You are allowed to use a lot of filtering processes in reproduction that you are not in employment and housing and stuff.
Selecting One's Children: Genetics & Eugenics
- Thread starter Stew Pid
- Start date
There are unique ethical, emotional, and legal considerations paramount to reproductive rights, consent, the welfare of potential offspring and psychological impacts. Its more than just choosing sperm or a "man", genetic heritage, personal identity or family dynamics will all be affected. All which are profound for making or breaking a civilization.
Google says about 1-2% in the USA, but nobody has to report this, so we don't know for sure. This is similar to the percentage using IVF, though the overlap between the groups is not necessarily large.
Research is being developed for new non-invasive egg biospy methods for genetic screening. One includes using a laser which shows promise. https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S2661318223740286
That is embryo testing. It uses the laser to separate one cell without damaging the rest of the embryo. An egg only is one cell, you cannot do that.
We are getting off topic, in an effort to not derail this thread, I will move on from areas not covering my main point in learning something life changing.
I got them mixed up, I meant to type that as the alternative to the oocyte egg testing which is embryo testing as more successful in screening genetic orders without high risk factors.
This was meant to be posted, experimental factors in screening eggs for issues without destruction, which is rudiementary but still improving everyday.
The appearance of the oocyte under a microscope, including characteristics such as size, shape, and the presence of cytoplasmic abnormalities or irregularities. The stage of maturation of the oocyte, which indicates its readiness for fertilization. Fully mature oocytes are more likely to result in successful fertilization and embryo development. The quality of the cytoplasm within the oocyte, including factors such as granularity, clarity, and the presence of inclusions or vacuoles. The presence and appearance of the polar body, which is a small cell that is expelled from the oocyte during maturation and serves as an indicator of successful meiotic division.
That will tell you about the chances of a successful pregnancy from that egg. It will tell you nothing about the features of the child except possibly gross chromosomal abnormalities such as Down syndrome.
Chromesonal abnormalities are genetic disorders along, with cystic fibrous, single gene disorders and mitochondrial disorders the process is not meant to reveal every health condition inside the egg itself. No test can guarantee the birth of a child free from all genetic disorders or chromosomal abnormalities regardless if the test destroyed the entire egg or not. The technology is simply not at the point. Testing the donor of the egg is in the same boat.
What I am saying is that the "eugenicy" tests about selecting favourable features of the child that the original quote said was occurring with sperm but was not occurring with eggs because it was too expensive and failed too much is actually impossible. This indicates that the original article is incorrect in some aspects, in my view intentionally, and therefore should not be trusted in other aspects.
Last edited:
Most of the arguments I have heard about eugenics make the claim that eugenics is wrong because of coercion on the part of outsiders on the reproductive choice of the individual. On the other hand if an individual wishes to make that same choice for themselves the ethical concerns now become around coercion preventing them from making their own reproductive choices (see also the IVF brouhaha in Alabama). Conflating 20th century eugenics movements with modern genetic testing misses this key ethical distinction.
Exactly. It is not immoral to do testing to find out if your fetus has a condition that will mean an early death or that they will probably be afflicted by some fatal medical condition that will kill them later. It's not immoral to fix what they can, before the fetus is born.
There is a misunderstanding then with the original quoted statement, its more expensive because acquiring donor eggs is more expensive, it has higher failure rates because only recently in the last decade had oocyte handling and storage technology/techniques improved with the rest of the world catching up. I can now see where I made it easy to not represent what I was trying to state.
People can say one thing in public and practice the other thing in private. I will give some examples of those unconsciously practicing eugenics. Landlords in diverse areas have come to recognize patterns, among those who have been or are their tenants. These patterns are manifested when it becomes a common occurrence that those with similar certain similar characteristics such as race, accent and ethnic background are actively causing the landlord some form of grievance at a higher rate than those who don't have those similar characteristics. This will result in unequal treatment and screening in the renting or housing process.
Another case of Eugenics is in education institutions, those of Western jurisdiction mostly. These places are revered for being morally rational places of learning yet somehow the idea having "people of color" only areas has trended. The reasoning for this is bizarre, prejudice mongering individuals say these areas need to be segregated so those POC can feel safe and reach their full potential. Yet the clear definition of who is under the POC class is constantly changing on a whim with the only concreate motif seems to be judging someone by their skin color.
There is substantially more empirical evidence of these laps in modern society but let's get back to genetics related eugenics I guess...
