If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
It isn't any different at all. It is statistically rare for a batch of embryos (in IVF treatment they normally make several embryos, not just one) to all have "disabilities".
If it becomes illegal to implant a "disabled" embryo, what do you think happens to the embryos that can't be implanted?
nothing, unless you think all embryos that are made should be used?
I don't think that is their argument at all. It's not that they would choose to have a child with a disability. It's that this law says that people like them should not be allowed to be born through IVF if a "normal" embryo is available.
It's a sick law, this suggestion that some embryos have more right to life than others. Not because of parental choice but by Govt diktat.
The same thing that would happen to them if they weren't chosen for any other reason? (Not sure I understood what your point is here)
What has it got to do with the Govt?
You are advocating choice here, the law isn't.
If yes, then I can't say anything to you. If no, then why do you draw the line before autism or down's and not deafness?
Of course yes. Why shouldn't that embryo have as much chance of life?
Are you suggesting that a "disabled" child should not have as full a life as is possible for them? What do you think makes their lives so fucking hard?
You seem to be thinking that we're talking about a normal pregnancy and deciding whether to abort or not... But this is about treatments where many embryos are created, and some of them HAVE to be killed no matter what. Since no matter what they do they can't all live, shouldn't at least try to make sure that the ones who do are those with a better chance?
Yep.
Indeed. So why do we need a law which says that it should be the embryo with a opssible "disability"?
Should we start excluding those with genetic potential of low intellect, poor sportsmanship, ginger hair, obesity, cancer ect ad nauseum?
Define better chance and why should an embryo with a disability have less chances to be implanted than any other?
Are you really saying that if (somehow) someone gave you the choice between having a kid who'll be deaf and one who won't be (and leaving the rest to chance as it should be) you'd pick the deaf one? Can you tell me one good reason to pick having a deaf kid when you can have one who isn't? Remember that practically neither of these kids exists yet, the choice is in which one to create.
Again determine "best".
There are so many variables in life y'know.
No, I am not saying that is what I would choose. however i can understand why someone might want to choose a deaf child if they are themselves and other such variables.
What I cannot acccept is a Govt dictating that the parents cannot have that choice.
WTF has it got to do with them? And why the hell are you defending them?
Then perhaps the government shouldn't dictate anything else about children. Perhaps parents should be the ultimate authorities on how their children should be.
Then I assure you there would be some who'd choose to do things to their existing children that (I assume) you wouldn't want to happen to anyone. The truth of the matter is that parents don't always know best. The government already decides several thing about children (and adults), that are supposed to be there so that these people will have a better life.
There's no way I can think of that having a disability is better than not having it. Can you please explain one such way, if you think they exist?
Clearly the fact that Beethoven was deaf has escaped you, that van Gogh had a mental condition, that Tanny Grey-Thopson is in a wheelchair or that Stephen Hawking suffers from Motor Neurone.
Having a disability means that life is probably going to be tougher, mainly because society makes it so, but the potential for anyone in life is great and we shouldn't exclude that potential on the basis of a genetic scan when they are just embryos. As I said life is full of variables - be that able bodied children developing terminal illnesses or disabled people achieving greatness. Just because someone has a "disability" doesn't mean that their life is going to be worthless.
It's offensive that both you and our Govt seem to think that it is.
But I do think that Beethoven could have done as good if he hadn't been deaf, Hawking would be just as incredibly smart if he didn't have Motor Neurone etc.
I assume that if you had the power to remove people's disabilities you'd do it. This is technically the same thing: There's a (for the moment) hypothetical child, and you have the power to make this child deaf when they stop being hypothetical, or not to make them deaf.
No I wouldn't. It's part of who they are.
You seem to see disability as a barrier and that's wrong. You seem to struggle to see past the disability as if it defines the person. It doesn't.
Of course Hawking and Beethoven would have been just as good without their disabilities, that is kind of my point. The disability has not prevented them from being historical greats.
This law does just that, it snuffs out potential on the basis of a genetic scan and nothing more. It says that a disabled life is not as worthy as any other and that is seriously fucking offensive IMHO.
Let's take a more modern example - David Blunkett, a man I think of very highly. He's been the Education Secretary, he's been Home Secretary. He's done two of the most demanding jobs in the government, and he's blind. Clearly, his blindness hasn't stopped him from doing well in life. Speaking about it himself, he refuses to refer to it as a "disability". We take many things for granted in life - all it means for Blunkett is he has to do certain things in a slightly different way to the rest of us. He has the same emotions and feelings the rest of us do, perhaps even more so. The word "disabled" is increasingly meaningless, and we only use it because we've yet to find any other to replace it.
But what has that got to do with the price of fish?
I think a law that tells a parent that they must destroy an embryo that has a "disability" is morally bankrupt. Most disabled groups agree with me.
Look beyond the disability and see the wider picture. What you are defending here is eugenics- a Government deciding what its people should be like, a Government deciding that "disabled" people have less right to life.
I'm still one of the greatest enemies of eugenics, but I see a difference between saying "It's better for people to have black hair than ginger" and "It's better for people to be able to hear than be deaf". It doesn't say they have less right to life, it's saying that it's better to create a person that is not disabled than one that is.
Or are you saying that an embryo is a person? I think I've seen you argue the opposite before.
There's nothing in this that says that deaf parents would pick an embryo with a disability - it's about them being told that they aren't allowed to pick an embryo that has the same condition they have.
As it stands they have choice, this restricts that choice in a blanket, generic, predujiced manner.
Clearly the way this law is written is to simplistic and will hopefully be changed.
Finding a more extreme example shows what's wrong with this law, not what's right about it.
I believe existing disabled people should be given any help they need to compensate for their disability -if they do need to.
I never believed for a moment that someone who is deaf or blind or even paralysed cannot do great things, but I do believe that they could do just as good and possibly better if they didn't have their disability.
It's always very possible that a child that is to be born will be disabled. I don't advocate aborting said child if the parents would want to keep it as it is.
However, when there are many embryos and most have to be destroyed, it's a very different thing: The choice is not on whether a child will be born or not, it's a choice on whether the child that will be born will have a disability or not.
Just as I believe that if disabilities could be cured they should be cured, in the same way I believe that when you have a choice on whether to have a disabled child or one that isn't, you should choose one that isn't. It doesn't mean that disabled people have less right to live (as someone implied I thought) but if you have the power to remove someone's disability before they even exist, then yes you should do it.
That will be all.
Hehe, you might think so..
But that isn't what is being proposed. It's not the eradication of the disability, it's the eradication of the life because of the disability.
No matter how much you protest this law does mean that disabled people have less right to life.
In a case where there are two embryos and one must be destroyed then the law says that it must be the disabled one.
In law the two embryos do not have the same rights. And that is offensive.
Embryos have rights now?
It's just a clump of cells. I can see both arguments, but I do think from a purely medical POV the life of the child in the future is the main priority. So choosing the best embryo just makes sense. But back to my first argument, embryo screening should only be used in extreme cases anyway, so 'mild' disabilities wont be affected. But the embryo with DMD won't be chosen because it's a horrid degenerative disease. It's not murdering disabled kids, because it's going to be the same or at least a pretty similar kid coming out the other end, just minus a severe illness or disability.
I wouldn't expect embryo screening to apply to things such as deafness and so on.
I think what he's arguing is the parents should be able to decide, rather than being compelled to by law. Because then the law is making a distinction, which if you're really skewing it could be interpreted as non-disabled things are more important than disabled things, which is offensive.
But I think the wellbeing of the foetus / child should come first, and the law should compell parents to pick the healthiest with the best chance of survival and a happy life. And over all of this, I think that it shouldn't be up to the parents to choose in 99% of cases anyway, it should be down to nature, and only in extreme cases where embryo screening is necessary to prevent lifelong debilitating illnesses.
No, the parents should have the equal right to choose.