>In the world we live in, this would be used to abort babies that don't pass the PGS to the vast majority of people who have this information.
Are you sure about that? We have a pretty good way of predicting the sex of the fetus and somehow our misogynistic and sexist society doesn't have a mass problem of aborting females.
>So, in this case, where we have an oppressed group that can be oppressed further, is knowledge better than ignorance?
Abortion is oppression?
Today, in most regions, you can abort a fetus for any reason ... even terrible reasons. Are you advocating for abortion controls so that abortion is only done for the 'right' reasons?
>I want to make one thing clear, this is not a silly thought experiment. This is very possible right now with the advent of biobanks, GWAS tooling, and machine learning.
If it is possible today, where are those mass abortions?
>I presume that most of you would agree that releasing this information for anyone to know would have negative consequences, and should maybe be controlled.
You assume you can hide this information. Why do you assume that?
And no, I don't agree that it should be controlled.
> We have a pretty good way of predicting the sex of the fetus and somehow our misogynistic and sexist society doesn't have a mass problem of aborting females.
But we do...
> The natural sex ratio at birth is approximately 103 to 106 males for 100 females.[37][38] However, because of sex-selective abortions, the sex ratio at birth in countries with high proportions of missing women have ranged 108.5 in India to 121.2 in Mainland China.[6][18] As a result, counts of missing women are often due to missing female children.[18] It is estimated that the cumulative number of missing female births due to sex-selective abortion globally is 45 million from 1970 to 2017.[38]
> >In the world we live in, this would be used to abort babies that don't pass the PGS to the vast majority of people who have this information.
> Are you sure about that?
So you asked this question to someone who said "In the world we live in", you actually meant "Are you sure that this thing that does happen in the world we live in will also happen in some unspecified nation that I live in".
I don't think that's what you were asking, but if you where, why would you ask that?
OK, well, I guess you're right that "our society" does not value boys over girls as much as China and India. I don't really see the relevance if you're arguing "no, sex-selective abortions will not happen."
>I don't really see the relevance if you're arguing "no, sex-selective abortions will not happen."
OP argued that there will be abortions based on sexual orientation as a justification for hiding research results from the public. As one of my counter-arguments, I argued that this isn't inevitable by providing a counter-example of lack of sex-selective abortions in most of the world (specifically the society I grew up in).
Are you sure about that? We have a pretty good way of predicting the sex of the fetus and somehow our misogynistic and sexist society doesn't have a mass problem of aborting females.
>So, in this case, where we have an oppressed group that can be oppressed further, is knowledge better than ignorance?
Abortion is oppression?
Today, in most regions, you can abort a fetus for any reason ... even terrible reasons. Are you advocating for abortion controls so that abortion is only done for the 'right' reasons?
>I want to make one thing clear, this is not a silly thought experiment. This is very possible right now with the advent of biobanks, GWAS tooling, and machine learning.
If it is possible today, where are those mass abortions?
>I presume that most of you would agree that releasing this information for anyone to know would have negative consequences, and should maybe be controlled.
You assume you can hide this information. Why do you assume that?
And no, I don't agree that it should be controlled.