I had to read a few articles for a course about DNA tests and their uses. The articles basically presented different sides and talked about innovations, which will enable us to perform DNA tests for a variety of reasons.
I believe current technology allows us to learn whether a fetus (or whatever the term might be) could possibly be having birth defects or other health problems. Another one mentioned was figuring out the likelihood of prospective parents having children with birth defects.
The one that I found interesting was the one where sometime in the future DNA tests would help determine the personality of an individual.
I’m not too familiar with the religious perspective, but I thought I’d ask in general to see how many here approve of such tests and where do you folks think we need to draw the line.
Personally I’m not in favour of DNA tests to determine the possible diseases your significant other might be passing on. I feel it would be too machine-like for us to go out and look for people who would perhaps be the best fit. However, I think the way desis are often pushed into arranged marriages, it might not be a bad idea to find out a little about the personality of your significant other.
Personalities don’t tend to change overnight, whereas tests about the possible birth defects/health issues only present a possibility and not concrete facts.
PS. I apologize for the incoherency. I just had it on my mind, so I thought I’d post, otherwise pretty much falling asleep.
I believe that your personality is a combination of both your nature (ie your genetics) but also your nurture (how you were raised).
Some peronality traits such as mental defects (mental conditions that develop later in life) can be identified through genetics. However, it's just not possible to work out if someone is a "nice guy" or a "responsible girl" through DNA alone. Whilst they might be genetically predisposed toward being this way, whether or not they turn out like that depends on the role models, examples, and experiences they had when growing up.
Similarly, someone might be genetically predisposed towards being a genius; but without the right teachers they might end up being an average joe or even less than that.
Maddy is right
Although I find it hard to visualize what the conv. would look like'
"Behn, aap kay baitay main waisay tu koi kharabi nahi hay, laikin DNA test negative aya hay, uss kay dimagh main 27.5% cells laziness indicate kartay hain. Yeh standard say 4.75% zyada hay. Hum aap ko apni baiti nahi day saktay - Shukriya"
I do not agree with the personality predictions. there are so many influences in the life to create our efficiencies and deffficiencies, which the DNA testing cannot predict.
"Behn, aap kay baitay main waisay tu koi kharabi nahi hay, laikin DNA test negative aya hay, uss kay dimagh main 27.5% cells laziness indicate kartay hain. Yeh standard say 4.75% zyada hay. Hum aap ko apni baiti nahi day saktay - Shukriya"
afsoos.. jaise hindo janum kundliyan liye phirte hain shayyed humare bachon ke bache dna test kundliyan liye phirain ge rishton keliye..main tou kahti hon jhanum main jaye aisi advancement
Personally I'm not in favour of DNA tests to determine the possible diseases your significant other might be passing on. I feel it would be too machine-like for us to go out and look for people who would perhaps be the best fit.
You have machines keeping people alive, artificial heart valves regulating blood flow, and dialysis (sp?) machine removing toxins from blood. So, tell me why shouldn't people use a little DNA testing to determine what's in store for their health. Don't be afraid of machine, our children will have mechanical sensory enhancements implanted like people get tattoes today.
DNA testing can reveal certain preferences but personalities are a function of environment. One man's meth junkie could be another's acrobatic pilot.
perhaps we shud make people who are exactly how we like...just like how people want to manipulate DNA/genetics stuff to get a perfect child. its taking it to far.
This is a very tough question, one for which there is a specialty within law schools now to address exactly this issue.
Being a "layperson" though, I'd say that genetic testing is a very useful tool to determine whether an established pregnancy has viability and/or problems. When you get into "designer babies", choosing sex, eye color, specific genetic traits, I really dont agree.
When parents have the possibility of finding out about potential problems, it can be a real blessing but even then it does have its problems. One thing I worried about was Down Syndrome. THese kids are very definitely handicapped yet are the happiest people you could ever meet. Do we have the right to deny them life? Yet I chose to do the testing because I do not have the resources to care for such a child should I and my husband meet an early death. So even this I think could be pushing the envelope. And once faced with this situation, I wonder whether I'd actually be able to carry on with aborting, whether I could live with myself after choosing to make myself executioner of a life I created with my love.
Definitely a case where technology exceeds our moral abilities to deal I think.
Personally, I see no issue with that. If I had the choice to control the DNA in my child, I would select DNA that would be at low risk of cancer, Downs syndrome, heart disease, and other medical conditions. I would choose skin tone, intelligence, tendency to gain weight, etc etc etc.
I am personally ok with couples trying to find out if their children can have a risk of any terminal disease but that can and should be done through blood tests before pregnancy. Hand picking features are not ok in my book but others can make their own choice. What I am and will be totally against is insurance companies making such test mandatory or having access to that data or making any kind of policy decisions based on such data.
Going forward I believe DNA tests will become routine, like the ultrasound. Technology can not be stopped through government obstruction, only delayed. I believe that to be the case for cloning as well. Even if abortion is outlawed all around the world, it will still take place, only underground.
So how and where we draw the line between people not having babies if they fear he or she might have disabilities or couples trying to hand pick physical features to create their perfect babies? I say through better public education regarding the procedure, its ethical and moral sides openly discussed along with the consequences and let the individuals make the choice.
I gotta agree with all of you folks who are in favour of DNA tests to learn about their child's possible health related issues. Like Mamaof3 mentioned, it could be disturbing and perhaps not the easiest for a mother to abort it. The question then arises, how soon can you learn about the possible health issues? Would it be months down in the pregnancy or would it be much earlier? I suppose the guilt would still be there for many of us.
I oppose the idea of picking genes/traits for the children. I don't think I have the ability to explain it, but for now the idea doesn't sound attractive.
Uncle Stalker, there are enough weird questions being asked by the prospective in-laws. I don't think asking them for a mere DNA report would be all that bad. :p If DNA reports are to be out-lawed for this purpose, then tea parades and whatever else is required with it also needs to be out-lawed.
if by selecting DNA that is 'good' for someone, we eventually create a society of ubermenschen, can you think of the implications this might have?
the societal structure will crumble, because everyone will be top performing, so noone will want to do work which is 'under' his/her standard
good genes are only good when they can be contrasted against bad genes. However, if by being selective of DNA, we are overincreasing the prevalence of a certain allele, I'm sure it will be calling for trouble. It will be similar to incest/inbreeding because we are selectively promoting certain genes over others.
similar to what happened when life-expectancy suddenly increased at the beginning of the 20th century from 40-50 to 70-80, new diseases will emerge for 100-110 year olds which we do not know of yet. E.g dementia, heart failure and other chronic illnesses of the elderly did not exist when people only became 45 year old. And I'm not sure whether being 75 and bed-ridden demented and left to the care of charity is to be preferred over one massive brain hemorrhage of which you die instantly at the age of 55, without even knowing what hit you???????
I dont like the idea of taking the "miracle" out of the miracle of creating life. The study of Medical Ethics is trying to keep up with technology but technology is out-pacing the ability to keep up.
Lets think of this another way....what about YOU? Would YOU want your life, even if you knew that you'd die of some hereditary ailment at an early age? Or would you think that you were GLAD to have lived your life, that your parents gave it you?
There are degrees of this, of course. I faced this myself when I was wondering what I'd do if faced with a pregnancy of a severely handicapped child....I WOULD want the child. BUT if something happened to me and/or my husband, who would be able to care for the child. So that brings home the issue really hard. As far as choosing eye-color, skin tones, yadayada well that should just not be an option. Leave these things to God/Allah. And let the "miracle of life" remain a miracle. IMHO.
