I actually think that distinction is not very hairsplitty here. One of the most striking things from this whole discussion is that the Cremieux who writes the blog actually does seem very different from the Cremieux who appears on Twitter/X and Reddit and Discord. My exposure to him is primarily through the blog, which I do like, which does not seem to say offensive things about race, which doesn't even seem to have race as a dominant theme. Whereas there do seem to be some more questionable statements and interactions from him on these other platforms. 

His much more recent blog post on national IQs makes the point that a sub-70 IQ is not equivalent to mental retardation, so it seems his views have at least somewhat changed since he wrote this particular comment. https://substack.com/@cremieux/p-153828779

As per https://www.cbsnews.com/baltimore/news/kilmar-abrego-garcia-el-salvador-maryland-man-deported/ Chris Van Hollen was informed by the vice president of El Salvador that the reason Garcia can not be released, is because the US is paying El Salvador to keep him imprisoned.

While it is accurate to say that "Bukele doesn't work for Trump" the fact that Garcia seems to be imprisoned solely due to the US paying for it, suggests that Garcia is constructively in US custody.

I think I'm counting at least 3 levels of hearsay for this claim that the US is paying El Salvador to imprison Garcia. But we also know, see here, that the Trump administration did ask Bukele to release Garcia, and Bukele said no. That says to me that even if there are payments coming from the US, those payments are definitely not the only reason El Salvador has to keep Garcia imprisoned. They have other reasons of their own. If such payments are actually occurring, then I agree we should stop them and see what happens, but I would bet against it resulting in Garcia's release.

Interesting. I think I'd take the same position about deafness that I would about blindness. But I also find it a very understandable and natural human emotion for a person who is damaged to want to surround themselves with others who are damaged in the same way, and to be disappointed when their child isn't. That seems entirely compatible with not being willing to intentionally damage a child.

I'm mainly talking about engineering that happens before the embryo stage.

I'm not sure if you're correcting my technical vocabulary or trying to counter my argument. Either is welcome. While I am excited about this technology and its potential to improve the human species, I'm obviously not a biologist myself.

Of course it's one the law makes. IIUC it's not even illegal for a pregnant woman to drink alcohol.

Nor is it illegal to use harsh language with your children. "Abuse" is a word that exists to pick out a sufficiently extreme degree of wrong that most people would not do it, and intervention is warranted against those who do. Most states do regulate drug use by pregnant women somehow, see https://projects.propublica.org/graphics/maternity-drug-policies-by-state. And the controversy around this is based mostly on the idea that taking a medical approach rather than a criminalization approach results in better outcomes for the children, which is an argument that just doesn't translate over to the genetic engineering context.

I agree. We aren't talking about whether blind people should be allowed to reproduce freely, even when doing so has the foreseeable consequence that the child will be blind. We are talking about whether they should be allowed to do an action, beyond the simple act of reproducing, to cause their child to be blind.

Suggesting specific odds without being able to define a threshold seems a bit, um, confused. Being willing to take the word of a stranger on the internet when these quantities of money are at stake seems outright stupid. I'm staying out of this market. I suggest that you withdraw your offer.

If we assume that the likelihood of a pregnancy leading to a child who lives long enough to be in our records is independent of the child's order / mother's age, then I agree that that the effects on the average birth order and average family size of our cardinals should in some sense cancel. However, it should still increase the error bars on both numbers and therefor the uncertainty of any conclusion. And I'm not sure I'd expect survival to be independent of order.