are being made for those who can afford them. From a strictly scientific approach, aborting defective children makes sense. However, for those who believe that all human life is precious it makes no sense at all. This raises many ethical questions from both sides of the argument. Intellectual defectives require hardly any extra effort, all the way up to constant loving care. Physical defectives are the same only perhaps, more obviously so. So, whose responsibility are we dealing with -- the state? The individual,? The family? To date this has become a problem that is being solved to a greater or lesser degree by the families involved. If the government takes over the responsibility, there is little doubt that what is happening in Iceland will be happening here. While considering the problem, one thing there is to make sure of, keep it out of the government's hands..

Not my intention to put "the onus on the woman"
I believe in preventing rather than reacting if possible. Responsibility for your actions , male or
Female is equal. I phrased it as I did because a man can't have an abortion.
I would not restrict a woman from aborting. I also don't like encouragement or pressure to abort from PP services. I will admit to loving life and
the possibilities that go with it.
That we as a society should eliminate downs fetuses is not the society that I want to be part of.

He didn't say the woman was responsible. Both have brains. Both can use birth control (of different types.)

"If you are smart enough to know where the man puts his thing in you, you should be smart enough to use birth control to prevent an unwanted pregnancy."

Sounds to me like you're putting the onus on the woman.

I said nothing of the only responsibility of the woman.

It should be the woman's choice. I do think if she wanted a human baby that she would want more than blue eyes. It will grow up to be a human life after all, and one would think that an intelligent women would want THAT, and not an eye color.

I would not interfere with her ability to choose to abort, but I wouldnt really think much of her if she did it for the eye color.

Yep...that's how it works...1 north and 1 south...

Why would this "stupid" woman's choice be a problem? Do you think it would be better for her to bring up a child she doesn't want, because you don't agree with her child-selection criteria?

Government shouldn't fund abortions, but it shouldn't prohibit them either.

Wow, another one who believes that pregnancy is only the responsibility of the woman. Interesting.

one plays one pays

I believe it takes two to tango.

It's one thing for the fetus to have an adverse medical condition, hopefully found at the earliest stages but it's another to abort because of some inconvenient...one plays, one pays...I shouldn't have to pay for your mistake, ignorance or arrogance.

It is interesting that the collectivists think they know when someone's life is worth living. What if the individual doesn't understand or agree with the collectivists? Should they be allowed to keep their life? I know a lady who was once told that her son (who wasn't born yet) had severe mental abnormalities and he should be aborted. She considered it because she did not want him to suffer. When he was born he was normal. Whoops, our mistake.
I was traveling once and while waiting at the Orange County airport a woman who was a nurse sat down next to me, we exchanged pleasantries and she began talking about the importance of a woman's right to choose and went on to say that after children were born their brains are still forming and being connected so they really aren't sentient until they are 5 years old so the right to terminate a life should extend to that age not just be limited to unborn children because what if the child wasn't turning out right and you could foresee some problems? I got up and moved away from her. The right to control or dispense of another life always comes from the collectivists. I am certain my life would be terminated at this point (I am 68) because I would be viewed as a menace to society and happiness because of my Objectivist views and desire to be able to live by those precepts.
Children are an incredible responsibility. If you don't want that responsibility get fixed. Don't make the child pay the price of a life because it is inconvenient for you.

It is.

As long as it's not a government's choice...