Add Comment

Tell me you didn't skip a lecture to come up with that?

Sam, Glasgow on 5:30am today You require to resit this post. If you mean: 'Tell me you didn't skip a lecture to come up with that', there should be no question mark.

[quote][bold]Hugh V McLachlan[/bold] wrote: <b> Sam, Glasgow on 5:30am today You require to resit this post. If you mean: 'Tell me you didn't skip a lecture to come up with that', there should be no question mark. </b>[/quote] He might pass the resit-especially if he repeats the statement/question orally, with an interrogative inflection at the end? (or ".", if you insist).

[quote]I have some sympathy with the deaf couple who wanted to choose to have a deaf baby. [italic]People do not have a positive moral right to make such a choice. However, I think that it would be morally permissible and that it should be legally permissible to do so[/italic] (my italics).[/quote]-Professor Hugh McLachlan Ehh? Ordinary folk will have difficulty understanding that while a couple my lack a positive moral "right " to act in a certain way, it may yet be morally permissable to do so. In such instances (or is it only this one? It is not clear if the writer is trying to construct a moral rule), Professor Hugh McLachlant believes it should be legally permissible to do so. This is at odds with the clause in the Human Fertility and Embryology Bill before Parliament which states that embryos with a significant risk of serious disability “must not be preferred to those that are not known to have such an abnormality. Professor McLachlan's analogy will not do. The couple in question wish to dispose of ALL embryos that will not develop into deaf babies. But they are responsible for the creation of the embryos. For Professor McLachlan's analogy to be a clear representation of the moral issues, then the rescuer of the drowning children would have chucked them into the water in the first place. And then chosen to recue only the deaf child. No harm done? On the matter of emotional squeamishness: would Professor McLachlan be so principled were a Down's Syndrome couple to insist on aborting all of their embryos other than those with Down's?

Cynicus, Scotland on 11:26am today 'Professor McLachlan's analogy will not do. The couple in question wish to dispose of ALL embryos that will not develop into deaf babies.' I think that the analogy does hold up but like all analogies, it will not hold in all respects. The situation is different from abortion. It is not physically possible for all the embryos concerned to be placed in the womb of the woman of the couple. A particular embryo will be saved. It is not a question of choosing to dispose of or kill the rest. The embryos have no chance of continued existence unless they are placed in a woman's womb. No one is obliged to have children. The woman is not obliged to choose to have a particular embryo or an embryo of any sort placed in her womb. In my view, it is morally permissible for her to choose to have an embryo placed in her womb which will become the body of a deaf person. In my view, it is not the breach of a duty on her part nor the infringement of the rights of any other people. It might or might not be a wise choice, it might or might not be the morally best decision to make in the circumstances but these are other matters. Whether or not the choice would be legal, I think that it should be. To say that we should deliberately try to ensure that in these circumstances a deaf child is not forthcoming would, I hope everyone agrees, monstrous. By a positive moral right in this context, I mean something like this. We have a positive right not to be wantonly killed and, say, if someone borrows £5 from you, you have a positive right to the return of £5. In these cases, if you are wantonly killed or you do not get your money back then someone or other is in breach of a duty that is owed to you. If you are single, it is morally permissible to get married. (If you already are married, it is not morally permissible to do so. )However, you do not have a positive right to get married. If it turns out that no one wants to marry you, it does not follow that someone or other is in breach of a duty towards you. 'On the matter of emotional squeamishness: would Professor McLachlan be so principled were a Down's Syndrome couple to insist on aborting all of their embryos other than those with Down's?' There is an interesting question behind this misrepresentation of the issues. Would the couple concerned be able to look after the baby themselves? Do we want to say that it is better not to be born at all than to be born with Down's Syndrome? To say that something should not be illegal is not to say that it should happen. These are not easy questions.

this issue is very misrepresented. the point they're making is that it is wrong to throw ANY EMBRYO away...but hearing people can throw (deaf) embryos away... why- because they see the deafness as making the baby inferior, but deaf people don't see (deaf) embryos as inferior...they view them as potentially loveable babies, just the same as they view (hearing) embryos. that's the difference. why is it ok for (hearing) parents to DESTROY (deaf) embryos? are they (or any disabled people) inferior? the couple did not say they WANTED a deaf baby... they're point is... rather than a (deaf) embryo be destroyed...they would take it. they would "PREFER" then embroyo which is deaf. they would "PREFER" (to like better or best ) but they would accept and love a hearing baby just the same. the choice is not there if the "disabled" embryos are destroyed. did hitler not have a plan similar to that? so please, read the deaf websites also, before jumping the gun.[bold]bold[/bold]

Some of us find the concept of ''throwing'' any embrayo away to be wrong and question whether they should be artificially created in the first place. Given that this couple's baby will not be the result of normal sexual reproduction to choose to bestow deafness upon a child appears selfish in the extreme.

Observer, Glasgow on 8:28pm 'Some of us find the concept of ''throwing'' any embrayo away to be wrong' and question whether they should be artificially created in the first place.' Some people can have children only if they use in vitro fertilisation, which involves the creation of embryos. It seems strange to say that to ensure that none of them is discarded, we should not produce any embryos. Whose interests would be served by such a strange policy? Embryos will not survive unless they are placed in a woman's womb. It is not that the embryos are 'thrown' away but that there are more embryos available than there are willing women with available wombs to take them. It is understandable that many people do not like or approve of the procedure. Fine. It is optional. The point is: what is the justification for preventing other people from undertaking it? 'Given that this couple's baby will not be the result of normal sexual reproduction to choose to bestow deafness upon a child appears selfish in the extreme. ' The baby will be produced by normal sexual reproduction - it will not, however, involve sexual intercourse. To have a baby in this way seems no more or less 'selfish' than to have it in any other way. It seems very strange to me that anyone would want to have a child of any sort. Strange it is but we are best to leave it at that. It is inappropriate for the state to intervene and say that some motivation behind having babies is acceptable and other motivation is not. What matters is how babies are treated not the motivation of the parents in having them. No one is suggesting here that deafness should be bestowed upon a child. A deaf child born in the envisaged circumstances would not otherwise have been born. We are hardly doing such a child a favour by trying to ensure that he or she remains unborn. What seems selfish would be an attempt to try to ensure that congenitally deaf people are not born. In whose interests is such a policy other than those who react squeamishly to deafness? Is it better not to be born at all than to be born deaf? Manifestly not.

I am not a Professor. I am not even a graduate, I am Cynicus' ''ordinary folk''. But I will attempt to explain what I mean. No one has a right to have a child. It is possible through scientific intervention to produce a child which is not the result of sexual intercourse. To me that is not normal sexual reproduction. You say that these embrayos will not survive unless they are placed in the mother's womb, right ? So the parents at this stage have a choice over which potential human being is born, and which potential human being is not. My point about selfishness - and I think it was quite obvious - is that to CHOOSE the embrayo which will be deaf and to discard the embrayo which will not be is the ultimate in ME ME ME selfishness. Because I am deaf - so shall be my child. That is outrageous a child is not a handbag or a car to be chosen to meet the parents requirements, a child is an individual and the parents job is to raise it and nuture it and to release it confident into the world ready to make it's own way - not a mirror image of it's parents or a thing to do their bidding. Birth is not about the parents it is about the child. There is far too much emphasis on the rights of people to have children, in my uneducated opinion that is rubbish, children have the primary rights.

And that includes children that are born now and have no one to nuture them - what is wrong with adoption if you cannot have a child ? Oh but of course that means the child does not ''belong'' to you. No one has the right to have a child, let's look after the ones that are here, to bring even more disadvantaged children into the world by the ''parents'' own choice is insane.

Observer, Glasgow on 10:06pm 'No one has a right to have a child.' I agree entirely. No one has a positive moral right to have children. No one has a moral duty to have children. By the same token, no one has a moral right to be born. However, it is permissible to have children. We do not have a moral duty not to have children. We do not have a moral duty, if we have children, not to have deaf ones. I do not think that we have a moral duty not to choose to have deaf ones. I would not choose to have deaf children. I am not sure that it is a wise choice. However, I am not convinced that it should be legally disallowed. The onus is on the banners to justify the ban. To give the state such control over our reproduction seems to be to be inappropriate and dangerous. No matter how children are produced, parents often make unwise choices when they choose to have children or when to choose to do that which results in the production of children. That such unwisdom should be illegal is far from clear.

These parents are not permitted to have children unless it is through medical intervention. Given that the chid will be conceived in a test tube rather than in the womb, which is a happy accident without the element of choice as to the result, the choice to inflict deafness on the child is not legally wrong but it is morally wrong.

''the choice to inflict deafness on the child is not legally wrong but it is morally wrong.' The child? What particular child are you talking about? The preferred embryo which could have developed into the mature body of a deaf person will not now be chosen. That particular child will not now be born. That particular child had not chance of being born other than deaf. No one was inflicting deafness upon him unless life its self would have been an affliction. To try to ensure that someone is not born so that they are not born deaf is a curious way of doing him a favour. If the decision is to be defended –and perhaps it could be - it must be defended on other grounds than yours.

The parents want to be allowed to choose an embryo that will ensure any resultant child is deaf rather than take a chance he or she will not be born disabled so it will fit in with their plans for their family. It is morally selfish and repugnant to promote disability; should a parent with HIV or who uses a wheelchair be allowed to deliberately promote the birth of such a child over any other child just so it fits in with their needs and plans? Emryos should not be selected by parents for their own ends. People with disabilities (I should perhaps accept that label for myself as my GP seems determined I do) have the same human rights and deserved the same respect as anyone else but that doesn't mean that one shoudl not prefer sight, hearing, communication, cognition and so on over their absence. For a Professor, even one at Glasgow Cale where I worked for a few months before getting a proper job, to write "To try to ensure that someone is not born so that they are not born deaf is a curious way of doing him a favour" is strange - if an embryo does not develop to birth then it never develops into a person, so there can never have been any "him" (or her) to receive or be denied the favour, an unborn person is no person - you cannot do or withhold a favour from a person who has never existed.

Carnwarth on 10:37pm today Some of the opponents of embryo selection justify their opposition on the basis of concern for the person who would other wise have been born deaf. Furthermore it is a moot point whether or not only persons who have currently living bodies can have rights and/or can be favoured or disfavoured. Why bother with the interests of future generations if it is not possible to do a favour or a disfavour to the unborn? See, for instance: From the Womb to the Tomb: Issues in Medical Ethics especially chapter 1 . See: http://www.hummingea rth.com/biblio/18462 20114.htm 'People with disabilities (I should perhaps accept that label for myself as my GP seems determined I do) have the same human rights and deserved the same respect as anyone else but that doesn't mean that one should not prefer sight, hearing, communication, cognition and so on over their absence.' I agree entirely. It might not be wise to choose to have a deaf child. It might be better not to choose at all. However, it is not desirable to make it illegal, which is the central point at issue. The state should not take such control over our reproduction. We should be legally permitted (even if not encouraged) to make such choices and even if they are unwise choices they are morally permissible.

"We should be legally permitted (even if not encouraged) to make such choices and even if they are unwise choices they are morally permissible." - three questions come to mind immediately - 1. if the state is to allow people this free choice what of the interests of the rest of us (and possibly, for the hippy-brigade, of the infinite number of non-existent individuals who might exist in the future)? 2. if permitted, should the state facilitate this free choice, or would it only be available to those who can afford to pay for the necessary tests etc and 3. are there no limits to the choices to be made - can I choose [italic]any[/italic] physical (and possibly other) characteristic for [italic]any[/italic] purpose no matter how ill-advised, reactionary or generally repugnant and if not how are you going to decide what are permissible desires and motivations? What if, eg, someone wants a child with profound learning difficulties because of some misguided concept of their "never growing up" and always being reliant on the parent - misguided, and repugnant but hey, if embryos are just another commodity open to consumer choice then who are we to disapprove?

[quote][bold]Hugh V McLachlan[/bold] wrote: Carnwarth on 10:37pm today Some of the opponents of embryo selection justify their opposition on the basis of concern for the person who would other wise have been born deaf. Furthermore it is a moot point whether or not only persons who have currently living bodies can have rights and/or can be favoured or disfavoured. Why bother with the interests of future generations if it is not possible to do a favour or a disfavour to the unborn? See, for instance: From the Womb to the Tomb: Issues in Medical Ethics especially chapter 1 . See: http://www.hummingea rth.com/biblio/18462 20114.htm 'People with disabilities (I should perhaps accept that label for myself as my GP seems determined I do) have the same human rights and deserved the same respect as anyone else but that doesn't mean that one should not prefer sight, hearing, communication, cognition and so on over their absence.' I agree entirely. It might not be wise to choose to have a deaf child. It might be better not to choose at all. However, it is not desirable to make it illegal, which is the central point at issue. The state should not take such control over our reproduction. We should be legally permitted (even if not encouraged) to make such choices and even if they are unwise choices they are morally permissible.[/quote] I'll see if I can get a copy of your book from the library - but I can't promise to read (or understand) it - looks like you expend a great deal of energy on rather obscure points (like do non-existent people (the unborn, those who may or may not be born on the 14th March 2020 etc) have rights and responsibilities - how do you enforce the rights of or impose responsibilities on people who do not and may never exist?). Have there been any reviews? I wonder what on earth "posthumous insemination" is - I hope it is about the mistreatment of the dying husband of Dianne Blood (terminal desemination?) and not some monster scenario of inseminating a woman posthumously which just can't be right, can it?!?

Carnwarth on 11:46pm today Fair question. I do not claim to have all the answers but here are some suggestions. 1. So few people are likely to avail themselves of the possibility of embryo selection and so few of them are likely to choose to have babies with what are commonly thought of as disabilities that the public at large has little prospect of having to bear a heavy burden. Nonetheless, the situation could be reviewed in the future. If there were a problem it could be addressed. 2 It is not illegal to buy a Rolls Royce even although not everyone can afford one. nor should it be illegal. I do not know whether or not such embryos selection would or should be freely available on the NHS. I doubt it. 3 '..are there no limits to the choices to be made - can I choose any physical (and possibly other) characteristic for any purpose no matter how ill-advised, reactionary or generally repugnant' No, I suspect that there are not. , What matters is how children are treated, not the motivation of the people who have them. I do not think the state should intrude in this area.

Carnwarth 1 Notice that even when significant problems are caused to some people by the actions of others, it is not always appropriate or possible for the state to solve them. Sometimes, the state's solution is worse than the problem. Human reproduction might be an instance.

[quote][bold]Hugh V McLachlan[/bold] wrote: Carnwarth 1 Notice that even when significant problems are caused to some people by the actions of others, it is not always appropriate or possible for the state to solve them. Sometimes, the state's solution is worse than the problem. Human reproduction might be an instance.[/quote] Something to think about! Cheers