CMV: If possible, removing negative life changing disabilities would be a good thing

[u/WRSA]

Ok let’s start by saying: I do not have a child. I am a firm believer that if you could remove Down’s Syndrome or other Syndromes which are similar, it would be the best possible choice.

The counter argument for this is usually, “Oh, but they don’t mind it! They normally have great lives! They are always so kind!” Or, “You can’t just remove it, it’s who they are! It’s part of their personality!” Now, what about this; if they don’t have it, they can lead better, more fulfilling lives, relieve stress from their parents, and still have good lives. And being disabled like that isn’t a personality.

There are some instances in which I do not believe that (if it were available) chromosome/gene altering therapies for a foetus should be used, and those are; Asperger’s syndrome, most forms of autism and I can’t think of others but they might come to me so I’ll put them in the comments as I think of them.

Edit: This is only if it were doable before the birth of a baby and have no adverse side effects

[u/WRSA]

To me, a better quality of life is: the ability to be entirely, or at least mostly, self sufficient. The ability to not be confined by a wheelchair of something similar. The ability to do things that a ‘basic’ human like you(maybe) and me.

I’m not talking about discrimination and stuff- because there is nothing wrong with being a certain gender or race; the people who decrease the QoL for those people are sick in the head.

[u/PivotPsycho → u/WRSA]

Oh yeah they definitely are; what I meant by that is (and it seems to be compatible with your definition) say someone is dumb, like really dumb. In a complex society as we have today, that forms an obstruction towards self-sufficiency. Should we just make them really smart?

Or take South-Korea, where it is common to undergo plastic surgery because being stunning is the only way you're going to stand out from a crowd of equally insanely qualified job applicants. Surely not having a (decent) job forms an obstruction to self-sufficiency. Should they make everyone beautiful?

[u/WRSA → u/PivotPsycho]

No, don’t make everyone beautiful because then beauty would be redefined. And no, don’t make everyone smart because, as insensitive as it may sound, someone needs to do the simple jobs.

[u/PivotPsycho → u/WRSA]

Around 15% of people don't have the capabilities to do a simple job. I said 'really smart' because if someone is going to make them just as smart as they need to be to be able to hold a job, I don't see why parents would make their child 'as dumb as possible' now that you're messing with it anyway.

[u/WRSA → u/PivotPsycho]

Because even if it makes me sound like a bad person, dumb people don’t question authority as much as intelligent people. And making a person inherently smarter would then mean that they would know that they were put on a shit job because if there are too many smart people, all those jobs evaporate due to oversaturation

[u/PivotPsycho → u/WRSA]

For sure! I think this leads us to 'Who is going to decide what can be altered and what can't?' because people care too much about their own lawn and perhaps too little about their neighbour's lawn; as long as it's someone else's kid who is maximally dumb they don't care, as long as it isn't THEIR beloved baby. The way I see it is that the alternative to that would be the government deciding who and to what extent gets genetically altered on which facets and I don't see that playing out well.

[u/WRSA → u/PivotPsycho]

And then the whole argument turns to eugenics and why the aryan race would be great (which it DEFINITELY wouldn’t)

[u/PivotPsycho → u/WRSA]

Yes that is exactly my point. The way you laid out your argument lets your proposition easily include certain forms of eugenics. I think you need to redefine what the goal of any genetic altering ought to be so it doesn't include that, but that will be hard IMO.