Technology

59672 readers

3302 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

251

Blood test findings by Toronto doctors can detect cancerous tumour before it develops (toronto.ctvnews.ca)

submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

10 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Blood test findings by Toronto doctors can detect cancerous tumour before it develops::Doctors at Princess Margaret Cancer Centre and The Hospital for Sick Children are helping detect cancer in some patients before a tumour develops or shows up on a medical scan.

top 10 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 22 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I'm not saying this to be mean or intentionally offensive. I genuinely am having a hard time understanding the logic: If you know that you have a genetic mutation that will be fatal 100% of the time, and which generally only allows you to survive for a short period of time beyond your early reproductive years, why would you have kids? It seems selfish to me, that these people understand their condition but still choose to doom their progeny to the same fate.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

Not discounting that logic, but it is also possible that the genetics of your partner get passed on for that gene instead of yours.

The part of the logic I’d struggle with is that if you only survive a few years after their birth, you’re creating an offspring that will loose their parent at a very young age and potentially putting your partner in a precarious position as a single parent. Not to mention the fact that every day you’ll look at your kid and think “I’ll never see them grow up, or graduate or get married or …” seems like a constant reminder of your upcoming doom.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

We're normalized to it, but having kids at all is selfish. You're dooming a consciousness to death.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

You know what is fatal 100% of the time? Living at all.

Reproduction is not about logic anyway, it's just a very common and fundamental feature of life. People who are disabled or fatally ill also have ordinary dreams, desires and human rights. Framing the issue as "these people are dooming their progeny" makes it seem like their own lives are worthless because they will die young, as if the value of human life rested on longevity. It's quite frivolous to assume we can understand the desire to have kids of people with such diagnoses.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

No? You can adopt, have fulfilling lives, and just not literally doom your progeny to have the same dooming condition you were born with.

If you have such a terrible genetic condition, it doesn't diminish your worth as a human, but I won't restrain from openly judging you if you decide to make the choice of giving that condition to another human being for no other reason than just you feeling like it just because you want kids -- which again you can adopt, so there is really no excuse other than selfishness

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I realized why your comment bothered me so much: I am kind of an antinatalist myself, so for me having children is always dooming them in some way, especially nowadays when our civilization is on the brink of collapsing, but I don't judge these people to be more selfish than the usual. People with Li Fraumeni Syndrome have a 50% chance to pass down the mutation to their offspring, it's no certainty, and the article is clearly showing current technology can detect cancer earlier so people can act upon it. You are calling these people, who have cancer or mostly certainly will, selfish, when you don't have the faintest idea of what it means to live in their shoes. If it is selfish or not, that is something for their children to decide, not you. Passing shallow moral judgment on the reproductive decisions of disabled/sick people is very dehumanizing, not to say it's one of the core elements of eugenics ideology. It's not hard to see how your standing would enable a more extreme view arguing that people with Li Fraumeni Syndrome should be sterilized.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Passing shallow moral judgment on the reproductive decisions of disabled/sick people is very dehumanizing

Acting solely on primal instincts is dehumanizing.

It's not hard to see how your standing would enable a more extreme view arguing that people with Li Fraumeni Syndrome should be sterilized.

If i knowingly gave someone HPV, leading to cancer, nobody would dare to bring up eugenics, and my right to reproductive freedom. How is giving cancer to a stranger different from giving cancer to my kids?

[–] BA834024112 -1 points 1 year ago

Well said

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This is just stupid. Most tumours arent deadky, especially those found early.

I can definitely recommend the video from nedkife crisis about wrong and too early classicmfication of tumours: https://youtu.be/yNzQ_sLGIuA?si=spAHEmT8C6wk5VGx

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Here is an alternative Piped link(s):

https://piped.video/yNzQ_sLGIuA?si=spAHEmT8C6wk5VGx

Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.