For some time Britain has been considering the use of embryo screening to stop babies from being born with genes that are associated with a higher risk of cancer.
In fact, the UK and other countries are already using a screening technique, known as "pre-implantation genetic diagnosis" (PGD), to detect and abort unborn children with genetic disorders such as cystic fibrosis and Huntington's disease.
However, the technology applications under consideration are controversial because a certain unknown number of healthy children will be killed in addition to those who are at a higher risk for developing a disease later life.
Debate has now opened regarding embryo screening according to the child's gender. La Shawn Barber pulls the mask off of this fledgling eugenics program with this post:
Not mentioned in the article but an obvious cause of controversy is that "undesirable" human beings will be killed. My questions to liberal homosexual and non-homosexual abortion supporters are these:La Shawn most likely chose the "gay gene" because the homosexual lifestyle is presently a darling "civil rights" cause of the left. As a result, her post will evoke attention and controversy.If a significant number of women begin choosing to abort their babies because doctors discovered a "gay gene," would your stance on the "right to choose" change or shift in any way? Would the number of women killing these "defective" babies make a difference? Is one potentially gay dead baby too many?
However, in her hypothetical situation she might as well have chosen genetic markers that are indicative of compulsive behavior, athletic ability, stature, criminality or intelligence. The point is that the acceptance of elective abortion naturally lends itself to eugenics and all forms of discrimination that (most) liberals and conservatives alike find repugnant.
Defining any human as undesirable, whether the person is suffering from a genetic disorder or just has certain characteristics, demeans the dignity of all humans and exchanges our intrinsic value with a utilitarian measure of fitness.
Update:
In an excellent post that is relevant to this topic LifeEthics writes:
There are very few diseases that are directly related to a single gene or that are inherited - and expressed - by everyone that has that gene. Most diseases, such as breast cancer and diabetes are multifactorial, meaning that several genes and environmental factors and exposure influence the development of the disease so that testing for a single gene cannot tell us who will and who will not become ill. (See the Human Genome Project Information Web Site)Read the rest here.
