Monday, November 13, 2006

Yet Another Sign of the Decline and Fall of Western Civilization.

Outcry as clinic offers 'designer baby' embryo screening for 200 diseases | the Daily Mail

This one has all the key excuses and rationalizations of men who do evil for the sake of good.

"The alternative is testing at 16 weeks when they may choose an abortion or, in many cases, seeing their baby die from some of these horrendous diseases." That's right! We can prevent abortions this way! Those Christians would have to be hypocritical to be against something that prevents abortions! And we can save people from hardships of horrible diseases! And all that we need to do is destroy human life before it gets old enough for us to care about it! But of course, where does this end? If we can justify killing in the earliest stages of life to end disease, what about the end of life? Why not bring on all-out euthanasia? And why stop with old people? And why limit it to diseases? Why not justify mercy-killing of those who are living in misery not brought about by disease, but by causes such as poverty or other social hardships?

Of course, 'mercy'-killing is a misnomer, as Dr. Harold the Elder pointed out in philosophy class because, "justice is giving someone his due. Mercy is giving him more than his due. Everyone deserves life, so 'mercy'-killing is not just against mercy, it is against justice because it gives someone less than their due."

"In my opinion, it is unethical not to offer couples the chance of a disease-free child." That's right, it would be wrong not to do it, to stand in the way of all the good that can be done! And think of all the diseases we can end through embryonic stem cell research! Why, it would be criminal to oppose that! And the only cost is we have to destroy a few things that don't even look like people. But I suppose if one doesn't believe in anything one cannot see, then it would be easy to justify the destruction of embryos, since they don't look like a person.

It reminds me of the end of Minority Report, where the Bad Guy who had created the Department of Pre-Crime is trying to justify to himself the murder of the mother of one of the psychics and says to himself "think of all the good you've done, the lives that have been saved."

"When I explained, the manager said, 'So this technique means we spend £20,000 and avoid the possibility of having to spend between £1 and £2 million caring for a disabled child. It's a no-brainer.'" That's right! We can save money this way! It would be cheaper and easier on not just the parent's pocketbook, but on that of the British taxpayer, who in the end foots the bill for the socialized healthcare that pays for the diseased baby. But of course, this is justifying desctruction of human life for economic reasons, essentially putting a monetary value on human life.

"I realise some people have concerns this is all going too far but quite apart from the regulators overseeing our work and ethical guidelines, we are governed by our desire to alleviate suffering." That's right! We only want to help! Our noble goal is to make the world a better place by putting an end to suffering and disease! But of course, such has been the excuse of all evil men throughout history.

*Joe's Idea for a Science Fiction Story*
Feel free to use this as long as you credit me/pay me royalties.

In the not-too-distant future, all babies are selected in a manner similar to this and screened not just for diseases but for physical traits such as eye and hair color, beauty, and physical abilities (for instance, parents pay $35,000 for a baby that will be 7' tall and an NBA star; Considering the amount of money the kid will make, that's a pretty good ROI). There might even be government mandates for why babies have to be pre-screened to save on national healthcare costs. Or maybe insurance companies won't cover non-screened babies.

Anyways, after some nuclear war/cataclysmic asteroid impact/apocalyptic event, technology reverts and the ability to screen babies or use IVF is lost, buried under piles of rubble. It is then discovered that women have become sterile, as there is no longer a natural or evolutionary reason for a woman to be able to conceive. Perhaps all women have damaged fallopian tubes, since they are not necessary to IVF. Or perhaps the cervical mucus no longer sustains the sperm so they can live long enough to fertilize the ovum. Whatever the cause, no one is able to have any babies and the human race dies out. The end.
©2006 Joe Belland. All Rights Reserved.

If you want a happy ending, perhaps the Catholics and a few other traditional Christians survive because they have been secretly having real babies all along. But I prefer my tales of foreboding to have dark and depressing endings, like "The Boy Who Cried Too Much and Was Left Out in The Woods To Be Eaten by Wolves - You Get My Drift, Little Timmy?"

12 comments:

  1. Does this mean we can cure AIDS by cleansing the world of all people with the disease?

    ~the blue fox

    ps. Just think, no medication ever needs to be developed... we just get rid of the person infected.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Did you ever see "Gattaca"? Or read "Children of Men"? Very similar plotlines.

    I just read somewhere (maybe in First Things?) about this new screening, and its implications. Women who opt out of the screening, or who choose to carry a "diseased" baby to term, will be ridiculed and persecuted for their decision, even more than they already are. Quality of life! Economy! Parents' inconvenience! blah blah The article mentioned that we all pat our backs in congratulation for not allowing freak shows at carnivals anymore, but the truth is rapidly becoming that we won't allow freaks to exist at all. I once read a story called "The Last Ugly Person" about what happens to a society when they attempt to drive out ugliness, including ugly people. In short, all the beautiful people become monsters -- essentially a physical manifestation of what they had become inside.
    These are dark days, Harry.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Can you say, "Brave New World?"

    ReplyDelete
  4. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  5. oh boy! Übermensch! I'm going to pay $20 to 100 different homeless females to carry my specially chosen embryos. Then when I have a small army of 100 mutant atomic supermen, I'm going to kill all the men and force all the women to carry more mutant atomic supermen in their wombs. Try and put that somewhere in your plotline. Maybe a side plot.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "When I explained, the manager said, 'So this technique means we spend £20,000 and avoid the possibility of having to spend between £1 and £2 million caring for a disabled child. It's a no-brainer.'"

    Well, no, it isn't a no-brainier. You may spend £2,000,000 on the .05% Down Syndrome baby, but you'll also spend about £4,000,000 testing 200 people to find and kill that one baby.*

    Then you also need to consider the false positive rate, which will always exist unless you have a perfect biomarker (which they might very well have), and whether or not gene-presence absolutely indicates that a child will contract the disease.

    It would really be easier and save so much more money if we just tested adults who are at risk for genetic diseases to see if they might pass them on to their children. Once you identify them then you can sterilize them. Much cleaner and simpler if you ask me.

    Joe, watch the movie GATTACA. Very good, uplifting yet also depressing ending. I would recommend reading "Children of Men." The movie doesn't follow the book. Instead (from what I've read), it's about the Iraq war and refugees.

    *Figures made up.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "(which they might very well have)" Not likely. 9 out of 10 doctors this, you have 20% chance of that... It seems to me that the entire medical industry is based on stats and they can't seem to make a definite statement unless its about the obvious (ie. "He's dead", "It's a girl!", "It's an expensive procedure"). And when they do make an definite statement, it is frequently about things they have no business saying "Hmm... X% chance of retardation... Mrs Y, Your child will be retarded"

    ReplyDelete
  8. BC, I know what you mean, but even if your hyperbole is toned down, I think you're wrong. You'd be surprised at how predictive medicine can be. I had a friend from grad school who worked in bio-statistics, and I was surprised at how good some of the biomarkers are. That said, I've never heard of anything with 100% prediction capability, and while I doubt anything exists in the realm of genetic statistics, I won't discount it.

    I think lots of doctors make statements based upon incomplete knowledge of statistical research. Simple, prime example for you who have or will have (you, BC) children, "Ma'am, your baby is in the 1st percentile for body weight. Your baby needs to gain more weight." Well, that's pretty stupid. The 1% exists. That's just a fact, and my child happens to belong to it. If that percentile is a strong indication of poor health (and it usually isn't, AFAIK), then I should care; otherwise, I shouldn't. But some doctors will get so worked up over this not to uncommon phenomenon.

    I suspect the same thing happens when doctors "predict" an illness. You might have a 55% chance of contracting a disease, and a doctor might say, "You will likely get this disease." It's a true statment, but it's also ridiculous. If you knew the real %, then you'd think your chances are no better than 50/50. AFAIK, pharmaceutical companies also play these games when it comes to effectiveness of some medications. Statistics don't lie, but they are uncertain.

    The heart of the problem is that people desire certainty and infallibility, and science is the only thing that people think will give it to them. People then put all their trust in the princes of probability and physics. Their is much certainty in science, but there is also much uncertainty. It is very dangerous to put so much trust in something which can't make a strong promise. Modern medicine is amazing, but modern successes should be weighed against the history of medical mishaps and half-truths that initially appeared to have so much truth.

    The only things we know for certain are what Christ revealed to us and what is continually developed in His Church. For all other things I think a moderate amount of agnosticism is healthy.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I concurr. (Do you concurr?... I Should have concurred)

    ReplyDelete
  10. BC, I think the proper form is "I shall have been concurring."

    ReplyDelete
  11. Off topic, but mom's comment reminds me of one of the only clean and funny jokes on Family Guy:
    Black Knight: You see kids? Your father's nothing but a fizzle!
    Peter Griffin: Hey, pal, nobody calls me a fizzle and gets away with it! Except for that one guy who called me a fizzle and then he ran off. But nobody else has ever called me a fizzle and gotten away with it! Actually though, he was the only one who ever called me a fizzle. But after today, only half the people who've called me a fizzle will have gotten away with it!

    ReplyDelete
  12. I propose a new saying: "Statistics don't lie, but they do cheat and steal." It is official now. Go speaketh this phrase to all.

    ReplyDelete