bobcat
Well-known Member
- Location
- Northern Calif
For thousands of years mankind has engaged in selecting desired traits in animals and then selectively breeding to achieve those traits. It is even done to some degree with couples whether knowingly or unknowingly. If two tall people marry, odds are high that their offspring will be tall, and if two people with red hair have a child, odds are high that the child will also.
It is also done by a woman going to a sperm bank, and selecting a doner father with some characteristics she might desire in her child. Fast forward to today, and advanced technology to pre-select those traits and more. Let's say a family has two daughters, and would like a son to balance out the family. Seems harmless enough. However, what if they would like their son to have blonde hair and blue eyes, does that now cross some line?
Projected out, what if one of the parents has a family history of heart disease or cancer, is it wrong to screen for that in a fertilized egg, or to get a sperm donor who doesn't have any history of it. The medical costs of those decisions can be staggering.
Everyone likely has a "Sure, why not", or a "Hell no" opinion about this, but if it's possible, then what is it about the procedure that is objectionable. Granted, it is not an exact science. It can only give risk scores, and that needs to be understood, but should parents have a right to prenatal autonomy, which grants them the right to decide the fate of their children?
So many other decisions are left up to the parents regarding the shaping of their child's life (i.e. the schools they attend, music lessons, sports, arts, etc...), but this area seems to be more of a hot button. The increased ability to control and manipulate embryos presents many possibilities for improving the health of children through prenatal diagnosis, but these possibilities are coupled with potential social repercussions.
Then there is the added aspect that other countries may not have the reservations we do regarding this philosophical quagmire. It is interesting to consider that we willingly accept so many other modifications to humans (Pacemakers, implants, transplants, plastic surgery, botox, and now chip implants), and yet there is something about prenatal decisions that is ethically painted with a big red "X".
Some things take a long time to materialize in society. For many years we have accepted alcohol use, and tobacco use as relatively normal, but smoking Mary J as criminal, and now that is changing. I wonder if the topic of this discussion will evolve or remain a taboo.
It is also done by a woman going to a sperm bank, and selecting a doner father with some characteristics she might desire in her child. Fast forward to today, and advanced technology to pre-select those traits and more. Let's say a family has two daughters, and would like a son to balance out the family. Seems harmless enough. However, what if they would like their son to have blonde hair and blue eyes, does that now cross some line?
Projected out, what if one of the parents has a family history of heart disease or cancer, is it wrong to screen for that in a fertilized egg, or to get a sperm donor who doesn't have any history of it. The medical costs of those decisions can be staggering.
Everyone likely has a "Sure, why not", or a "Hell no" opinion about this, but if it's possible, then what is it about the procedure that is objectionable. Granted, it is not an exact science. It can only give risk scores, and that needs to be understood, but should parents have a right to prenatal autonomy, which grants them the right to decide the fate of their children?
So many other decisions are left up to the parents regarding the shaping of their child's life (i.e. the schools they attend, music lessons, sports, arts, etc...), but this area seems to be more of a hot button. The increased ability to control and manipulate embryos presents many possibilities for improving the health of children through prenatal diagnosis, but these possibilities are coupled with potential social repercussions.
Then there is the added aspect that other countries may not have the reservations we do regarding this philosophical quagmire. It is interesting to consider that we willingly accept so many other modifications to humans (Pacemakers, implants, transplants, plastic surgery, botox, and now chip implants), and yet there is something about prenatal decisions that is ethically painted with a big red "X".
Some things take a long time to materialize in society. For many years we have accepted alcohol use, and tobacco use as relatively normal, but smoking Mary J as criminal, and now that is changing. I wonder if the topic of this discussion will evolve or remain a taboo.
