response 51 of 187:

Mar 29 21:55 UTC 2002

Re #40:  Founder Syndrome doesn't apply.  The Cree were an
existing population, not a small and rapidly growing one.
If you assume 2 children per generation who survive to
adulthood and reproduce over 15 generations, you get 512
possible carriers.  Even if 100% of them carried the gene
(assuming random assortment you'd expect each to have a
1/512 chance of carrying it), only 1/64 of a population
of 32768 would be carriers.  The chances of two people
mated at random of having an affected child would be
(1/64 * 1/64 * 1/4) = 1/16384.

That's about two children per generation.

If the carriers are mostly grouped into communities which mate
endogamously you'd increase the odds a lot, but the odds of
losing the gene would still be good.  The only way to have a
high prevalence of the disorder is if the original carrier and
his offspring have a very high rate of reproductive success
compared to the average.

Like, he was a chief or something.  (Or more genetically fit.)

This is hardly far-fetched.  Pretty much the same thing
happened to make a large fraction of European nobility
into hemophiliacs; one guy had a mutation and spread it.

There's a pretty simple solution to this:  use sperm donors to
stop passing the gene via the male lines.  Female children will
have a 50% chance of carrying (and passing) the gene, but male
offspring will not pass it at all.  If this is done the
prevalence of the gene will fall by about 50% per generation,
and the affliction will disappear immediately.

response 53 of 187:

Mar 29 23:02 UTC 2002

Re #48: in what way, and where, are there genetic dispositions in regard
to those diseases? There are at least 8 different genotypes of the
measles virus found with different predominances around the world. Are
any differences in morbidity from measles due to the different genotypes
or due to differences in the victim groups (or due to differences
in hygiene, prophylactus, etc, in different areas)? 

Same questions with respect to the other diseases. Please identify 
references to differences in morbidity due solely to genetic differences
in the victims.

One example cited, malaria, is less virulent among victims of
sickle cell anemia, but that is itself a defect, so is a special
case of protective defect.

response 55 of 187:

Mar 30 01:00 UTC 2002

Re #42:  Or you could view it as a case of pre-natal disease
prevention.  If you accept the Right-to-Life point of view
(which I don't), treating or preventing a disease in a fetus
or even a zygote is just as much of a moral imperative as
doing the same in a born child.

Re #49:  Yes, insofar as everyone is paying for their own choices
(or avoiding greater costs to the public).  There is no right to
lay extra costs on the public through either intent or neglect.
We prosecute people who drive without insurance, for example.

The government recently mandated greater enrichment of several
foodstuffs with folic acid, to prevent neural tube defects in
children (spina bifida and such).  What's the difference?

response 57 of 187:

Mar 30 01:14 UTC 2002

I think people heterozygous for sickle cell anemia tend to have problems only
at high altitudes.  Mosquitoes don't generally live at the higher altitudes
so there was no selection against this (the gene was not common or required
at higher altitudes).  At least they don't around the mediterranean, where
it is rather dry inland in the mountains and olives don't have as many insect
pests and therefore can be grown without insecticide.  We were told this about
Lebanese olive oil that grows in a mountain valley instead of on the coast.

response 59 of 187:

Mar 30 03:46 UTC 2002

i'm not sure that if i had a disease that made my life shorter or more
difficult that i would wish my parents had used a sperm donor instead of my
daddy's.

response 61 of 187:

Mar 31 02:30 UTC 2002

Re #59:  That's easy for you to say, because you aren't in that
position.  I know someone who is (spina bifida), and she says
that if she'd been in a position to make a decision before she
was born she'd just as soon have spared herself all that.

response 63 of 187:

Mar 31 04:39 UTC 2002

It should be drawn by those that care the most.

response 65 of 187:

Mar 31 20:04 UTC 2002

How  do they differ?

response 67 of 187:

Apr 1 16:36 UTC 2002

Re #62: Exactly.  There are people with genetic defects who live full, 
happy lives.  There's no clear-cut answer.

response 69 of 187:

Apr 1 23:29 UTC 2002

The "rabid RIght-to-Lifer" doesn't care at all about the "unwilling
pregnant woman", so the latter should choose. And that "Drug addict
mother" may care a lot less than the taxpayers that finance Medicaid.
Is that what you mean?

response 71 of 187:

Apr 2 00:41 UTC 2002

Not really.  They care about the fetus.

response 73 of 187:

Apr 2 00:49 UTC 2002

I'm pro-choice.  I don't think I have sole possession of the moral high
ground, but I've seen enough behavior of pro-life activists to make me believe
that most of them really don't care about the woman, just the fetus.  I don't
know why this statement is a surprise:  it used to be policy at Catholic
hospitals that in a situation where you could save either the mother or the
baby, you'd save the baby (the mother is already baptized, so her soul is
safe, or something).  This didn't change until the 70s.

Obviously, there are also pro-life activists who care about the mother, but
the "no abortions even in cases of rape or incest" ones sure don't seem to.