tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28089527.post-5744263632558157352008-03-13T15:11:00.000Z2008-03-13T15:11:00.000Z2008-03-13T15:11:00.000ZI was intrigued by the response from Mr Cholmondley-Warner, Uxbridge, United Kingdom on the linked page:<BR/>1. It sounds like a rant team member kinda name.<BR/>2. It states:<BR/>They're not inflicting the disability - the embryo is already genetically defective.Given the alternative is destruction of the embryo and never being born at all,I fail to see why the child would feel resentment towards its parents.<BR/><BR/>This furthers the debate of eugenics. Picking an embryo at random is as equal to the chances of having a naturally acquired disabled child (or child with diability).<BR/><BR/>If the state are able to prevent such embryos being selected - why do they not have the same conferred powers to force a termination of someone who has a dodgy aminiocentesis?<BR/><BR/>Having read the more fuller article(thx BG); the fact that screening is not compulsory and they may chance getting a deaf baby is acceptable to me. However, the suggestion is that if they screen for a deaf child - they won't be allowed to select it if found, in preference to a hearing child.<BR/><BR/>I don't agree in selecting a 'deaf child' as being culturally or otherwise appropriate - but then I don't agree with being so selective at all.<BR/>Choosing to not fertilise a known defective embryo is depriving a potential human of life and is very much promoting the use of selective engineering.<BR/>Is this not playing God?<BR/>It ties in a lot for me with the 'equality' vs 'elitism' debate.<BR/><BR/>The upset within the deaf communiTy (capital T for no reason) is that they are slighted by the notion that deaf embryos (and ergo deaf children) are considered second-rate and that such a disability can not provide as enriched a life as a hearing person. I would agree with them. There is no credence to the suggestion that being deaf gives you a second rate quality of life.<BR/>If people really want to play eugenics - being of black skin increases the likelihood of you being incarcerated for a crime - even when the same crime commited by a white skinned person attracts a non-custodial sentence - or even an acquittal. Are we going to be skin colour specific too in our embryo selection?<BR/><BR/>Two further comments on the original fuller article in response to this line:<BR/>"Tomato Lichy and his partner already have one deaf child, for which they are profoundly grateful."<BR/><BR/>1. Good play on the word 'profoundly'<BR/>2. Why are we debating the right of the deaf/hearing child to be selected when surely we should debate whether a father with a first name of Tomato has the right to bear any children at all?Mr Iannoreply@blogger.com