Eugenics needs to become mandatory

While eugenics itself is a very interesting topic, I believe the theory and it's criticisms are far too extensive to respond to what has been offered as a very specific example. Therefore, I will seek to narrow my response to address the limited scope presented. This means my argument will seek to prove that the example of Sophia given by my opponent does not bolster my opponent's position and in fact, works more in favour of natural selection. If my opponent wishes to expand the scope of this argument outside of the particular example, I am happy to move in any direction he sees as compelling. Understanding and Defining EugenicsThe first order of the argument is to try to set a standard for what eugenics actually is. This is difficult as there is no agreed upon consensus for what classifies as eugenics however, what we can state with relative certainty is that it is the alternative to a 'natural selection'. natural selection operates from the bottom up model of gene selection in an organic fashion whereas eugenics seeks to impose a top down model through standards and restrictions imposed by man. I will therefore use the following definition for the basis of my argument:"The practice by which man seeks to manipulate natural selection through imposing and/or enforcing inorganic standards and policies to attain predefined genetic manifestations". If my opponent wishes to change this definition or use a different one, I am open to adapting as long as it is still in line with contemporary understanding of the definition. Sophia: Eugenics vs. Natural SelectionNow that we've defined eugenics, I will seek to argue that natural selection would be more effective in curtailing genetic abnormalities and "deficiencies"* such as Rett Syndrome. In order for eugenics to be effective in preventing these conditions, the all of the following assumptions and premises would have to be sound: I. Rett Syndrome is more likely to be passed down through existing genetics than by random genetic mutation. II. Those in possession of the Rett Syndrome are likely to reproduce. III. The genetic benefits of natural selection do not outweigh the cost of Rett Syndrome on society. Addressing Assumption I: Based on the current genetic analysis, 90% of the instances of Rett Syndrome are by mutation of the MECP2 gene caused by damage to a sperm cell. (1) Moreover, given the nature of the mutation as caused by damage, the likelihood of it being passed on even in the instance of reproduction is less than 1%. (2) This means that there is overall greater than a 99.9% chance of Rett Syndrome being completely outside the scope of eugenics in every instance. Addressing Assumption II: Based on the damning evidence above, this point almost becomes moot. However, if we truly are concerned with the less than 1% chance of the mutation being passed on, we will address the possibilities of reproduction. Rett Syndrome typically always affects females as a random mutation on the 'X' chromosome. As boys only have one allele for this gene, the instance is extremely rare and usually ends in death for a fetus for a male infant with the deformity (they must have another rare condition called Klinefelter Syndrome in which they have two 'X' chromosome to survive). (2) Do to obvious reasons of deformity in addition to problems with protein synthesis, the likelihood of women being able to procreate with Rett Syndrome is nearly impossible unless she suffers from a form so mild as to passed unnoticed. Addressing Assumption III: Finally, because your argument was in favour of human intervention as opposed to natural selection, we must assess the practicalities associated with genetic screening for Rett Syndrome as opposed to letting natural selection take its course. Above, we discovered that natural selection is over 99.9% effective in deterring the continuation of this gene in every instance so in order for eugenics to be better, it must meet two criteria: i. It must be 100% effective in eliminating Rett Syndrome in every instance ii. It must be more cost effective for the government and overall populace to impose a eugenic solution rather than allow natural selection to continue. In addressing the first concern: currently, prenatal sequencing of the affected gene yields only a rough 95% success rate in identifying the mutations with the best techniques and equipment available. (3) This is something that many clinics do not have access too and so, the more realistic estimate when looking at well-run laboratories it comes closer to 80%. (4) In addressing the second concern, the test itself to test for Rett Syndrome can range from anywhere to $1100 to over $10,000 depending on the equipment and facilities available. This would, of course, have to be government funded as it is a federal regulation and therefore would cost, if we look at a number of pregnancies and subtract for abortions we get a rough, conservative estimate of around 5 million. (5) Multiply that by even the lowest estimate for Rett Syndrome screening and we are left with a whopping 5.5 billion dollar price tag for a pre screening procedure with less than an 80% success rate (remember, because we were conservative on the amount we were willing to pay, the pr screening is less likely to be successful). In contrast, we can look at the average cost of Rett Syndrome annually which amounts to a median of $21,158 annually. If we multiply this by the estimate of those afflicted in America which is 27,200 we get a total of $575,497,600 annually which, is a significant reduction in the price tag. (7) Moreover, it is very important to state that the vast majority of this cost is a burden upon caregivers, whereas the cost of pre screening would have to be incurred upon the government in order for it to be effective. Though almost a footnote, I believe it to be an incredibly important distinction. ConclusionBased on the above information, I conclude that natural selection is a superior method to eugenic intervention for preventing cases like Sophia's from burdening society. If my opponent wishes to expand his scope to other topics involving eugenics, I am happy to do so. Sources Used 1. Joanna Dragich, Isa Houwink-Manville, Carolyn Schanen; Rett syndrome: a surprising result of mutation in MECP2, Human Molecular Genetics, Volume 9, Issue 16, 1 October 2000, Pages 2365–23752. Amir, R. E. , Van den Veyver, I. B. , Wan, M. , Tran, C. Q. , Francke, U. , & Zoghbi, H. Y. (1999). Rett syndrome is caused by mutations in X-linked MECP2. Nature Genetics, Oct;23(2), 185–188.3. Ruthie E. Amir, MD, V. Reid Sutton, MD, and Ignatia B. Van den Veyver, MD, Journal of Child Neurology, Vol 20, Issue 9, pp. 779-7834. As through the Greenwood Genetic Centre et al.5. Statista, Pregnancy & Facts, 2010, . https://www.statista.com...6. Hendrie, Delia et al. Measuring Use and Cost of Health Sector and Related Care in a Population of Girls and Young Women with Rett Syndrome. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders. Vol. 5. Iss. 2. Pages 2011 901-909.7. Healthgrades, Prevalence and Incidence of Rett Syndrome. . http://www.rightdiagnosis.com... *Technically this term would be incorrectly used from an evolutionary perspective but in the context of this individuals genetics, it can be utilized.