Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Scientists may have found a way to eliminate chromosome linked to Down syndrome

academic.oup.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

471–480 of 520 posts

Re: Scientists may have found a way to eliminate chromosome linked to Down syndrome

#471

Post by BriggyDwiggs42 »

Thorrez wrote: post #457
BriggyDwiggs42 wrote: post #427

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> unique living human organisms are different enough from the unique living human organisms that matter that it should be morally acceptable to kill them I think what we should care about isn’t human life, but human consciousness. A person in a vegetative state doesn’t suffer when you pull the plug. The difference matters and is unmistakable between large organisms which have gone through a long process of developmen…

What about someone who is unconscious but will recover? Is it ok the pull the plug on that person? There won't be any suffering (unless friends or relatives mourn, but let's assume this person has no friends or relatives). Regarding the size of the organism, and amount of time spent developing, what about a very early preemie who is unconscious but will recover?

In both cases I don’t think the plug should be pulled. In the first case, someone already had a complex experience with memories and dreams and whatnot and you’re contributing to them never waking up. The existence at some point in the past still matters.

In the second case there’s no reason at all to do something so drastic. Abortion is acceptable only because the mother’s body is being used and damaged, and she should have the right to prevent that use. The preemie doesn’t need to damage someone’s body to exist.

Edit: having read some of your other comments, I have a question for you. Why should we care about a zygote and not a sperm and an egg. Why is the act of fertilization the line between simple reproductive cells and a beautiful human life. Both have the potential to make a person, both are genetically human, both likely cannot experience things in a human-like way.

Re: Scientists may have found a way to eliminate chromosome linked to Down syndrome

#472

Post by schwartzworld »

advisedwang wrote: post #173
smeej wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many ethicists value the continuation of someone's--anyone's--(literal) life over the continuation of anyone else's life style. I'm not arguing whether you should or shouldn't agree with them, nor saying anything about in which cases. It's just one of the primary things going on in the minds of those people, and you said you wondered.

Down screening is done at like 16 weeks. At 16 weeks that's hardly a life. Also you are being very dismissive by hand-waving away lifestyle. Quality of life is a significant factor in medical decisions. Many people choose short high-qol lives over longer low-qol lives.

Even younger now. Initial screening is done at like 8 weeks by extracting the mothers blood and examining the chromosomes in the fetal cells.

Re: Scientists may have found a way to eliminate chromosome linked to Down syndrome

#473

Post by pseudo0 »

smeej wrote: post #398
pseudo0 wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A valid and reliable survey instrument was mailed to 4,924 households on the mailing lists of six non-profit Down syndrome organizations. Definitely no sampling bias here... And given that the vast majority of people who do prenatal screening decide not to have a child with Down Syndrome, I don't think the people who choose to have a Down Syndrome child are really representative of prospective parents as a whole. T…

The perspective in question is about what it's like to raise a child with Down Syndrome. Why on EARTH would the opinions of people who were so scared of the experience that they never tried it at all even for a minute be relevant to that perspective?

Because people can reasonably predict whether they will be happy doing something before they do it. Like for example, if you polled people who had gone skydiving and asked whether they enjoyed the experience, I'd expect many would say yes. After all, they voluntarily signed up for it and paid money to do it. But if you randomly selected people and made them jump out of a plane, the results would be very different.

Also, people who have had negative experiences raising a child with Down Syndrome are presumably far less likely to be involved with non-profit organizations related to Down Syndrome.

Re: Scientists may have found a way to eliminate chromosome linked to Down syndrome

#474

Post by ookdatnog »

Thorrez wrote: post #460
ookdatnog wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you consider a chimera resulting from the fusion of two embryos as two people? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimera_(genetics)

I would say it's similar to one person dying and another person getting a ton of transplants from that person.

That does not resolve your problem, it only shuffles it around.

You are defending the case that personhood begins at conception, and your argument supporting this case is "It's a unique living organism. A life. Different from a skin cell which isn't a unique organism."

If I get a kidney from someone else, and that person dies, according to your own argument, that kidney is a person. These cells are metabolizing and dividing, therefore alive, and they are unique with respect to the rest of my body.

Perhaps you'll argue that the kidney isn't an organism because it has no means of reproducing itself. To that I have two counterarguments:

- The argument implies that infertile humans are not persons.

- Nature contains every horror imaginable, including clonally transmissible cancers [0]. If my body develops such a cancer and it jumps to someone else, then I die, according to your definition my cancer that's colonizing someone else's body is a person.

I won't claim to know what defines personhood, but an obvious prerequisite (in the context of human life) is the existence of a centralized nervous system. If I am beheaded, and my headless body is placed on life support while my brain is destroyed, I, as a person, am dead, even if my body is alive. If my brain is surgically removed and placed on life support in a vat, and allowed to interface with the world somehow, then I, as a person, am still alive (whether such a life is worth living is a different question).

Accepting this prerequisite resolves the chimera problem, the kidney problem, the infertility problem and the transmissible cancer, and it results in the conclusion that a zygote is not yet a person, as it does not have a nervous system.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil_facial_tumour_disease

Re: Scientists may have found a way to eliminate chromosome linked to Down syndrome

#475

Post by smeej »

BriggyDwiggs42 wrote: post #471
Thorrez wrote: post #457

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about someone who is unconscious but will recover? Is it ok the pull the plug on that person? There won't be any suffering (unless friends or relatives mourn, but let's assume this person has no friends or relatives). Regarding the size of the organism, and amount of time spent developing, what about a very early preemie who is unconscious but will recover?

In both cases I don’t think the plug should be pulled. In the first case, someone already had a complex experience with memories and dreams and whatnot and you’re contributing to them never waking up. The existence at some point in the past still matters. In the second case there’s no reason at all to do something so drastic. Abortion is acceptable only because the mother’s body is being used and damaged, and she sho…

Are you genuinely not already aware of the biological difference between a (haploid) gamete and a (diploid) organism? This is like 7th grade science stuff, so I want to understand if you're questioning whether there is a difference or whether the difference matters.

Zygote, embryo, fetus, infant, toddler, adolescent, and adult are all different stages of the life cycle of a human organism. Gametes are not. Before fertilization, there are gametes. Unless fertilization happens, no organism comes into being. But once it does, it is the same organism from then all the way until its death. This is a biological reality, not a philosophical one.

Re: Scientists may have found a way to eliminate chromosome linked to Down syndrome

#476

Post by smeej »

pseudo0 wrote: post #473
smeej wrote: post #398

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The perspective in question is about what it's like to raise a child with Down Syndrome. Why on EARTH would the opinions of people who were so scared of the experience that they never tried it at all even for a minute be relevant to that perspective?

Because people can reasonably predict whether they will be happy doing something before they do it. Like for example, if you polled people who had gone skydiving and asked whether they enjoyed the experience, I'd expect many would say yes. After all, they voluntarily signed up for it and paid money to do it. But if you randomly selected people and made them jump out of a plane, the results would be very different. Al…

What? People suck at predicting whether they will enjoy things, especially when they know little about them. Regret is staggeringly common. Look at divorce rates if you want a life decision of comparable magnitude. And the opposite is just as true, that people are constantly finding new things they enjoy, or even love passionately, when they least expected it.

Re: Scientists may have found a way to eliminate chromosome linked to Down syndrome

#477

Post by Thorrez »

BriggyDwiggs42 wrote: post #471
Thorrez wrote: post #457

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about someone who is unconscious but will recover? Is it ok the pull the plug on that person? There won't be any suffering (unless friends or relatives mourn, but let's assume this person has no friends or relatives). Regarding the size of the organism, and amount of time spent developing, what about a very early preemie who is unconscious but will recover?

In both cases I don’t think the plug should be pulled. In the first case, someone already had a complex experience with memories and dreams and whatnot and you’re contributing to them never waking up. The existence at some point in the past still matters. In the second case there’s no reason at all to do something so drastic. Abortion is acceptable only because the mother’s body is being used and damaged, and she sho…

Previously you said "I think what we should care about isn’t human life, but human consciousness." Now you're saying something different about past memories, and I think even that an unconscious preemie shouldn't be killed, as long as it's not harming/damaging anyone. So I think you've changed your position.

Regarding your new position: if someone's body was being used and damaged, would it be ok to kill the unconscious preemie to prevent that?

>Edit: having read some of your other comments, I have a question for you. Why should we care about a zygote and not a sperm and an egg. Why is the act of fertilization the line between simple reproductive cells and a beautiful human life. Both have the potential to make a person, both are genetically human, both likely cannot experience things in a human-like way.

A zygote is a unique human organism. It has the full DNA of a human. It will grow into an adult human unless it dies for some reason. A sperm and an egg are not human organisms. Individually they don't have the full DNA of a human. A sperm won't grow into an adult human. An egg won't grow into an adult human.

Re: Scientists may have found a way to eliminate chromosome linked to Down syndrome

#478

Post by Thorrez »

ookdatnog wrote: post #474
Thorrez wrote: post #460

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would say it's similar to one person dying and another person getting a ton of transplants from that person.

That does not resolve your problem, it only shuffles it around. You are defending the case that personhood begins at conception, and your argument supporting this case is "It's a unique living organism. A life. Different from a skin cell which isn't a unique organism." If I get a kidney from someone else, and that person dies, according to your own argument, that kidney is a person. These cells are metabolizing and d…

Does the kidney meet the scientific definition of an organism?

If we were to survey those biologists, what would they say? Same regarding an infertile person, and cancer. I think scientists have already resolved the questions you're posing.

BTW, I don't think the nervous system argument is very common. Pro life people won't use it, because it means early abortions would be ok. Most pro choice people won't use it, because it means abortions would have to be very restricted. The nervous system starts to form at 3 weeks of fetal age (5 weeks gestational age). Most people are in a tail-wagging-the-dog situation where their beliefs about personhood are derived from their belief about whether abortion should be legal or not, instead of the other way around. I see you haven't fallen into that trap. It does seem possible I have fallen into the trap. However, I do think science is on my side.

Re: Scientists may have found a way to eliminate chromosome linked to Down syndrome

#479

Post by Thorrez »

okasaki wrote: post #465
Thorrez wrote: post #462

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you know of a communist country that has had good civil rights and good prosperity, let me know.

Could say the same thing about capitalism. Is it the US with a $7 minimum wage and bankrupt medical treatment? Is it the UK where the average salary is $37k and houses cost 500k, and a single train ride is 10% of monthly salary? Is it Germany where they arrest you for displaying a Palestinian flag?

I'm not saying capitalism is perfect. All I'm saying is that it's better than communism. This was the comment I was replying to:

>In political-left world, everybody has health care, access to housing and a liveable salary. In a political-right world, people are deported and killed, and the unlucky ones (i.e. the poor) live on the streets and can't afford to visit a doctor.

Re: Scientists may have found a way to eliminate chromosome linked to Down syndrome

#480

Post by Thorrez »

Adverblessly wrote: post #377
somenameforme wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think societies somewhat naturally wax and wane on most topics, probably because it seems we're simply unable to maintain a middle ground on anything. We always end up taking things to an extreme which, regardless of what that extreme may be, tends to lead to unpleasant scenarios which causes society to start bouncing back in the opposite direction only to repeat the cycle in the equal but opposite direction some t…

I can't speak to other countries, but here in Israel at least, religion is highly correlated with number of children. Focusing on jewish women, fertility rates for different levels of religion in 2021-2023: Ultra-orthodox 6.48 Religious 3.74 Traditional-religious 2.81 Traditional, not so religious 2.20 Not religious, secular 1.96 So naturally over time the religious portion of the population grows.

What's the difference between "Religious" and "Traditional-religious"?

Is "Traditional-religious" a strict subset of "Religious"? Is Ultra-orthodox a strict subset of "Traditional-religious"? If so, it's odd that Traditional-religious has lower fertility than Religious.

Post reply on HN