The Morality of 'Ecto-genesis'

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-03-12 09:16pm

The phrase, 'ecto-genesis' I picked up from an Isaac Asimov novel- The Naked Sun. In the novel, the inhabitants of the planet Solaria use something called 'ecto-genesis' to control their population, and they hope it will eventually supplant the need for natural reproduction.

Anyway, the process involves taking undeveloped fetuses and then examining them somehow(I forget exactly; I read the book awhile ago and in one sitting) and then disposing of the ones that will be born with undesirable physical traits.

So, simple question: Is this morale, or not?

God Emperor · Post by **God Emperor** » 2003-03-12 09:19pm

Yes and no, it depends on if you believe the child is a live at the moment of conception.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-03-12 09:22pm

technically it would be possible to do this before an embryo is even formed, thanks to knowledge of the genome. and the answer is another question:

is it moral to allow a child to grow up with a debilitating disease or the like? is it moral to allow a child to grow up with average intelligence when a simple modification could make it possible for him to excel in whatever field he chooses to go into? is it moral to allow a child to grow up less able then those who have such treatment, legally or not?

i think the answer is that allowing these things would be most immoral indeed, if it is possible to prevent it or modify the child to benefit him.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-03-12 09:25pm

Ok, let me split this up a bit further.

1) The first example of 'ecto-genesis' is on Solaria. It is used to remove embryos which will develop disabilities. Is this morale?

2) The second example is on Aurora, where it is noted that the process is used to remove embryos which will not meet the Auroran standard of beauty. Is this morale?

God Emperor · Post by **God Emperor** » 2003-03-12 09:27pm

Your second question is just a hidden copy of the first, and I think it would be moral for the people that do this.

Queeb Salaron · Post by **Queeb Salaron** » 2003-03-12 09:29pm

This concept reminds me a lot of the movie Gattaca. Though Asimov wrote well before the movie was released.

As for this being moral, I have no idea. But I do know that the thing that makes human beings interesting is their flaws. Personality quirks are how we come to identify ourselves as people. Instead of an individual searching for personal identity, we'd have an entire generation with the exact same identity.

Beside that, who is to say what is desirable or undesirable? Would a sixth finger be considered a terminal defect worthy of the termination of a potential life? If so, where do we draw the line? All blondes die, brunettes and redheads live? Racial minorities die, caucasians live (in places where caucasians are the racial majority)?

And why stop there? Would it be immoral to wipe out LIVING families who practice extremist and potentially harmful religious practices? Would we prevent religious extremists like the Taliban from procreating to prevent religion-spawned terror? Better yet, would we wipe them from the face of the planet for the safety of mankind? Is this moral?

Does it sound like Naziism yet?

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2003-03-12 09:30pm

I would say it depends on how far along it is. If not too far along, then no. But honestly I think it also concerns the parents. If they still want the kid, they should still be allowed to have it.

It reminds me of Gattaca.

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2003-03-12 09:34pm

Queeb Salaron wrote:This concept reminds me a lot of the movie Gattaca. Though Asimov wrote well before the movie was released.

My thoughts exactly.

As for this being moral, I have no idea. But I do know that the thing that makes human beings interesting is their flaws. Personality quirks are how we come to identify ourselves as people. Instead of an individual searching for personal identity, we'd have an entire generation with the exact same identity.

There is a difference between a quirk and an actual problem.

Beside that, who is to say what is desirable or undesirable? Would a sixth finger be considered a terminal defect worthy of the termination of a potential life? If so, where do we draw the line? All blondes die, brunettes and redheads live? Racial minorities die, caucasians live (in places where caucasians are the racial majority)?

And why stop there? Would it be immoral to wipe out LIVING families who practice extremist and potentially harmful religious practices? Would we prevent religious extremists like the Taliban from procreating to prevent religion-spawned terror? Better yet, would we wipe them from the face of the planet for the safety of mankind? Is this moral?

Does it sound like Naziism yet?

Slippery slope fallacy. Where does it say in the OP that it is used for these purposes.

Besides, the latter example is different. Religion is a learned characteristic. You aren't born with it. It doesn't apply.

Oh and where in Naziism was there a real problem that was being eradicated?

Queeb Salaron · Post by **Queeb Salaron** » 2003-03-12 11:19pm

Oh and where in Naziism was there a real problem that was being eradicated?

There wasn't a problem, per se, but Hitler saw Jews as fundamentally weak and therefore inferior. They either had to be put to slave labor or killed if they were too young or female ("the weakest of the weak" -- Mein Kampf). So if you see weakness as a "real problem", then Hitler was eradicating it. Maybe it's a stretch. Like you said, religion isn't genetic, so this kind of "slippery slope fallacy" doesn't apply.

But by picking and choosing who lives, we are (excuse the cliche) playing God. That's the ultimate conceivable power. And absolute power corrupts absolutely (excuse that cliche, too). So what we're faced with is the potential for a mad scientist to start choosing which babies get to live and which die, which is obviously not something that we want to do.

CloneAid, anyone?

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2003-03-13 12:27am

Queeb Salaron wrote:
Oh and where in Naziism was there a real problem that was being eradicated?
There wasn't a problem, per se, but Hitler saw Jews as fundamentally weak and therefore inferior. They either had to be put to slave labor or killed if they were too young or female ("the weakest of the weak" -- Mein Kampf). So if you see weakness as a "real problem", then Hitler was eradicating it. Maybe it's a stretch. Like you said, religion isn't genetic, so this kind of "slippery slope fallacy" doesn't apply.

Again, in the OP the procedure refers to actual problems. Hitler was talking out of his ass.

And the Slippery Slope refers to things that we, as people on this board, obviously do not consider problems. Like race.

But by picking and choosing who lives, we are (excuse the cliche) playing God. That's the ultimate conceivable power. And absolute power corrupts absolutely (excuse that cliche, too). So what we're faced with is the potential for a mad scientist to start choosing which babies get to live and which die, which is obviously not something that we want to do.

CloneAid, anyone?

That isn't much different from now anyhow. It would just be starting earlier.

And there is always potential. There is the potential that medical technology will be used to create plagues. But we still develop medical technology.

UltraViolence83 · Post by **UltraViolence83** » 2003-03-13 03:08am

Depends on the application of this practice. Personally I see elimation of fetuses that may be born retarded as immoral as disgusting, same as with almost any other problem. However, it wouldn't bother me if the fetuses were destroyed because after birth, the baby would have a painful, terminal disease; which in that case is an act of mercy. I just don't see most handicaps, being mental or physical, as good enough reason to keep a person from living. But then I don't want to live in such a shallow world where people are born only because they meet certain standards of mental or physical "perfection."

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-03-13 11:49am

HemlockGrey wrote:Ok, let me split this up a bit further.

1) The first example of 'ecto-genesis' is on Solaria. It is used to remove embryos which will develop disabilities. Is this morale?

It's not immoral, if that's what you're asking. It's a clump of cells with no brain stem.

2) The second example is on Aurora, where it is noted that the process is used to remove embryos which will not meet the Auroran standard of beauty. Is this morale?

Same as above. Granted, these people may be picky and controlling, but they're not doing anything wrong.

Tom_Aurum · Post by **Tom_Aurum** » 2003-03-13 12:58pm

Moral? Not really, but that's besides the point. Logical? No.

The main problem with a process such as that is that it removes randomized traits and makes the bloodline too "pure". It is proven that a miscegenated bloodline will survive much longer and is hardier than a pure bloodline. And some traits that may be problematic defects can prove to also be a life-saving boon if just one of the genes is present.

Sickle-cell anemia is a perfect example of such a trait. For those of you who weren't paying attention in high school biology, one sickle cell gene gives you immunity to malaria. Two cause the fatal congenital disorder. There are probably millions of cases just like this, it is rare that you find a gene there that couldn't be an adaptation given the right circumstances.... waiting for a catastrophic event to bring it out. Removing disorders from the genes of a population may also line it up for a quick and catastrophic destruction because none of the population is even resistant to a rare flu or some form of ebola. So in the end, whether or not it is moral... "choosing" children based on genetic makeup is fraught with danger.

Kuroneko · Post by **Kuroneko** » 2003-03-13 01:16pm

Tom_Aurum wrote:Sickle-cell anemia is a perfect example of such a trait. For those of you who weren't paying attention in high school biology, one sickle cell gene gives you immunity to malaria. Two cause the fatal congenital disorder. There are probably millions of cases just like this, it is rare that you find a gene there that couldn't be an adaptation given the right circumstances...

Yes. Sickle-cell anemia is probably the most extreme example. Another fairly well-known one is the CCR5-delta32 mutation. Cons: Additional vulnerability to Hepatatis-C. Pros: Resistance or immunity (1 or 2 genes, respectively) to bubonic plague and HIV.

UltraViolence83 · Post by **UltraViolence83** » 2003-03-15 07:14am

Hear hear, Tom_Aurum! That is one of the main reasons why I'm against tinkering with genes. Especially when too many people are ignorant of their place in biology. <---Sadly, this is the case.

PainRack · Post by **PainRack** » 2003-03-15 07:57am

Assuming we can't fix any physical disabilities,what will happen to the world greatest people?
I mean,you're talking about eliminating people like Stephen Hawking.

UltraViolence83 · Post by **UltraViolence83** » 2003-03-15 08:07am

Of course. You see, anyone who's crippled or looks different is obviously inferior to the Great Ideal Specimen of Humanity (TM).

Do you dare go against perfection?

Eleas · Post by **Eleas** » 2003-03-15 09:47am

Queeb Salaron wrote: But by picking and choosing who lives, we are (excuse the cliche) playing God.

This is a classic (and perhaps the dumbest argument to date). How can we play something that cannot be proven to exist? I would direct you to the word of God.

The Lord wrote: As he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head. And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.

This is how God solves the whole children issue. And, forgive me for saying this, but the risk of today's scientists misusing their powers as blatantly as God did is remote at best.

That's the ultimate conceivable power.

Only to those lacking imagination. The ultimate conceivable power would be full control over the laws of physics, which is a tad more extreme.

And absolute power corrupts absolutely (excuse that cliche, too). So what we're faced with is the potential for a mad scientist to start choosing which babies get to live and which die, which is obviously not something that we want to do.

Newsflash: that could happen today. A scientist could as well hide a few babies and conduct survival test on them. There's no difference at all.

Tom_Aurun wrote:Moral? Not really, but that's besides the point.

Really? Then you won't mind justifying this claim. Personally, I can't see who this would harm.

PainRack wrote:Assuming we can't fix any physical disabilities,what will happen to the world greatest people?
I mean,you're talking about eliminating people like Stephen Hawking.

No, obviously not. He's talking about eliminating a few cells, not a person.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-03-15 09:59am

The ethics of biotechnology and genetic engineering, is it right to bring a child into the world you know will have problems? Is it right not to? Is a sufficiently large issue that it's becoming a mandatory High School Science course.

Raoul Duke, Jr. · Post by **Raoul Duke, Jr.** » 2003-03-15 01:41pm

Ecto-genesis, moral?

In Scenario 1, possibly -- but only if the nature of the disability was, itself, terminal and untreatable. Otherwise, you are robbing society of a potentially very valuable individual.

Scenario 2 is as close to being absolutely immoral as it is possible to get. Beauty is largely subjective, and elimination of life on the basis of personal taste is immoral.

UltraViolence83 · Post by **UltraViolence83** » 2003-03-15 02:47pm

[asskiss]Right on, man! I'm behind ya 110%![/asskiss]

Yeah, really. We tend to think we're so great and cultured and everything, then you discover scat fetishism.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-03-15 02:57pm

the idea of ridding the genepool of those with debilitating or terminal genetic diseases is not "tampering with genes" as aurum would like people to think. doing it pre-birth is merely supplanting natural selecting with unnatural selection that instead of killing off the weak, prevents them from being born in the first place.

its more human, more efficient, and benefits the genepool. diseases are NOT beneficial.

Eleas · Post by **Eleas** » 2003-03-16 07:16am

Raoul Duke, Jr. wrote:Ecto-genesis, moral?

In Scenario 1, possibly -- but only if the nature of the disability was, itself, terminal and untreatable. Otherwise, you are robbing society of a potentially very valuable individual.

Just like those evil birth control programs, oh yes. How utterly immoral.

Get this: not every pregnancy results in a child - only fanatic bible-thumpers and/or Texans think that.

Scenario 2 is as close to being absolutely immoral as it is possible to get. Beauty is largely subjective, and elimination of life on the basis of personal taste is immoral.

"...full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

Tom_Aurum · Post by **Tom_Aurum** » 2003-03-16 07:51am

kojikun wrote: its more human, more efficient, and benefits the genepool. diseases are NOT beneficial.

Did I not just give you the REAL example of sickle cell anemia, or were you not listening? That is a genetic disease. And one version of it (the one gene version) IS beneficial. And who's concept of a disease are we using anyways kojikun?

As it is, I'd rather use advanced gene therapy, because at least the person knows what they're doing to their own body, and it doesn't affect the actual reproductive cells.

UltraViolence83 · Post by **UltraViolence83** » 2003-03-16 09:56am

Quite a moral issue. More vexing since morality is so subjective. My personal take on this is this: 'normal' embryo/fetus isn't wanted, fine. Get rid of it. However, one that is wanted and intended to grow into a human being is a human being in principle. The sperm that is intended for procreation is also as important. Even if it can in no way be construed as "harmful" to the human race to eliminate the "flawed" embryo, it is still eugenics by definition. I will never support such actions. I feel that everyone has a right to be born and live, and to pursue their own happiness. And don't anyone point out how I must be "wrong" because my stances on abortion aren't completely pro-choice (I'm leaning towards it from the middle). Hell, if everyone always aborted unwanted pregnancies, I wouldn't even be here. If my mother was a bitch and had the technology at the time to screen my embyonic cells, I still may not be here. Perfection of the human body is an illusion. A dangerous one.