Should we allow parents to genetically screen their children?

Question

This already happens in in-vitro fertilization clinics. They fertilize a batch of eggs and then "screen out" undesirable qualities like down syndrome, etc. I'm not arguing this point at this time.

Right now, there is nothing (no laws) to stop parents from screening out other qualities, like height, hair and eye color. Should we allow parents to "customize" their children in this fashion?

Please state if you are pro-choice or pro-life and your religion.

AZ - people with blond hair and blue eyes are more genetically likely to develop skin cancer, that's the first example I thought of.
These "windmills" are real, as is the ghost of eugenics.

Chicky, I love you. You too Red Queen, thank you both for being open and honest.

Answer 1

"I'm not arguing this point at this time."

but why not? It has direct relevance? What about Amniocentesis? Chorionic villus sampling?

Anyway, I'll let that rest for now.

The adjustments you are talking about are of a cosmetic nature and while they sound trivial I doubt they are technically feasible. We are talking about in-situ DNA alteration of an entire organism (where the DNA is present in every cell; so you would have to change every cell at once).

I think you are fighting windmills and the spectre of eugenics.

But for the record, if it were possible, as far as I know kids of every hair color can have a normal childhood so I fail to see the harm.

Now what if we could make extreme changes to the developing brain?

Answer 2

I am an atheist, politically pro-choice but personally pro-life.

I am pregnant right now with my fourth child. I go in for an ultrasound on Thursday, to screen for physical signs of Downs and other genetic anomalies. If the tech sees any physical manifestations, the doctor will order blood tests and/or an amnio to produce a definite result.

My husband and I would never terminate the pregnancy even if the baby has Downs. No matter what, this is the child we created together and we love it and want it. I cannot imagine anyone terminating a pregnancy because it is not the child they imagined or hoped for -- the baby you make is your responsibility. We are happy to do the screening because if there should be a challenge presented to us by our baby's health, the sooner we can prepare for it the better. If we need to outfit the nursery for a special needs child, we will. We would also join support groups ahead of time and learn all we could from other parents.

The idea of "culling" out undesirables from the gene pool is repulsive. We are not perfect as individuals, we are not perfect as a species. We are humans, and one of the greatest things humans can do is care for those who need it.

.

Answer 3

While I would never advocate "customizing" children by hair and eye color, or in some other "cosmetic" way, I must admit that I'd be all for screening out inherited diseases.

Before the thumbs down come rolling in, let me state that, for each of my pregnancies, I chose not to have my children tested for Down's Syndrome --nor did I undergo any of the other routine screenings-- preferring instead to love and accept any child I had.

However, things have changed.

I have rheumatoid arthritis, as does my sister. My grandfather suffered from this also. There's no conclusive evidence that it's an inherited disease, but I certainly have my own reasons for believing it to be.

I don't know that my kids will be afflicted with this disease, but I certainly hope they escape my fate. I realize that I should be thankful I'm not dying, and I am. But the pain and disability, not to mention how it changes you emotionally, is sometimes too much to bear, and I wouldn't wish this on anyone.

I understand now how people can choose to abort a child with an inherited disease. Would I have done the same? I don't know.

Answer 4

Pro-life Baptist.

I believe there should be restrictions on genetic manipulation of humans. To begin such a ball rolling as controlling the genetic traits of children before they are born will eventually lead to the killing of children who display the unwanted traits after they are born.

As you pointed out, the killing of the elderly and infirm is already accepted in some circles.

Answer 5

I suppose I would have to agree that this is a personal matter for parents alone. However, I would have concerns regarding the costs of these procedures and to whom they were available. If this become popular, are we going to have world in which wealthy people have perfect babies and the poor, who have less means to take care of a sick child, are left out in the cold? Ever read the book Beggars in Spain by Nancy Kress. (.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beggars_in_Spain)
It deals with exactly this scenario.

I'm pro-choice and don't profess a religion.

Answer 6

The idea completely creeps me out. It seems unethical to me...although I don't think I can articulate why. However, I can't think of any legitimate reasons to make it illegal at the moment, so I suppose it must be allowed until there is more information with which to argue against it.

I'm a pro-choice atheist (so, no religion).

Answer 7

I think it is every parents desire to have a kid that has the best life he/she could possibly have. If you knew your child weren't going to have legs, and you could do something about it, which parent would want their child to not have legs, knowing that they could have fixed it?

I want to keep my religion under wraps since i don't believe it has anything to do with what we are discussing. In terms of pro-life or pro-choice, i think there should be a limit to how much can be changed. There should be laws to control how "screening" can be done. I believe diseases should be screened out, but appearance, i think it should be how it is.

Answer 8

It's a BABY, not a CAR. Choosing the "make and model" of our children is repulsive in the extreme to me. I understand the need to screen for diseases (IE Downs, etc) but this is ridiculous.
This also has a legal aspect: can parents then sue over their child's "imperfection"?? (IE We wanted blue eyes and got green)

Answer 9

if it can make a healthier child then yes, if you had the choice wouldn't you want your child to be healthy with no health problems, so they wouldn't have to suffer the illness and the nastiness of some people all parents want their child to be healthy and happy.
in the cases of making a 'ideal' child looks wise, I'm against it a baby is a blessing and for purposes of sex it should be against the law.
I'm pro choice {abortions should not be used as 'contraception'} atheist

Answer 10

I am a Christian. and i don't think that people should be able to genticially screen the fetus. I don't think the fact that a child will possible have a disorder is a good reason to abort. this is euthenasia, and that is wrong.

i personally am pro-life, but i think that women should have a choice. I think abortion is understandable after a rape, and a women beacuse pregnant as a result, or to save the life of the mother.