Illegal abortions in the UK

[Gallstones]

If one can have an abortion on demand within the first trimester, then THE reason for abortion is irrelvant regardless of what any outside party feels about it. How is "I don't want it" acceptable but "I don't want a girl/boy" not when "I don't want it" is otherwise good enough reason?

Let certain cultural groups abort girls if they want; their sons will have difficulty finding partners. They might have to go outside their subculture and that would result in integration.

[hadespussercats]

There is no need for abortion to be legal in any Western nation because the replacement birthrate is already too low.

And that's waht women are for-- keeping that replacement level up. For what, exactly? Making more women, who will have more babies...

Oh. I see you said Western nation. Well. That is an important distinction. We Western women should be in the stirrups getting knocked up or popping them out, just to make sure all those brown people don't outnumber us and take over the world.

You're an enlightened man.

[hadespussercats]

If one can have an abortion on demand within the first trimester, then THE reason for abortion is irrelvant regardless of what any outside party feels about it. How is "I don't want it" acceptable but "I don't want a girl/boy" not when "I don't want it" is otherwise good enough reason?

Let certain cultural groups abort girls if they want; their sons will have difficulty finding partners. They might have to go outside their subculture and that would result in integration.

They might have a hard time finding anyone who wants to be a traditional wife to a man from a culture that values women so low.

But then they wouldn't have families. And the population would even out again. Like you said (I think) these things tend to self-correct over time.

[JimC]

(And re your in vitro remark-- Eugenics are off-putting. For all sorts of reasons. )

(But thank god I had a nice blond boy!) (KIDDING!)

Oh, I don't know. Eugenics has the Nazi connotation now, but if you could manipulate a gene and have a child born with 180 IQ, instead of 110, wouldn't you do it? If the child could be genetically set to not have any genetic malfunctions, wouldn't you do it?

Fuck yeah, I would.

But, then again, I don't know why anyone would want to make sex-based choices anyway - so, I need to come to grips with that whole thing. For me, boy or girl, both are awesome. I don't even have a preference. Although, if SWMBO'd's relationship with her mother is any indicator of what is in our future....I need to do some thinkin'... lol

Eliminating clear-cut genetic abnormalities (should the technology mature enough to allow it) is one thing...

Raising "IQ" or any form of genetic "improvement" is quite another. For a start, most such aspects of being human are controlled by many genes, interacting in complex ways; personally, I doubt such clear-cut alterations would ever be possible. Then there are the unintended consequences; an ethical minefield any way you view it...

XC's point earlier is the vital one; the anachronistic practices and cultural mores of a group locked in the past condemns them to the tragedy of girl babies being seen as a burden.

[Coito ergo sum]

(And re your in vitro remark-- Eugenics are off-putting. For all sorts of reasons. )

(But thank god I had a nice blond boy!) (KIDDING!)

Oh, I don't know. Eugenics has the Nazi connotation now, but if you could manipulate a gene and have a child born with 180 IQ, instead of 110, wouldn't you do it? If the child could be genetically set to not have any genetic malfunctions, wouldn't you do it?

Fuck yeah, I would.

But, then again, I don't know why anyone would want to make sex-based choices anyway - so, I need to come to grips with that whole thing. For me, boy or girl, both are awesome. I don't even have a preference. Although, if SWMBO'd's relationship with her mother is any indicator of what is in our future....I need to do some thinkin'... lol

Eliminating clear-cut genetic abnormalities (should the technology mature enough to allow it) is one thing...

Raising "IQ" or any form of genetic "improvement" is quite another. For a start, most such aspects of being human are controlled by many genes, interacting in complex ways; personally, I doubt such clear-cut alterations would ever be possible. Then there are the unintended consequences; an ethical minefield any way you view it...

XC's point earlier is the vital one; the anachronistic practices and cultural mores of a group locked in the past condemns them to the tragedy of girl babies being seen as a burden.

Oh, I don't know. Improving cognitive ability and functioning is a good thing.

Doubting its possibility is one thing. However, assuming it were possible, I don't see anything wrong with it. Is there something more "human" about our current statistical spread of intelligence levels? I don't think so. Evolution altered human intelligence naturally. What's wrong with doing it artificially?

As for your last point - sure. But, in terms of the OP issue - so what? What's the next step in the analysis? That women who don't want girl (or boy) babies ought to be forced to have them?

[Coito ergo sum]

I think low IQ has been linked to mental illnesses like schizophrenia, depression and anxiety, so we'd be curing mental disease in the process.

I'd always heard the opposite-- but I think the supposed link is apocryphal anyway.

Unless you're talking creative genius, that is-- but this is derail-tastic.

Well, with the advance of genetics, we are on the cusp of artificial human evolution. It will happen, no matter hand-wringing is done about it now. The science of genetics and genetic engineering is proceeding extremely quickly, and there will come a time soon when people will be able to ensure the genetic health, and the beneficial genetic qualities of their children. With the capacity to do so existing, it would be in the national interest to raise the IQ of newborns. Why not? Why would that be bad?

I don't know a single individual who wouldn't want it for their own child. Health - intelligence. That's what people wish for when they are having a child.

[MrJonno]

Is a higher IQ for everyone in the national interest?, would everyone living to 200 or 2000 be in the national interest?. Even people living to 80 is putting a serious strain on society which is only going to get worse?

[Coito ergo sum]

Is a higher IQ for everyone in the national interest?, would everyone living to 200 or 2000 be in the national interest?. Even people living to 80 is putting a serious strain on society which is only going to get worse?

I would think that higher cognitive functioning couldn't hurt. Unlike longer life spans, it doesn't cost anything.

[hadespussercats]

I think low IQ has been linked to mental illnesses like schizophrenia, depression and anxiety, so we'd be curing mental disease in the process.

I'd always heard the opposite-- but I think the supposed link is apocryphal anyway.

Unless you're talking creative genius, that is-- but this is derail-tastic.

Well, with the advance of genetics, we are on the cusp of artificial human evolution. It will happen, no matter hand-wringing is done about it now. The science of genetics and genetic engineering is proceeding extremely quickly, and there will come a time soon when people will be able to ensure the genetic health, and the beneficial genetic qualities of their children. With the capacity to do so existing, it would be in the national interest to raise the IQ of newborns. Why not? Why would that be bad?

I don't know a single individual who wouldn't want it for their own child. Health - intelligence. That's what people wish for when they are having a child.

?

I'm not disagreeing with you.

I was just commenting on the mental illness angle. Bipolar is linked with creative genius. Not that you can't be a creative genius without it-- just that many people who have it tend to excel in poetry/creative writing and the arts. It's genetically linked. If I'd had the chance to make sure Sprog wouldn't have bipolar-- at risk of possibly nipping some creative genius in the bud-- would I have done it? Yes. I think I would have. But that might not have been the right choice.

I hope it's not an issue. But maybe it's just as well from my standpoint that the decision was out of my hands.

[hadespussercats]

Is a higher IQ for everyone in the national interest?, would everyone living to 200 or 2000 be in the national interest?. Even people living to 80 is putting a serious strain on society which is only going to get worse?

I would think that higher cognitive functioning couldn't hurt. Unlike longer life spans, it doesn't cost anything.

Of course, then you get the Gattaca issue of a low-intelligence underclass-- people who couldn't afford the engineering and get left behind.

[Coito ergo sum]

Is a higher IQ for everyone in the national interest?, would everyone living to 200 or 2000 be in the national interest?. Even people living to 80 is putting a serious strain on society which is only going to get worse?

I would think that higher cognitive functioning couldn't hurt. Unlike longer life spans, it doesn't cost anything.

Of course, then you get the Gattaca issue of a low-intelligence underclass-- people who couldn't afford the engineering and get left behind.

Gattaca -- Luddite propaganda!

[MrJonno]

Is a higher IQ for everyone in the national interest?, would everyone living to 200 or 2000 be in the national interest?. Even people living to 80 is putting a serious strain on society which is only going to get worse?

I would think that higher cognitive functioning couldn't hurt. Unlike longer life spans, it doesn't cost anything.

I think having lots of genuises around isnt going to increase the amount of work for them to do. Bored people who can build cold fusion nuclear bombs in their garden shed using £10 worth of crap from the chemist is not great for a stable society.

Now if you could genetically engineer happiness without any side effects that might be a better idea

[JimC]

CES wrote:

Oh, I don't know. Improving cognitive ability and functioning is a good thing.

Doubting its possibility is one thing. However, assuming it were possible, I don't see anything wrong with it. Is there something more "human" about our current statistical spread of intelligence levels? I don't think so. Evolution altered human intelligence naturally. What's wrong with doing it artificially?

As for your last point - sure. But, in terms of the OP issue - so what? What's the next step in the analysis? That women who don't want girl (or boy) babies ought to be forced to have them?

It is quite likely, in a complex system like the genetic underpinning of human cognition, that you simply cannot change "one thing". It is very possible that an improvement in one cognitive dimension such as intelligence be accompanied by a deterioration in some other aspect, that may not show up until it's too late. That's what I meant by unintended consequences.

As to the ethical question of choosing an abortion to eliminate have a baby of unwanted gender, it is not a question of forbidding such a free choice, but removing the absurd cultural framework which is the irrational background to that choice. And I'm not sure how free the choice would be anyway - pressure from husbands and extended family may make the "freedom" of women in such situations moot...

[Horwood Beer-Master]

Is a higher IQ for everyone in the national interest?, would everyone living to 200 or 2000 be in the national interest?. Even people living to 80 is putting a serious strain on society which is only going to get worse?

I would think that higher cognitive functioning couldn't hurt. Unlike longer life spans, it doesn't cost anything.

Nor do longer lifespans if they come with longer health.

[MrJonno]

Long life with health is fine as long as you ban children.
All positive then!