Genetic screening what if thingy

[Prozac the Robert]

Imagine that at some point in the future a brilliant scientist finds out a set of genetic factors that lead to some sort of highly undesirable behaviour such as paedophilia. It then becomes routine to prevent anyone from being born with such a thing by early screening of embryos or something similar. The rate of child abuse goes right down. As far as anyone can tell there are no other adverse effects.

Is this morally OK?

Then a bit later someone locates a similar set of factors for homosexuality. A set of parents feel that they would rather their children be born straight. They argue that although they have nothing against homosexuals, they feel that no child could be said to be harmed by being born straight, and that evolutionarily it could be said to preferable. They want their children to grow up like themselves and they want grandchildren.

Is this morally objectionable?

Then finally some sort of governmental health body decides that there really isn't any need for anyone to be born a homosexual. They decide that it's a condition that people have through no fault of their own, and that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with it, but that since they have a choice why not have everyone be born straight.

This is I suspect the most objectionable situation of the three. Is it morally wrong? On what grounds?

[Darth Wong]

Imagine that at some point in the future a brilliant scientist finds out a set of genetic factors that lead to some sort of highly undesirable behaviour such as paedophilia. It then becomes routine to prevent anyone from being born with such a thing by early screening of embryos or something similar. The rate of child abuse goes right down. As far as anyone can tell there are no other adverse effects.

Is this morally OK?

Yes. I'm a utilitarian, and society is benefited by the elimination of a trait which can only be described as harmful. Moreover, no person is actually being harmed or killed as a result of this process; it prevents pedophiles from being born in the first place.

Then a bit later someone locates a similar set of factors for homosexuality. A set of parents feel that they would rather their children be born straight. They argue that although they have nothing against homosexuals, they feel that no child could be said to be harmed by being born straight, and that evolutionarily it could be said to preferable. They want their children to grow up like themselves and they want grandchildren.

Is this morally objectionable?

Somewhat. I know some homosexuals may be outraged at that, but we're not talking about discriminating against homosexuals, hurting them, or killing them. We're simply saying that parents would have the option to ensure that they have a heterosexual child. So the only conceivable harm from such a policy would be that the numbers of homosexuals drop over time, and any homosexuals who are born would probably suffer from greater discrimination as their numbers dwindle. Like it or not, anti-discrimination efforts benefit from a certain "critical mass" of the minority in question.

Then finally some sort of governmental health body decides that there really isn't any need for anyone to be born a homosexual. They decide that it's a condition that people have through no fault of their own, and that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with it, but that since they have a choice why not have everyone be born straight.

This is I suspect the most objectionable situation of the three. Is it morally wrong? On what grounds?

The problem with this policy is that it takes parental choices out of the hands of parents and puts them in the hands of the state. It would presumably criminalize the act of having children without this government-mandated screening, thus violating womens' rights (a woman has the right to refuse invasive treatments). It would also cost a shitload of money, and for no significant social benefit.

[Jalinth]

The first thing to do is make sure the brilliant scientist has fully considered all of the variables. A number of genetic diseases exist where the problem is in recessives. One copy of the particular gene can help, two can harm. Other cases the protection is situational. People from areas with malaria have genes that help them resist the disease much more than someone from a long line of Scotsmen. But, at the cost of higher blood pressure. Good in the Congo, not so useful in Northern Canada.

A more likely scenario would be: You could remove pedophilia tendecies at the cost of removing their aptitude towards music (as one example). By screening out the gene, that person would be guaranteed to be completely tone deaf and absolutely lacking in rhythm (can't sing, dance, or play an instrument worth a damn. Also can't compose). Worthwhile trade-off in eliminating Bach, Wagner, Williams (of movie composer fame)? Although the elimination of Britney clones is a point in favour.

What about autism and "genius' (if you could define the term). Would accept the elimination of any form of autism at the price of removing true intellectual geniuses from the population?

Until we can implement extremely precise genetic engineering, this is a more likely scenario. No such thing as a free lunch.

[Darth Wong]

The first thing to do is make sure the brilliant scientist has fully considered all of the variables. A number of genetic diseases exist where the problem is in recessives. One copy of the particular gene can help, two can harm. Other cases the protection is situational. People from areas with malaria have genes that help them resist the disease much more than someone from a long line of Scotsmen. But, at the cost of higher blood pressure. Good in the Congo, not so useful in Northern Canada.

A more likely scenario would be: You could remove pedophilia tendecies at the cost of removing their aptitude towards music (as one example). By screening out the gene, that person would be guaranteed to be completely tone deaf and absolutely lacking in rhythm (can't sing, dance, or play an instrument worth a damn. Also can't compose). Worthwhile trade-off in eliminating Bach, Wagner, Williams (of movie composer fame)? Although the elimination of Britney clones is a point in favour.

What about autism and "genius' (if you could define the term). Would accept the elimination of any form of autism at the price of removing true intellectual geniuses from the population?

Until we can implement extremely precise genetic engineering, this is a more likely scenario. No such thing as a free lunch.

I don't see how this is relevant to the scenario, in which genetic screening is used. Most likely the future pedophiles would simply be aborted in the first trimester.

[Prozac the Robert]

]
The problem with this policy is that it takes parental choices out of the hands of parents and puts them in the hands of the state. It would presumably criminalize the act of having children without this government-mandated screening, thus violating womens' rights (a woman has the right to refuse invasive treatments). It would also cost a shitload of money, and for no significant social benefit.

Don't you see most of those disadvantages as also applying to the first of the situations though? (With the exception of the social benefit, which is obvious in the removal of paedophilia.)

If the paedophilia screening was already in effect and if this additional screening for homosexuality was then relatively cheap, how would that affect what you've said?

[Darth Wong]

Did you even read what I wrote? How the fuck would those objections about parental and womens' rights apply to a voluntary procedure as opposed to a government-mandated one?

[Prozac the Robert]

Sorry, that's me not writing properly.

In the first scenario I specified that the procedure becomes routine, and in the last I specify madatory. I really intended the two to be equivilant but that's not what I wrote so I appologise.

I don't want to mess with the OP, so I add the following two questions for consideration:

Would you support mandatory screening for paedophilia?

Would you have an ethical or moral argument against selection for hetrosexuality becomeing routine and paid for by the government, but not mandatory?

[Trytostaydead]

Morally and ethically this goes into the realm of abortion, the ethics of 'best interest' etc.. all of which are in common practice and acceptance in medicine today.

Though you have to wonder what the long term effect of having "perfect" children will be. Especially since a lot of the people who pushed the boundaries of our knowledge and expansion were weird motherfuckers in one way or another.

[Broomstick]

Imagine that at some point in the future a brilliant scientist finds out a set of genetic factors that lead to some sort of highly undesirable behaviour such as paedophilia. It then becomes routine to prevent anyone from being born with such a thing by early screening of embryos or something similar. The rate of child abuse goes right down. As far as anyone can tell there are no other adverse effects.

Is this morally OK?

Yes.

As Darth Wong mentioned, this doesn't actually kill anyone and removes a harmful trait from society.

Then a bit later someone locates a similar set of factors for homosexuality. A set of parents feel that they would rather their children be born straight. They argue that although they have nothing against homosexuals, they feel that no child could be said to be harmed by being born straight, and that evolutionarily it could be said to preferable. They want their children to grow up like themselves and they want grandchildren.

I have serious reservations about this one.

First of all, homosexuals can and do reproduce, so the "we want grandchildren" argument doesn't hold water.

Second, we don't have a people shortage. Given the present circumstances on the planet, it wouldn't be a problem for society if a few more people elected to forego reproduction, or engage in sex that won't lead to more people (homosexuals who do reproduce almost never do so by accident, after all).

Third, since I view homosexuality as being as intrinsically harmful as being left-handed or fair-skinned, I would object that by eliminating them you are reducing the diversity of the human race. From an evolutionary perspective, as well as a moral one, that is not a good thing. I mean, we could argue that while being lefthanded isn't pathological it's not normal either, and wouldn't it be better if everyone was right-handed? Um... no, not justification enough in my mind.

On the other hand, while I can't condone this, as long as it remains in the realm of individuals families making these decisions I might be able to accept it to a very limited degree

Then finally some sort of governmental health body decides that there really isn't any need for anyone to be born a homosexual. They decide that it's a condition that people have through no fault of their own, and that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with it, but that since they have a choice why not have everyone be born straight.

No, I can't approve of this.

This is government regulating what constitutes an "acceptable" human being and what's not, using traits that are neutral or, perhaps, at most, of very little harm. It's government reducing the diversity of the human species, and probably by committee, worse yet.

Nope, can't approve of that one.

As someone else pointed out, some major contributions have been made by "weird motherfuckers".

This is no more acceptable than, say, the delibrate breeding of autistic savants in order to exploit their savant abilities.