birth defects: lets get specific

[mosc]

What classifies as a birth defect? Is a birthmark a birth defect? Is being 5'0" a birth defect? How about 3'5"? What about being below average intelligence? What about being homosexual?

There are lots of disadvantages from birth every individual faces. Do we consider those birth defects? Also, where's the line between disadvantage and handicap?

I don't think "birth defect" is a derogatory term. A birthmark to me is a birth defect, let alone something more major like sexual orientation. I don't think it means much but I often feel people are resistant of pointing out differences for worry of making value judgments. Saying sexuality is a birth defect to some might seem the same as heterosexual > homosexual. I don't understand both what we consider a defect and also why calling something a defect is derogatory.

[blu]

People might feel the word "defect" implies that one is abnormal, and while abnormalilty can mean just a deviation from the average populace (in whatever), it is usually used as a synonym for weird/strange, as in someone you don't want to be associated with. Some people might find that offensive I guess.

This probably boiles down to culture/language/PC differences.

[The Reaper]

Birth defects are abnormalities present at birth. When I first read the question of being 5 feet tall being a birth defect, the first thought that went through my head was "yea, being 5 feet tall when your born is probably a birth defect." One can be a very abnormal adult and have still been a birth defect-free baby.

edit: theres also major and minor birth defects as well. http://www.hmc.psu.edu/childrens/health ... efects.htm

[Azrael]

Let's give this a shot...

[sje46]

What classifies as a birth defect? Is a birthmark a birth defect? Is being 5'0" a birth defect? How about 3'5"? What about being below average intelligence? What about being homosexual?

There are lots of disadvantages from birth every individual faces. Do we consider those birth defects? Also, where's the line between disadvantage and handicap?

I don't think "birth defect" is a derogatory term. A birthmark to me is a birth defect, let alone something more major like sexual orientation. I don't think it means much but I often feel people are resistant of pointing out differences for worry of making value judgments. Saying sexuality is a birth defect to some might seem the same as heterosexual > homosexual. I don't understand both what we consider a defect and also why calling something a defect is derogatory.

"Birth defect" usually refers to something physical, as opposed to psychological/behavioral. If we were to expand the definition to mean any "defect" that's been there from birth, well, I'd argue that we're all defected. No one is perfect. Calling a human defected is (besides being rude) pretty much saying no one's perfect. Well, duh.

In psychology, a mental disorder is defined as a psychological/behavioral pattern that is not expected as part of a culture/growing up and causes significant distress or disorder. Following that definition, an IQ of 95 (which is below average, and far from the imaginary perfect IQ) would not mean that person has a mental disorder, because that person is so close to average, that his life isn't really greatly affected. Same with homosexuality, which used to be considered a mental disorder, but isn't any more (presumably because being gay doesn't by itself lead to distress. Bigoted societies do that to gay people).

When it comes to physical things, well, I'm not sure what the official definition of "disease" or "disorder" is, but I'd imagine that it will take into account whether it actually causes great distress, something a birthmark really doesn't do. And even saying that could be considered rude.

Also, it simply isn't polite to call someone with any kind of disorder or hindrance "defected". Maybe a paraplegic's leg is "defected" but the person herself isn't.

tl;dr: calling every little imperfect feature a human has a "defect" kinda makes the word meaningless.

[thc]

You can't possibly conclude that homosexuality is a "defect" from a medical, evolutionary, moral or any other perspective. I've heard this argument countless times: because gays are less likely to reproduce, homosexuality reduces fitness and is therefore an "evolutionary" defect. However, the conclusion simply does not follow, and it shows ignorance about genetics and evolution, which sadly, ISN'T countered by education, because the relevant ideas aren't even necessary to do research. I strongly suggest reading "The Selfish Gene" by Dawkins, which, surprisingly, was published in 1976 and Googling "Gay Uncle Theory". These ideas are not new, even if people making the biological argument against homosexuality treat these ideas as newfangled voodoo rationalizations.

Also, circumstantial evidence to the contrary: homosexuality has existed since forever. If homosexuality truly reduced fitness in any significant way, then the laws of evolution suggest that homosexuality would tend towards zero. But it hasn't, has it? The conclusions I can come up with are: 1) having a small percentage of homosexuality actually increases fitness, 2) homosexuality is environmental, not genetic 3) homosexuality is entangled with other useful traits and is therefore, just a byproduct (like how sickle cell is related to malaria resistance).

#1 obviously appeals to me, but I am honest with myself enough to realize that it may not be the case. Only #3 possibly implies that homosexuality is any sort of "birth defect", but again: You Don't Know That. No one does. Anyone claiming to know that homosexuality is a defect, is rationalizing their bigotry and is flat out ignorant.

[CorruptUser]

I remember reading about how higher levels of maternal uterine testosterone has been linked to homosexuality (in males), which is caused by having male (and to a much lesser extent, female) children; i.e., the chance of boy X being homosexual increases as the number of older male (and to a much lesser extent, female) siblings he has increases.

This would mean that homosexuality could be either a biological hiccup or a failsafe mechanism for the tribe; males contribute relatively little in terms of reproduction and survival of the tribe, and passing on genes that produce more males than females would be horribly detrimental to the health of a tribe. Even today, after millions of years of evolution, males naturally make up 5 out of 9 conceptions (though since having a single X chromosome leads to extremely serious genetic risks, miscarriages cause this to go down to around 21 out of 41 births). Or, of course, something else. By having the genes that cause more males to be born (yes they do exist) also causing more of those sons to be homosexual, it prevents the tribe from eventually being overwhelmed with males.

Not all societies found homosexuals to be less useful; the Greek city of Thebes was well known for the Theban Sacred Band, 150 gay couples that were the elite troops of the city. This is obviously more advantagous for the society than spending all the food and time to raise a child, then killing him as a 'monstrosity'. Or forcing him into hiding and marrying a girl and preventing her from producing children (assuming homosexual and not bisexual). The Sacred Band, as full-time soldiers, spent most of their lives training for combat instead of non-combat stuff such as plowing. In addition, as many people know that a guy will fight harder in front of his girlfriend, well, you get the idea.

Personally, I would have no more problem having a gay son than I would a sterile son; it's not be ideal in the sense that I'm unlikely to have grandchildren through him, but it's not like you should punish him for existing. He's still your son.

[pheonixduprese]

I wouldn't want you all to forget about the numerous animals that all display homosexual, bisexual, or transgender traits. WARNING: List very long

Spoiler:

African Buffalo[21]
African Elephant[22]
Agile Wallaby[23]
Amazon River Dolphin(Boto)[19]
American Bison[21][24]
Antelope[25]
Asian Elephant[22]
Asiatic Lion[26]
Asiatic Mouflon[27]
Atlantic Spotted Dolphin[19]
Australian Sea Lion[28]
Barasingha[29]
Barbary Sheep[30]
Beluga[19]
Bharal[31]
Bighorn Sheep[30]
Black Bear[32]
Blackbuck[33]
Black-footed Rock Wallaby[23]
Black-tailed Deer[29]
Bonnet Macaque[14]
Bonobo[34][35][36]
Bottlenose Dolphin[19][37]
Bowhead Whale[19]
Brazilian Guinea Pig[38]
Bridled Dolphin[19]
Brown Bear[32]
Brown Capuchin[39]
Brown Long-eared Bat[40]
Brown Rat[41]
Buffalo[30]
Caribou[42]
Cat (domestic)[43]
Cattle (domestic)[44]
Cheetah[26]
Collared Peccary[45]
Commerson's Dolphin[19]
Common Brushtail Possum[46]
Common Chimpanzee[47]
Common Dolphin[19]
Common Marmoset[39]
Common Pipistrelle[48]
Common Raccoon[49]
Common Tree Shrew[50]
Cotton-top Tamarin[51]
Crab-eating Macaque[14]
Crested Black Macaque[14]
Cui[52]
Dall's Sheep[30]
Daubenton's Bat[40]
Dog (domestic)[53]
Doria's Tree Kangaroo[23]
Dugong[54]
Dwarf Cavy[38]
Dwarf Mongoose[55]
Eastern Cottontail Rabbit[41]
Eastern Grey Kangaroo[23]
Elk[29]
Euro (a subspecies of wallaroo)[23]
European Bison[21]
Fallow Deer[29]
False Killer Whale[19]
Fat-tailed Dunnart[56]
Fin Whale[19]
Fox[57]
Gazelle[25]
Gelada Baboon[58]
Giraffe[25][4][59]
Goat (Domestic)[30]
Golden Monkey[60]
Gorilla[61]
Grant's Gazelle[25]
Grey-headed Flying Fox[40]
Grey Seal[28]
Grey squirrel[disambiguation needed][62]
Grey Whale[19][20]
Grey Wolf[63]
Grizzly Bear[32]
Guinea Pig (Domestic)[38]
Hamadryas Baboon[64]
Hamster (Domestic)[38]
Hanuman Langur[65]
Harbor Porpoise[66]
Harbor Seal[28]
Himalayan Tahr[67]
Hoary Marmot[68]
Horse (domestic)[69]
Human (see Human sexual behavior)
Indian Fruit Bat[40]
Indian Muntjac[70]
Indian Rhinoceros[71]
Japanese Macaque[14]
Javelina[72]
Kangaroo Rat[73]
Killer Whale[19]
Koala[74]
Kob[15][75]
Larga Seal[28]
Least Chipmunk[62]
Lechwe[75]
Lesser Bushbaby[76]
Lion[26][77][78][79][80][81]
Lion-tailed Macaque[14]
Lion Tamarin[39]
Little Brown Bat[40]
Livingstone's Fruit Bat[40]
Long-eared Hedgehog[82]
Long-footed Tree Shrew[50]
Macaque[83]
Markhor[84]
Marten[49]
Matschie's Tree Kangaroo[23]
Moco[85]
Mohol Galago[76]
Moor Macaque[14]
Moose[86]
Mountain Goat[30]
Mountain Tree Shrew[50]
Mountain Zebra[87]
Mouse (domestic)[88]
Moustached Tamarin[51]
Mule Deer[29]
Musk-ox[89]
Natterer's Bat[40]
New Zealand Sea Lion[28]
Nilgiri Langur[65]
Noctule[48]
North American Porcupine[90]
Northern Elephant Seal[28]
Northern Fur Seal[28]
Northern Quoll[56]
Olympic Marmot[91]
Orangutan[92]
Pacific Striped Dolphin[19]
Patas Monkey[93]
Pere David's Deer[29]
Pig (Domestic)[94]
Pig-tailed Macaque[14]
Plains Zebra[95]
Polar Bear[32]
Pretty-faced Wallaby[23]
Proboscis Monkey[60]
Pronghorn[96]
Przewalski's Horse[87]
Puku[97]
Quokka[98]
Rabbit[99]
Raccoon Dog[100]
Red Deer[29]
Red Fox[101]
Red Kangaroo[23]
Red-necked Wallaby[23]
Red Squirrel[62]
Reeves's Muntjac[70]
Reindeer[42]
Rhesus Macaque[14]
Right Whale[19]
Rock Cavy[38]
Rodrigues Fruit Bat[40]
Roe Deer[29]
Rufous Bettong[102]
Rufous-naped Tamarin[51]
Rufous Rat Kangaroo[23]
Saddle-back Tamarin[51]
Savanna Baboon[58]
Sea Otter[103]
Serotine Bat[40]
Sheep (Domestic)[30][104]
Siamang[105]
Sika Deer[29]
Slender Tree Shrew[50]
Sooty Mangabey[93]
Sperm Whale[19]
Spinifex Hopping Mouse[41]
Spinner Dolphin[19]
Spotted Hyena[16][18]
Spotted Seal[28]
Squirrel Monkey[106]
Striped Dolphin[19]
Stuart's Marsupial Mouse[107]
Stumptail Macaque[14]
Swamp Deer[29]
Swamp Wallaby[23]
Takhi[87]
Talapoin[93]
Tammar Wallaby[23]
Tasmanian Devil[107]
Tasmanian Rat Kangaroo[23]
Thinhorn Sheep[30]
Thomson's Gazelle[25]
Tiger[108]
Tonkean Macaque[14]
Tucuxi[109]
Urial[110]
Vampire Bat[40]
Verreaux's Sifaka
Vervet
Vicuna
Walrus
Wapiti
Warthog
Waterbuck
Water Buffalo
Weeper Capuchin
Western Grey Kangaroo
West Indian Manatee
Whiptail Wallaby
White-faced Capuchin
White-fronted Capuchin
White-handed Gibbon
White-lipped Peccary
White-tailed Deer
Wild Cavy
Wild Goat
Wisent
Yellow-footed Rock Wallaby
Yellow-toothed Cavy
Acorn Woodpecker[18]
Adelie Penguin[19]
American Flamingo[20]
American Herring Gull[21]
Anna's Hummingbird[22]
Arton Nyugen
Australian Shelduck[23]
Aztec Parakeet[24]
Bengalese Finch (Domestic)[25]
Bank Swallow[26]
Barn Owl[27]
Bicolored Antbird[28]
Black-billed Magpie[29]
Black-crowned Night Heron[30]
Black-headed Gull[31]
Black-rumped Flameback[18]
Black Stilt[32]
Black Swan[16][17]
Black-winged Stilt[32]
Blue-backed Manakin[33]
Blue-bellied Roller[34]
Blue Tit[35]
Blue-winged Teal[36]
Brown-headed Cowbird[37]
Budgerigar (Domestic)[38]
Buff-breasted Sandpiper[39]
Calfbird[40]
California Gull[41]
Canada Goose[42]
Canary-winged Parakeet[24]
Caspian Tern[43]
Cattle Egret[44]
Chaffinch[45]
Chicken (Domestic)[46]
Chilean Flamingo[20]
Chiloe Wigeon[36]
Chinstrap penguin[47]
Cliff Swallow[26]
Common Gull[41]
Common Murre[48]
Common Shelduck[23]
Crane spp.[49]
Dusky Moorhen[49]
Eastern Bluebird[35]
Egyptian Goose[23]
Elegant Parrot[24]
Emu[50]
Eurasian Oystercatcher[51]
European Jay[29]
European Shag[52]
Galah[24]
Gentoo Penguin[19]
Golden Bishop Bird[53]
Golden Plover[51]
Gray-breasted Jay[29]
Gray-capped Social Weaver[54]
Gray Heron[44]
Great Cormorant[52]
Greater Bird of Paradise[55]
Greater Flamingo[20]
Greater Rhea[50]
Green Sandpiper[56]
Greenshank[57]
Greylag Goose[58]
Griffon Vulture[27]
Guianan Cock-of-the-Rock[14][15]
Guillemot[48]
Hammerhead (also known as Hammerkop)[59]
Herring Gull[21]
Hoary-headed Grebe[60]
Hooded Warbler[61]
House Sparrow[37]
Humboldt Penguin[19]
Ivory Gull[62]
Jackdaw[29]
Kestrel[27]
King Penguin[19]
Kittiwake[63]
Laughing Gull[62]
Laysan Albatross[48]
Lesser Flamingo[20]
Lesser Scaup Duck[23]
Little Blue Heron[44]
Little Egret[44]
Long-tailed Hermit Hummingbird[22]
Lory spp.[24]
Mallard[36]
Masked Lovebird[24]
Mealy Amazon Parrot[24]
Mew Gull[41]
Mexican Jay[64]
Musk Duck[23]
Mute Swan[65]
Ocellated Antbird[28]
Ocher-bellied Flycatcher[66]
Orange Bishop Bird[54]
Orange-fronted Parakeet[24]
Ornate Lorikeet[24]
Ostrich[50]
Peach-faced Lovebird[24]
Pied Flycatcher[67]
Pied Kingfisher[34]
Pigeon (Domestic)[68]
Powerful Owl[69]
Purple Swamphen[49]
Raggiana's Bird of Paradise[70]
Raven[29]
Razorbill[48]
Red-backed Shrike[35]
Red Bishop Bird[54]
Red-faced Lovebird[24]
Redshank[57]
Red-shouldered Widowbird[71]
Regent Bowerbird[72]
Ring-billed Gull[41]
Ring Dove[73]
Rock Dove[73]
Roseate Tern[43]
Rose-ringed Parakeet[24]
Ruff[39]
Ruffed Grouse[74]
Sage Grouse[74]
San Blas Jay[29]
Sand Martin[26]
Satin Bowerbird[75]
Scarlet Ibis[20]
Scottish Crossbill[45]
Senegal Parrot[24]
Sharp-tailed Sparrow[76]
Silver Gull[21]
Silvery Grebe[60]
Snow Goose[42]
Steller's Sea Eagle[77]
Superb Lyrebird[78]
Swallow-tailed Manakin[33]
Tasmanian Native Hen[49]
Tree Swallow[79]
Trumpeter Swan[80]
Turkey (Domestic)[81]
Victoria's Riflebird[70]
Wattled Starling[37]
Western Gull[1]
White-fronted Amazon Parrot[24]
White Stork[82]
Wood Duck[36]
Yellow-backed Lorikeet[24]
Yellow-rumped Cacique[64]
Zebra Finch (Domestic)[83]
Amazon molly[34]
Blackstripe topminnow[35]
Bluegill Sunfish[35]
Char[36]
Grayling[36]
European Bitterling[37]
Green swordtail[37]
Guiana leaffish[38]
Houting Whitefish[36]
Jewel Fish[39]
Least Darter (Microperca punctulata)[40]
Mouthbreeding Fish sp.[35]
Salmon spp.[41]
Southern platyfish[40]
Ten-spined stickleback[40]
Three-spined stickleback[40]
Reef Triggerfish- Humu Humu Nuku Nuku A Pua'a[42]
Anole sp.[43]
Bearded Dragon[44]
Broad-headed Skink[40]
Checkered Whiptail Lizard[44]
Chihuahuan Spotted Whiptail Lizard[44]
Common Ameiva[44]
Common Garter Snake[40]
Cuban Green Anole[45]
Desert Grassland Whiptail Lizard[44]
Desert Tortoise[46]
Fence Lizard[44]
Five-lined Skink[40]
Gopher (Pine) Snake[35]
Green Anole[45]
Inagua Curlytail Lizard[44]
Jamaican Giant Anole[45]
Laredo Striped Whiptail Lizard[44]
Largehead Anole[45]
Mourning Gecko[47]
Plateau Striped Whiptail Lizard[44]
Red Diamond Rattlesnake[37]
Red-tailed Skink[40]
Side-blotched Lizard[44]
Speckled Rattlesnake[37]
Water Moccasin[37]
Western rattlesnake (Crotalus viridis)[37]
Western Banded Gecko[47]
Whiptail Lizard spp.[44]
Wood Turtle[43]
Appalachian Woodland Salamander[48]
Black-spotted Frog[49]
Mountain Dusky Salamander[48]
Tengger Desert Toad[43]
Acanthocephalan Worms[50]
Alfalfa Weevil[51]
Australian Parasitic Wasp sp.[51]
Bean weevil sp.[51]
Bedbug and other Bug spp.[52][53]
Blister Beetle spp.[54]
Blood-flukes (Schistosoma)[55]
Blowfly[54]
Box Crab[56]
Broadwinged Damselfly sp.[57]
Cabbage (Small) White (Butterfly)[58]
Checkerspot Butterfly[58]
Clubtail Dragonfly spp.[59]
Cockroach spp.[60]
Common Skimmer Dragonfly spp.[59]
Creeping Water Bug sp.[61]
Cutworm[62]
Digger Bee[63]
Dragonfly spp.[59]
Eastern Giant Ichneumon (wasp)[64]
Eucalyptus Longhorned Borer[61]
Field cricket sp.[65]
Flour beetle[66]
Fruit Fly spp.[67]
Glasswing Butterfly[58]
Grape Berry Moth[68]
Grape Borer[61]
Green Lacewing[69]
Harvest Spider sp.[70]
Hawaiian Orb-Weaver (spider)[70]
Hen Flea[69]
House Fly[71]
Ichneumon wasp sp.[64]
Incirrate Octopus spp.[56]
Japanese Scarab Beetle[72]
Jumping spider sp.[70]
Larch Bud Moth[68]
Large Milkweed Bug[53]
Large White (Pieris brassicae)[53]
Long-legged Fly spp.[73]
Mazarine Blue[53]
Mediterranean Fruit Fly[67]
Mexican White[53]
Midge sp.[73]
Migratory locust[74]
Mite sp.[73]
Monarch Butterfly[58]
Narrow-winged Damselfly spp.[57]
Parsnip Leaf Miner[73]
Pomace fly[73]
Queen Butterfly[58]
Red Ant sp.[73]
Red Flour Beetle[53]
Reindeer Warble Fly (Hypoderma tarandi)[73]
Rose Chafer[73]
Rove Beetle spp.[53]
Scarab Beetle (Melolonthine)[75]
Screwworm Fly[73]
Silkworm Moth[68]
Sociable Weaver[73]
Southeastern Blueberry Bee[63]
Southern Green Stink Bug[53]
Southern Masked Chafer[73]
Southern One-Year Canegrub[73]
Spreadwinged Damselfly spp.[57]
Spruce Budworm Moth[68]
Stable Fly sp.[73]
Stag Beetle spp.[53]
Tsetse Fly[73]
Water Boatman Bug[53]
Water Strider
Source

Just in case that list wasn't enough to make my point, I think it's safe to say that homosexuality is NOT a birth defect, or even a defect at all. Rather it's psychological or a result of upbringing is something to be debated elsewhere.
Also, as has already been stated, the word 'defect' implies negativity. Someone with Spina Bifida, a collapsed skull, or born with their insides out are clearly victims of birth defects. On the other hand, seeing as most everyone has a birthmark somewhere (anyone not have one?) I think it'd be more of a matter like hair or eye color. Same thing with hight, or lack of hight. Unless you're achondroplasiaphobic (LOVE THAT WORD), I don't think anyone would consider hight a birth defect. Usually it's a lack of somototropin that causes shortness, although dwarfism is generally genetic and STILL wouldn't be a birth defect. Congenital disorders can be caused by damage to the fetus (ALSO, LOVE THAT WORD), the inauterine environment, errors of morphogenesis, or infection, and that ties back to my point about Spina Bifida and the like.

I think I'm done here, if there's any fallacies here I'm sure you'll point them out for me, you ever-correcting fora people.

[mosc]

"Birth defect" usually refers to something physical, as opposed to psychological/behavioral. If we were to expand the definition to mean any "defect" that's been there from birth, well, I'd argue that we're all defected. No one is perfect. Calling a human defected is (besides being rude) pretty much saying no one's perfect. Well, duh.

Why is it rude? To me, it's liberating. We're all broken in little ways so lets get over ourselves, stop nitpicking defects cause we all got em, and move on. Why is saying "you are less than perfect" as you put it, rude? As you said, it's a rather obvious conclusion.

People might feel the word "defect" implies that one is abnormal, and while abnormalilty can mean just a deviation from the average populace (in whatever), it is usually used as a synonym for weird/strange, as in someone you don't want to be associated with. Some people might find that offensive I guess.

So you think it's the word defect as much as anything else? "Defect implies negativity" is exactly my point. Why? We're clearly all defective in some major ways. If I changed the thread to birth abnormality, would that be any less offensive? Following Karlin's rule of syllables, replacing a 2 syllable word with a 5 syllable word should drastically reduce the offensiveness.

Personally, I would have no more problem having a gay son than I would a sterile son; it's not be ideal in the sense that I'm unlikely to have grandchildren through him, but it's not like you should punish him for existing. He's still your son.

And this is kind of the point. Gay is similar in result to sterrile. Is that inherently evil? Of course not. That's not what I'm saying at all even though:

...rant... Also, circumstantial evidence to the contrary: homosexuality has existed since forever...rant...

No shit, you've totally missed the point. Birthmarks have probably existed forever as well. I'm not proposing homosexuality is some evolutionary fucking black hole or something. Nor do I need to be pointed out the obvious fact that homosexuality is not just a human thing. Neither is being short or tall. I'm saying it's "abnormal" if you prefer that word, sheesh. That's for proving my point about people being overly touchy on the subject though.

[sje46]

"Birth defect" usually refers to something physical, as opposed to psychological/behavioral. If we were to expand the definition to mean any "defect" that's been there from birth, well, I'd argue that we're all defected. No one is perfect. Calling a human defected is (besides being rude) pretty much saying no one's perfect. Well, duh.

Why is it rude? To me, it's liberating. We're all broken in little ways so lets get over ourselves, stop nitpicking defects cause we all got em, and move on. Why is saying "you are less than perfect" as you put it, rude? As you said, it's a rather obvious conclusion.

No, I'm saying that saying something like "Oh, John's bringing his defected son over...yeah, he has cerebral palsy. Too bad he's damaged goods, eh?" is rude. Even if you take out the second sentence.

ust in case that list wasn't enough to make my point,

I think the only point your list proves is that homosexuality is natural. That it isn't really a choice or a product of human culture or anything. It doesn't actually prove that it's not a defect. Because, presumably, there are hundreds of species that can be born with a malformed paw or something. Just because it happens to other species doesn't make it any less of a defect.

Although I do agree. Homosexuality is not a defect, because it doesn't conform to the three criteria to have a mental disorder.

[mosc]

So you're saying birth defect has a specific medical meaning which is more limited than any general abnormality. Seems like mostly a verbage issue.

[pheonixduprese]

There is a specific medical term AND meaning that I touched on in my post. Congenital Disorder.

[blu]

People might feel the word "defect" implies that one is abnormal, and while abnormalilty can mean just a deviation from the average populace (in whatever), it is usually used as a synonym for weird/strange, as in someone you don't want to be associated with. Some people might find that offensive I guess.

So you think it's the word defect as much as anything else? "Defect implies negativity" is exactly my point. Why? We're clearly all defective in some major ways. If I changed the thread to birth abnormality, would that be any less offensive?

I said that abnormality implies negativity. And it's not the word itself, it's the way people use it and distort it.

Once you point out that something is defective in a person, or say that the person himself/herself is defective, you detract everything else that shaped them to who they are. Perhaps they just don't want to be identified by their disabilities.
What would be a better description of Stephen Hawking; "that handicapped guy" or "a brilliant physicist" ? (Assuming you agree with the second description, for the uses of this discussion).

While I agree that we are all defective to some extent, and you could even go further and say that those defects are the things that make us unique/special, I just had to point out that not all people feel this way.

[thc]

No shit, you've totally missed the point. Birthmarks have probably existed forever as well. I'm not proposing homosexuality is some evolutionary fucking black hole or something. Nor do I need to be pointed out the obvious fact that homosexuality is not just a human thing. Neither is being short or tall. I'm saying it's "abnormal" if you prefer that word, sheesh. That's for proving my point about people being overly touchy on the subject though.

Dude, calm down. I am being overly touchy... when you post that?
If you want a discussion, then be civil. If not, why bother posting? I saw an issue and thought I'd reply to it. If my post supports your point, then it supports your point, but I don't believe it does.

First, you need to define what you mean by "birth defect." It has a specific medical definition, which I hope you can agree, doesn't fit. People making an argument against accepting homosexuality use it simply to mean "reduced evolutionary fitness" - which, again, is not necessarily true. The dictionary definition is" "a shortcoming, fault, or imperfection". Given that homosexuality is uncommon and not necessarily an evolutionary "shortcoming", it does not fit the dictionary definition either.

Secondly, you continue to not understand the point that I've made:

And this is kind of the point. Gay is similar in result to sterrile. Is that inherently evil? Of course not.

Again, simply because the organism is sterile, does not mean it's genes are sterile. Improving reproduction is not the only means in which genes increase their fitness. Therefore, it isn't necessarily the case that homosexuality... (or even sterility) is a "defect."

Assuming that to be true, homosexuality is as much a defect as red hair is a defect. If you've followed this far, then you should realize that you've just been using the wrong terms. Not only does the definition of "defect" not fit, it's also a loaded term, whether you think it should be or not. Red hair and homosexuality are... something, of course... can't think of the right term? The thesaurus is your friend. How about:

Uncommon traits

Call them what they are.

[The Great Hippo]

So you're saying birth defect has a specific medical meaning which is more limited than any general abnormality. Seems like mostly a verbage issue.

Your entire opening post is a 'verbiage' issue. If you're going to take issue with someone pointing out that the word has a very precise meaning, what's left for you to argue? That we should constrain ourselves to your definition because you find it more interesting to define homosexuality as a defect?

This is ultimately a semantics issue. I think that the medical definition of defect is important, as all medical definitions are--but in common parlance, we avoid medical terms for a very simple, straightforward reason: They imply things we don't mean to imply.

The fact that you find your new shiny usage of it to be liberating is immaterial, irrelevant, and frankly, rather boorish. Congratulations; you've made up a magical definition that makes you happy. Maybe you'll do us all the favor of only using it when you are alone.

[mosc]

I said that abnormality implies negativity. And it's not the word itself, it's the way people use it and distort it.

Once you point out that something is defective in a person, or say that the person himself/herself is defective, you detract everything else that shaped them to who they are. Perhaps they just don't want to be identified by their disabilities.
What would be a better description of Stephen Hawking; "that handicapped guy" or "a brilliant physicist" ? (Assuming you agree with the second description, for the uses of this discussion).

While I agree that we are all defective to some extent, and you could even go further and say that those defects are the things that make us unique/special, I just had to point out that not all people feel this way.

Yeah, that's what I don't get. Why do people feel that way. Why do you describe Hawkings as "that ___ guy" to begin with. Our compulsive need to categorize people into pre-existing stereotypes is horrible. I do think we're all broken in different ways and I think when you have that outlook, it's more than semantics. You stop fighting for "rights for the disabled" and start fighting for basic human fucking decency for all people. They're not the same thing.

The fact that you find your new shiny usage of it to be liberating is immaterial, irrelevant, and frankly, rather boorish. Congratulations; you've made up a magical definition that makes you happy. Maybe you'll do us all the favor of only using it when you are alone.

Thanks? Yes, I chose to discuss my opinion on a discussion forum. Do you want an apology for that? I think it's an important issue. Sorry if you think it's just me whining about verbage sensitivity.

[janusx]

In an attempt to answer the original question: I think that birth defects are most aptly described as anomalies that are physically or mentally dehabilitating to the person. In this case being 5'0" tall is unlikely to be a birth defect but being 3'5" might be considered a minor birth defect. Being below average intelligence would be a minor birth defect, while having a known mind related disease or condition would be a defect of much higher severity. Homosexuality is most certainly NOT a birth defect.

On the lines of linguistics, signifying something as a defect is most certainly negative and possibly derogatory depending on the usage. If you are to classify homosexuality as defect you are supporting the argument that heterosexual > homosexual. A defect of any sort is by definition "an imperfection that impairs worth or utility" (Merriam-Webster Dictionary) and I believe that this is the common usage of the word.

[big boss]

I said that abnormality implies negativity. And it's not the word itself, it's the way people use it and distort it.

Once you point out that something is defective in a person, or say that the person himself/herself is defective, you detract everything else that shaped them to who they are. Perhaps they just don't want to be identified by their disabilities.
What would be a better description of Stephen Hawking; "that handicapped guy" or "a brilliant physicist" ? (Assuming you agree with the second description, for the uses of this discussion).

While I agree that we are all defective to some extent, and you could even go further and say that those defects are the things that make us unique/special, I just had to point out that not all people feel this way.

Yeah, that's what I don't get. Why do people feel that way. Why do you describe Hawkings as "that ___ guy" to begin with. Our compulsive need to categorize people into pre-existing stereotypes is horrible. I do think we're all broken in different ways and I think when you have that outlook, it's more than semantics. You stop fighting for "rights for the disabled" and start fighting for basic human fucking decency for all people. They're not the same thing.

Our need for categorization seems to stem from a need for order. There are a bunch of brilliant famous scientists in the world, but how many of them are handicapped? Its easier to remember the differences between people (and hence that specific person) than it is to remember someone by an attribute that many other people share. If i say "you know that brilliant physicist" you won't know who I am talking about, but if I say "you know that brilliant handicapped physicist" you can probably infer who I am talking about. And to counter people who are going to say "Why not just use his name," its easier to remember characteristics/ visuals than it is to recall a name.

[The Great Hippo]

Thanks? Yes, I chose to discuss my opinion on a discussion forum. Do you want an apology for that? I think it's an important issue. Sorry if you think it's just me whining about verbage sensitivity.

You're dismissing information concerning the actual definition of birth defect when it doesn't fit into your paradigm about what you think the word means. It already has a precise medical definition; so what's your point here? Do you want to change the word based on some sense of 'social justice'? Do you think the current definition stigmatizes people who possess birth defects, and so there's a need to expand it to the point of non-stigmatization? Can you cite some actual sources of this stigmatization? As someone who is (I hope) aware that homosexuality is something we've yet to pin down the root cause of, are you aware that describing it as a birth defect before we even know why it happens is perhaps the least precise thing we could do with the word?

I seriously have no clue what you are trying to do here. You seem to be unhappy with the functional definition of birth defect we currently have, and so you want to change it. Why?

[mosc]

its easier to remember characteristics/ visuals than it is to recall a name.

It's an interesting point. I always enjoy watching people try to describe a friend or a co-worker who is black without saying "the black guy" as the main descriptive differentiation. I've noted that even in situations where black is the majority, it still seems to be the first categorization they come up with. We do seem to categorize subconsciously, not necessarily due to malicious intent.

I don't think my mind works that way; I don't tend to group people. I would say that I generally have a worse memory for people and take longer to learn names, maybe it's related. Often times when I'm struggling for the name of an actor or a band, people get really frustrated with me as I fumble for descriptive terms they can use to filter through their mental Rolodex. I'll say "she was in X movie, minor role" and they'll counter with "the fat one?". You get the idea.

Differentiation too often leads to preference. I understand that it's natural but it seems to me to be a huge problem in modern society. We need to be able to use descriptive and specific terms without fear of offending someone. It's the only way we'll be able to move away from stereotyped group identification. Birth defects to me is a significant one because it touches on what is ultimately the problem with most stereotypes: they have more to do with your birth than with anything describing you as an individual.

Re Hippo who ninja'd my post: I'm not unhappy with the definition of a birth defect. I didn't know there was such a formal medical definition. I guess I was always taught that birthmarks were birth defects which basically opened the door to a much longer list of minor differentiators being classified as defects.

[big boss]

Differentiation too often leads to preference. I understand that it's natural but it seems to me to be a huge problem in modern society. We need to be able to use descriptive and specific terms without fear of offending someone. It's the only way we'll be able to move away from stereotyped group identification.

Agreed. But if someone is fat it shouldn't be politically incorrect to describe that someone as fat (ok maybe use the term obese or overweight if fat has such a negative connotation), its an accurate description. I don't see why people get upset about how they are described (as long as its not in a malicious way). Describing someone as "my black coworker" or "my Jewish friend" shouldn't offend people, it is an accurate description of who they are and the fact that they are upset at the description is evidence that they are upset/embarrassed about who they are.

[Wnderer]

What classifies as a birth defect? Is a birthmark a birth defect? Is being 5'0" a birth defect? How about 3'5"? What about being below average intelligence? What about being homosexual?

We can break this down into different scenarios.

1. Bad Company dumps chemicals which produce birth defects-- You would sue them and a birth defect would be defined as something that would be a burden to the individual and their families and reduce their quality of life. A birth defect then wouldn't be a single thing but something measured on a scale of how detrimental it is.

2. Person wants to abort child because they want a 'normal' baby-- What scale do you use now? Aside from the regular abortion debate, is it okay to abort fetuses with birth defects? If genetic testing shows the baby will be blind, a dwarf, autistic or mentally impaired, is it okay to abort them or do these kind of people have a right to be born?

3. The designer kid -- A couple staring into a petri dish of embryos. Is it okay to pick the boy or the blue eyed one? How about the dwarf or blind child? How about a lesbian couple wanting lesbian kids? A dwarf couple wants a dwarf child or maybe just some idiots who think a dwarf lesbian child would be funny.

4. The technological crutch -- The child will have to take medication or use a prosthesis or glasses or require some sort of technology their whole lives. Is it okay to use some sort of genetic fix in the womb to correct these deficiencies? How about giving growth hormone to short kids?

Evolution produces all kinds of mutations. The successful ones, reproduce and continue. The failed experiments die out. Except if you are a human being. Then society builds the crutches you need to survive and reproduce. Humanity is slowly evolving a social and technological crutch. We either build the machines and institutions to help us survive after birth with the defects we are born with or we correct the errors in our genes before birth.

My answer. Except for number 1, it's none of society's business. We each as individuals, couples or families get to make these decisions. Science giving individuals this kind of power may seem wrong, but giving this power to government is even worse.

[meatyochre]

It's worth noting that humans aren't the only species who are selected for things other than biological fitness. Designer or purebred dogs can be rife with genetic defects that are concentrated due to inbreeding, for one example.

Of course this is also a result of human interference in the "natural order" of things. But to say that humans are the only species with crutches propping them up against pure selection of biological fitness isn't quite true.

[pollywog]

Evolution produces all kinds of mutations. The successful ones, reproduce and continue. The failed experiments die out. Except if you are a human being. Then society builds the crutches you need to survive and reproduce. Humanity is slowly evolving a social and technological crutch. We either build the machines and institutions to help us survive after birth with the defects we are born with or we correct the errors in our genes before birth.

Not really. We build machines and institutions needed to keep a tiny fraction of the population, born with birth defects, alive, perhaps happy, hopefully able to live a "good" life. The vast majority just get on with it. If those machines or institutions suddenly disappeared one day, yes, people would die, because they are incapable of living without them. An example might be a cystic fibrosis sufferer. They'd die much earlier than usual without specialized help. But "humanity", as a whole, is not evolving in one direction or another. (Interestingly, carriers of the cystic fibrosis gene (or some of the many genes that cause it) are often more immune to diseases like cholera and gastro. It was spread by armies of Vikings, Macedonians, and Phoenicians, one reason it's so common in Europe and not Indonesia.)

[CorruptUser]

We can break this down into different scenarios.

3. The designer kid -- A couple staring into a petri dish of embryos. Is it okay to pick the boy or the blue eyed one? How about the dwarf or blind child? How about a lesbian couple wanting lesbian kids? A dwarf couple wants a dwarf child or maybe just some idiots who think a dwarf lesbian child would be funny.

Actually, there was a case of two deaf homosexual women who "chose" to have a deaf child, before anyone thinks this won't happen. I can understand wanting to have a special connection with your child and everything, but there comes a point when you need to stop the propaganda of "_____ is beautiful" or "I'm cripabled!", and so forth, and just say "yeah, that's one of my flaws, but guess what, I'm also ____, I have lots of _____, I can ____, and I like who I am, so you can ____ __ _____!" You need to truly accept who/what you are, that your flaws are indeed flaws, as well as knowing that your strengths are indeed strengths.

[The Great Hippo]

Actually, there was a case of two deaf homosexual women who "chose" to have a deaf child, before anyone thinks this won't happen. I can understand wanting to have a special connection with your child and everything, but there comes a point when you need to stop the propaganda of "_____ is beautiful" or "I'm cripabled!", and so forth, and just say "yeah, that's one of my flaws, but guess what, I'm also ____, I have lots of _____, I can ____, and I like who I am, so you can ____ __ _____!" You need to truly accept who/what you are, that your flaws are indeed flaws, as well as knowing that your strengths are indeed strengths.

Fairly certain this is the Naturalistic Fallacy.

Anyway, your example is a raging, steaming heap of bullshit. They sought out genetic code predisposed toward a quality they wanted; whether or not you judge this quality as positive or negative is immaterial--they chose to create a child on their terms, with the material they preferred. The requirements they set for a proper donor are no one's business, and judging those requirements as 'inferior' because they included a disability in them is arbitrary as fuck and part of the reason I find the whole notion of expanding the definition of 'defect' to include more than a few structural abnormalities to be so contentious.

But, yeah--I'm going to guess that the vast majority of people with disabilities are probably not interested in your opinion on this matter. They probably have no desire to hear what your thoughts are concerning what they do with their bodies, how they should perceive their disabilities, or what sort of children they should have. I'm fairly confident the majority of them would thank you kindly for your input, then tell you to rightly fuck off.

Of course, that's just my guess.

[thc]

Anyway, your example is a raging, steaming heap of bullshit. They sought out genetic code predisposed toward a quality they wanted; whether or not you judge this quality as positive or negative is immaterial--they chose to create a child on their terms, with the material they preferred. The requirements they set for a proper donor are no one's business, and judging those requirements as 'inferior' because they included a disability in them is arbitrary as fuck and part of the reason I find the whole notion of expanding the definition of 'defect' to include more than a few structural abnormalities to be so contentious.

That's not a very useful distinction. The difference between a 100% probability of being deaf and, say, a 97% probability is, well, 3%. That 3% isn't going to matter in the slightest to the child.

But, yeah--I'm going to guess that the vast majority of people with disabilities are probably not interested in your opinion on this matter. They probably have no desire to hear what your thoughts are concerning what they do with their bodies, how they should perceive their disabilities, or what sort of children they should have. I'm fairly confident the majority of them would thank you kindly for your input, then tell you to rightly fuck off.

Of course, what people do with their bodies is their own business. But they're not doing it to their bodies, they're doing it to their child's. Whether or not it should be illegal... I don't know, but it is definitely immoral, if only because of the far greater likelihood of the child to become depressed and/or socially handicapped.

This reminds me of a convo I had with a friend (after watching something on TV):

Me: wouldn't it SUCK to be a quadriplegic? I mean, I'd be so depressed I'd probably kill myself.
Friend: Nah man, you wouldn't get depressed because you wouldn't know anything else and you would be used to it.

[Azrael]

Whether or not it should be illegal... I don't know, but it is definitely immoral, if only because of the far greater likelihood of the child to become depressed.

Cite that the disabled have a higher rate of depression.

As for social factors, yes. Funny how when society treats people with handicaps as inferior, those people have a less fulfilling experience with that society. The answer here is to change society's treatment of the individual, not the individual. Both your statement quoted above and your little anecdote demonstrate the problem quite nicely.

[The Great Hippo]

That's not a very useful distinction. The difference between a 100% probability of being deaf and, say, a 97% probability is, well, 3%. That 3% isn't going to matter in the slightest to the child.

What distinction are you talking about? I'm not making a distinction based on probability, but on the requirements someone might have for genetic material in the creation of a child.

Of course, what people do with their bodies is their own business. But they're not doing it to their bodies, they're doing it to their child's. Whether or not it should be illegal... I don't know, but it is definitely immoral, if only because of the far greater likelihood of the child to become depressed and/or socially handicapped.

They're not doing anything to the body of their child. This child wouldn't even exist if they weren't selecting for the deaf gene--it would be an entirely different child that would come into being. The child that they want to create is a child that can only possibly exist as a deaf one. So let's suddenly flip it: What do you have against this child's existence? How is it moral for you to make the determination that these parents can't allow this child to come into existence?

Also, seriously, do you want to get into eugenics here? "It's immoral for you to have a child if there is a likelihood your child will suffer from depression or be socially handicapped"--this is just a sliver away from "People genetically dispositioned toward depression and being handicapped have a moral obligation not to breed".

Or, what--do we make magical moral exemptions for people who do it 'naturally'?

[Dark567]

If those machines or institutions suddenly disappeared one day, yes, people would die, because they are incapable of living without them. An example might be a cystic fibrosis sufferer. They'd die much earlier than usual without specialized help. But "humanity", as a whole, is not evolving in one direction or another.

Humanity probably is evolving in one direction or another, it always is. Right now, it is just happening very slowly, subtlety and undetectably. To think that any trait is just stuck and the probability of receiving that trait remains static permanently is dubious. Selection of traits occur slowly, but it doesn't stop.

[mosc]

You need to truly accept who/what you are, that your flaws are indeed flaws, as well as knowing that your strengths are indeed strengths.

But, yeah--I'm going to guess that the vast majority of people with disabilities are probably not interested in your opinion on this matter. They probably have no desire to hear what your thoughts are concerning what they do with their bodies, how they should perceive their disabilities, or what sort of children they should have. I'm fairly confident the majority of them would thank you kindly for your input, then tell you to rightly fuck off.

I agree with CorruptUser here, he's on about the same thing I am. Realizing and agreeing to your own faults is beneficial. As we all said, we're all broken so it's rather obvious that we have broken parts. Your faults are indeed faults.

I'm not going to argue on the procreation issue (legal restrictions on any type of procreation are problematic though may be necessary at some point) but I think the issue of perception of disabilities is a two way street. It's not just how you look at your disability, it's how you want others to look at it. As such, outside opinions are relevant and telling someone to fuck off is not constructive.

[morriswalters]

The phrase birth defect as is is most useful for doctors who have to treat them. And the more serious ones have to be treated. People with disabilities don't have to acknowledge their disabilities, they live with them day by day. They are much more aware of their limits then any outsider. They just don't want their disability to be the primary face that they present to people. They don't want to be called cripple because they have a name, this being no different then you. Engineers don't want to be addressed as, that engineer, or engineer boy, or calculator boy, well you get the idea.

[pollywog]

If those machines or institutions suddenly disappeared one day, yes, people would die, because they are incapable of living without them. An example might be a cystic fibrosis sufferer. They'd die much earlier than usual without specialized help. But "humanity", as a whole, is not evolving in one direction or another.

Humanity probably is evolving in one direction or another, it always is. Right now, it is just happening very slowly, subtlety and undetectably. To think that any trait is just stuck and the probability of receiving that trait remains static permanently is dubious. Selection of traits occur slowly, but it doesn't stop.

If it's slow, subtle, and undetectable, how do you know it's there? I don't think that the human race, as a whole, is evolving a reliance on machines and institutions. The machines and institutions keep individuals alive, and that's great, because most of them are good people that deserve to live. If those machines went away, thoise people would die, and it would be a tragedy, but 90% of the human race (or far more) would still be alive and healthy.

[thc]

So let's suddenly flip it: What do you have against this child's existence? How is it moral for you to make the determination that these parents can't allow this child to come into existence?

Actually, "flipping the issue" is irrelevant. I specifically said that I did NOT know whether it is moral for society to make that determination for people. But that doesn't preclude me from trying to determine whether the action in question is moral or not.

They're not doing anything to the body of their child. This child wouldn't even exist if they weren't selecting for the deaf gene--it would be an entirely different child that would come into being. The child that they want to create is a child that can only possibly exist as a deaf one.

...

Also, seriously, do you want to get into eugenics here? "It's immoral for you to have a child if there is a likelihood your child will suffer from depression or be socially handicapped"--this is just a sliver away from "People genetically dispositioned toward depression and being handicapped have a moral obligation not to breed".

The fact that the child does not yet exist is irrelevant, because the child will exist, and it won't make one iota difference to the child that his/her wave function was not quite collapsed some time in the meaningless past.

There is a difference between breeding to have a child regardless of handicap, and breeding while actively making sure that your child will be handicapped. That difference is intent. By similar logic, most people* frown upon the behavoir of drinking alcohol while pregnant.

Also, you want to talk about eugenics? Eugenics is defined as the selective breeding of humans to improve some quality or trait. In the past, it was done by a small group of people in positions of large amounts of power. What would this work look like if parents actively selected for the traits they wanted and removed traits they didn't? Sure, we've already had this discussion. viewtopic.php?f=9&t=62056

*Link redacted due to pornographic imagery contained therein.

[The Great Hippo]

I'm not going to argue on the procreation issue (legal restrictions on any type of procreation are problematic though may be necessary at some point) but I think the issue of perception of disabilities is a two way street. It's not just how you look at your disability, it's how you want others to look at it. As such, outside opinions are relevant and telling someone to fuck off is not constructive.

My disabilities are my business. My body is my business. Your opinion is not necessary, relevant, or desired. Exactly what makes you think it is?

The fact that the child does not yet exist is irrelevant, because the child will exist, and it won't make one iota difference to the child that his/her wave function was not quite collapsed some time in the meaningless past.

You're missing the point by a mile: This child cannot exist in any other state except deafness. If they decide to go ahead and have a child who isn't deaf, then the deaf child will not exist. This isn't about picking the qualities that some proto-future being will have; if we change one trait, it's an entirely different being. It is impossible to violate the rights and bodies of people who have yet to exist. The only way I see your argument working is if you show that the trait being selected for is one which the individual could under no (or very unlikely) circumstances live a happy, prosperous life.

On top of this, your point is a flat-out denial of the notion that there are groups of people with this disability who are happy with it--who would, if given the opportunity to live their lives again, choose to live with the disability. Your arbitrary decision that they should feel bad about their disability--that they should want to see it removed in themselves and their children--is just another case of someone demanding that others feel bad and apologize for what they are and what they want.

Fuck that noise. People do not need to justify how they feel about their disability to you, and they certainly don't need to justify their desire to bring more people like them into this world.

There is a difference between breeding to have a child regardless of handicap, and breeding while actively making sure that your child will be handicapped. That difference is intent. By similar logic, most people frown upon the behavoir of drinking alcohol while pregnant.

Drinking alcohol while pregnant is not even in the same fucking ballpark as selecting genetic material on the basis of wanting your child to be like you.

Also, you want to talk about eugenics? Eugenics is defined as the selective breeding of humans to improve some quality or trait. In the past, it was done by a small group of people in positions of large amounts of power. What would this work look like if parents actively selected for the traits they wanted and removed traits they didn't?

Parents selecting what sort of children they want for themselves is not eugenics. Eugenics is a program of controlled breeding where attributes are not selected by the individuals engaged in child-rearing, but rather 'professionals' who make value judgments for the child-rearers. That's why I'm describing your position as the eugenics one--you want to pass judgment on which attributes are 'wrong' and which we should feel bad about passing on to our children--when there are people who have lived their entire lives content with these attributes and with no burning desire to correct them.

[elasto]

You're missing the point by a mile: This child cannot exist in any other state except deafness. If they decide to go ahead and have a child who isn't deaf, then the deaf child will not exist. This isn't about picking the qualities that some proto-future being will have; if we change one trait, it's an entirely different being.

This is quite thought provoking, philosophically.

Consider two methods of ensuring a genetic trait:

(1) A number of eggs are fertilised and tested. If any have the desired trait (eg deafness) they are implanted and brought to term. When this kid grows up and says to their parents 'I really hate being deaf, why the hell did you choose this life for me?' and the parents can reply just as TGH says: 'If we hadn't deliberately chosen the deaf embryo you wouldn't be here at all - so suck it up.'

(2) A single egg is fertilised and the genes manipulated by a retrovirus to break a gene crucial to developing hearing. When this kid grows up and says to their parents 'I really hate being deaf, why the hell did you choose this life for me?' the parents can only say '...that's what we wanted', and the kid may go on to reply: 'you selfish pricks!'

[Enuja]

mosc, I think you are confusing "not close to average" with "physiologically or psychologically defective." Abnormal means "not particularly close to the mean of the population;" it is not a measure of moral, physiological, or psychological value. Just because something is normal does not mean that it is good or works particularly well, and just because something is abnormal does not mean that it is at all defective. Our society is obsessed with "normality," but that's a cultural issue.

Why did you use shortness, instead of tallness, as an example of a defect? Because our society values (and gives advantages to) tall people. But, given different cultural values, a need to conserve resources, a technological instead of brute strength society, ect., shortness could actually be an advantage, as abnormal tallness is an advantage in our culture. Achondroplasia has already been mentioned. We know that's a genetic defect, because it's fatal when you have two copies of it. When know of other genetic defects that have a symptom of abnormal shortness. But very short people whose bodies otherwise work well, do not have a defect, no matter how short they are. Being abnormal is not a defect. Having something not work is a defect.

Homosexuality is not a defect, because you can be romantically and psychologically perfectly functional, and you can contribute to society, while being a homosexual. No, you won't have the most common sexual orientation, but, since you're perfectly functional, that's not a defect!

Please do embrace all of the myriad ways in which you deviate from the mean. But please don't call those things "defects." Embrace "abnormal," if you'd like, but please don't drape the word "defect" on things that are perfectly functional but simply abnormal.

[paddyfool]

"Defect", noun: Shortcoming, fault, imperfection or flaw.

Therefore, by calling homosexuality a birth defect, you are effectively calling homosexuals flawed from birth. It is derogatory, whether or not you intend it as such. We really need a different word for people who are different from birth, without implying fault. "Abnormal" comes a little closer, but the precise problem here is that there is a bimodal distribution on the sliding scale of sexuality, and that those clustered around the rarer, homosexual peak on this scale do fit into a second, smaller, fairly normal distribution. (Yes, I know I'm being overly technical visavis "normal" here ). Whereas truly abnormal people are those in between or outside of the peaks, where the curve is low - the outliers, or freaks, if you will.

Overall, I don't see any particular reason to call a homosexual anything but a homosexual. The only more general category you can stick them in is that of people from the smaller peaks of multimodal distributions. And we have a perfectly good word for that: "minorities".

[Dark567]

If it's slow, subtle, and undetectable, how do you know it's there? I don't think that the human race, as a whole, is evolving a reliance on machines and institutions. The machines and institutions keep individuals alive, and that's great, because most of them are good people that deserve to live. If those machines went away, thoise people would die, and it would be a tragedy, but 90% of the human race (or far more) would still be alive and healthy.

It seems unlikely that as soon as we developed technology evolution just stops selection of certain traits. I am not saying we are evolving a reliance on machines and institutions, just that those machines and institutions are probably nudging evolution one way or the other.

[paddyfool]

It seems unlikely that as soon as we developed technology evolution just stops selection of certain traits. I am not saying we are evolving a reliance on machines and institutions, just that those machines and institutions are probably nudging evolution one way or the other.

I would say that at the rate we are developing as a species in other directions that genetic (in terms of our technology, culture, understanding of the universe etc.), the general likely trend of our genetics over, say, the next 10,000 years of evolution is (a) entirely academic and (b) impossible to predict, because of the extent to which we may predict man-made changes to our environment over that timespan, and because the possibility of genetic modification, sperm-sorting etc. means that we may massively overtake evolution in shaping our own genetics anyway. Yes, for the last 100 years or so we've really started taking the pressure off visavis survival traits; but that isn't long enough to make any real difference in evolutionary terms yet.