Originally posted by no1marauder"Where enthusiasts for the new genetics see inclusion and progress, some in the disability rights movement see exclusion and moral retrogression. The charge is that the very conception of progress that lies at the core of the ideology of the new genetics radically devalues individuals with disabilities, inflicting on them what may be the gravest injury of all - a denial of their equal moral worth and even their very right to exist".....
No, it wouldn't.
(Buchanan, Brock et al 2000)
Would you even consider that some people could be rightfully concerned taking into account the the discrimination they already experience
Originally posted by wucky3I'm sorry, why is eugenics committed to any particular notion of 'progress'? I thought that, minimally, they are committed to some genetically transmitted conditions being such as to make their possessors worse off. Is the idea here that if somebody could be prevented, via genetic manipulation, from being born blind or deaf, that this somehow denies the value of those who are already blind or deaf? That is a strange inference. If I can, through hard work, prevent myself from being poor, it certainly doesn't follow that I thereby fail to accord moral value to other poor people. Why is the eugenics case any different? If I found out that my future child would be born with Down's syndrome unless genetically manipulated, then I would certainly engage in genetic manipulation (if that was an option at my disposal). Now, by making this choice I'm not failing to value those who already have Down's syndrome. What I am doing is acting on my belief that it is better for people to be born without Down's syndrome. I think it would be better, all things considered, if nobody was born with Down's syndrome, but this certainly doesn't entail that I would prefer that those who currently have Down's syndrome not exist. This is just sloppy thinking on the part of the disability rights folks.
"Where enthusiasts for the new genetics see inclusion and progress, some in the disability rights movement see exclusion and moral retrogression. The charge is that the very conception of progress that lies at the core of the ideology of the new genetics radically devalues individuals with disabilities, inflicting on them what may be the gravest injury of all ...[text shortened]... uld be rightfully concerned taking into account the the discrimination they already experience
Originally posted by bbarrHowever, you do have the belief that not having Down's Syndrome or being able to hear is better than having Down's Syndrome or being deaf. This is something many disabled people would not agree with. You may not devalue them as persons, but you devalue their conditions. Also, if you say that you think it would be better if nobody was born with Down's Syndrome, why would you still not consider working on this to be progress? Personally I don't think a world without disabled people would be better than a world with disabled people. However, there are diseases I would gladly get rid of. I am currently working with a child who will most likely die before he is four years old due to a genetic degenerative disease. If there would be a cure or if it could have been prevented that he gets the disease in the first place, I would certainly have approved.
I'm sorry, why is eugenics committed to any particular notion of 'progress'? I thought that, minimally, they are committed to some genetically transmitted conditions being such as to make their possessors worse off. Is the idea here that if somebody could be prevented, via genetic manipulation, from being born blind or deaf, that this somehow denies the valu ...[text shortened]... not exist. This is just sloppy thinking on the part of the disability rights folks.
Originally posted by bbarr🙂 Researchers at the Institute of Psychiatry at King’s College London have found that the brains of people with Down’s syndrome have an increased level of the molecule myo-inositol. I myself certainly welcome such research . You might be interested to know though that the Disability Movement certainly don't include people with DS under 'their 'umbrella' Ironically they too devalue people who they see at the bottom of the ladder of disability.
I'm sorry, why is eugenics committed to any particular notion of 'progress'? I thought that, minimally, they are committed to some genetically transmitted conditions being such as to make their possessors worse off. Is the idea here that if somebody could be prevented, via genetic manipulation, from being born blind or deaf, that this somehow denies the valu ...[text shortened]... not exist. This is just sloppy thinking on the part of the disability rights folks.
1 edit
Originally posted by NordlysOf course I think it's better to be born without Down's syndrome, and that it's better to be born with your perceptual capacities intact. Don't you? You're right that I don't think Down's syndrome is a good thing, just as I don't think that being blind or deaf is a good thing. My point above is that the advocates of the disabled are wrong if they think that this viewpoint entails that disabled people themselves are less valuable than other people, or that actual disabled people don't have a right to exist. It does entail that we should attempt to minimize the incidence of disability (subject to competing goods we may also want to propogate), but so what? I also think that we should minimize poverty, but that doesn't entail that I fail to value the poor or that I deny the right of actual poor people to exist.
However, you do have the belief that not having Down's Syndrome or being able to hear is better than having Down's Syndrome or being deaf. This is something many disabled people would not agree with. You may not devalue them as persons, but you devalue their conditions. Also, if you say that you think it would be better if nobody was born with been prevented that he gets the disease in the first place, I would certainly have approved.
Originally posted by NordlysAgree..I've worked with kids with muscular dystrophy and it's heartbreaking to see them slowly deteriorate
However, you do have the belief that not having Down's Syndrome or being able to hear is better than having Down's Syndrome or being deaf. This is something many disabled people would not agree with. You may not devalue them as persons, but you devalue their conditions. Also, if you say that you think it would be better if nobody was born with ...[text shortened]... been prevented that he gets the disease in the first place, I would certainly have approved.
Originally posted by wucky3Yes, there is a clear hierarchy in many disability groups. They do the exact thing they hate to be done to themselves to others. Strange. However, there are parts of the Disability Movement which include people with Down's Syndrome.
You might be interested to know though that the Disability Movement certainly don't include people with DS under 'their 'umbrella' Ironically they too devalue people who they see at the bottom of the ladder of disability.
Originally posted by bbarrThat's a bad analogy. Being poor is not part of the person. You could minimize poverty by helping poor people get out of poverty. They would still be themselves, and better off. Being disabled is quite different. Take away the disability, and you have a different person. Very many disabled people wouldn't want to be cured. They like who they are, and quite understandably they find it offensive if someone says that a world without people like them would be a better world. I strongly feel this way about autism, as I have a lot of autistic traits myself. I don't feel as strongly about other disabilities, because it's harder for me to imagine what's good about them, but I think we should listen to those who actually live with those disabilities.
I also think that we should minimize poverty, but that doesn't entail that I fail to value the poor or that I deny the right of actual poor people to exist.
Originally posted by bbarrDon't be ridiculous. I don't know of any parents who would torture a child to death because it is born sighted.
Of course not necessarily. If your have the misfortune of being born to parents who will torture you to death if you are born sighted, then it is probably better to be born blind. So what?
1 edit
Originally posted by NordlysAnd why shouldn't we listen to the non-disabled? I doubt that there is one person without disabilities that would prefer to be disabled. So yes, ex-post 99,99999% (yes, I made the number up...) of future individuals would prefer such genetic correction.
That's a bad analogy. Being poor is not part of the person. You could minimize poverty by helping poor people get out of poverty. They would still be themselves, and better off. Being disabled is quite different. Take away the disability, and you have a different person. Very many disabled people wouldn't want to be cured. They like who they are, and quite u bout them, but I think we should listen to those who actually live with those disabilities.
Take away the disability, and you have a different person.
Quite right, but your reasoning is flawed here as the manipulated fetuses are not born yet.
Since they are not born yet, decisions must be made on the possibility of the future individual regretting or not what the decision was. Remember, he may also feel regret if nothing was done when there was a chance. If corrections are made the possibility of regret is near zero, if corrections are not made the possibility of regret is much higher.
This has nothing to do with people who are already living, but with the individuals that are about to be born.
Originally posted by NordlysIf I lost my sight tomorrow, I wouldn't thereby be a different person. If my friend suddenly was no longer red/green colorblind he wouldn't be a different person. Who you are isn't determined by properties such as these, but rather by what your deepest values and commitments are, and by your enduring states of character.
That's a bad analogy. Being poor is not part of the person. You could minimize poverty by helping poor people get out of poverty. They would still be themselves, and better off. Being disabled is quite different. Take away the disability, and you have a different person. Very many disabled people wouldn't want to be cured. They like who they are, and quite u ...[text shortened]... bout them, but I think we should listen to those who actually live with those disabilities.
I'm sure disabled people often like who they are, just as many poor people like who they are. So what? I'm not talking about mandating cures for the disabled, just as I'm not talking about mandating that the poor take money. If a disabled person or a poor person wants to stay that way, that's fine with me. I'm not saying that the world would be better without "people like the disabled". I'm saying that the world would be better without disabilities. I'm sure many disabled people would find it offensive that you think that who they are is even partly determined by their disability. I've heard many disabled people say that they are who they are despite their disability.
Originally posted by NordlysI'm not being ridiculous, I'm agreeing with your claim that it isn't a logical necessity that being born without disability is better than being born with a disability. What's ridiculous is your thinking that I was making a claim about necessity (or why else would you "correct" me?), when a moment's thought on your part would have been sufficient to interpret me correctly as making an empirical generalization.
Don't be ridiculous. I don't know of any parents who would torture a child to death because it is born sighted.
Originally posted by bbarrAh, okay. I thought you were deliberately twisting my words, but you only misinterpreted them, which I have to admit isn't really surprising as it was worded rather badly. What I meant when I said "not necessarily" was not that there might be some unusual circumstances under which it would be better to be born with Down's Syndrome or other disabilities, but that I am not so sure it would be better to be born without Down's syndrome and with your perceptual capacities intact.
I'm not being ridiculous, I'm agreeing with your claim that it isn't a logical necessity that being born without disability is better than being born with a disability. What's ridiculous is your thinking that I was making a claim about necessity (or why else would you "correct" me?), when a moment's thought on your part would have been sufficient to interpret me correctly as making an empirical generalization.