This from today's Guardian newspaper.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/dec/15/genetics.health

Quotes:

>Doctors may be allowed to screen human embryos for a gene that causes a rare disease that prompts high cholesterol and an increased risk of heart attacks, it emerged yesterday.>

>The decision may reignite controversy over parents' rights to create "designer babies", as the procedure may also identify a milder form of the disease that is affected by lifestyle and can be treated with drugs.>

Well, if we can abort foetuses that MAY be prone to heart attacks, why not foetuses that MAY develop into adults who are a bit dim or are sexually unattractive or are homosexual?

We cannot reliably screen for propensities to intelligence, sexual attractiveness or homosexuality yet. But one day we shall. Meanwhile the principle of culling undesirable foetuses is becoming entrenched in our law.

Oi ve! It's the thin end of the wedge!

Meanwhile, I find I can reliably screen for intelligence and attractiveness post-utero. Any earlier does seem a little premature for me.

But I think you guys should discuss this seriously and at length.

Steven, although you have jumped from embryo to foetus(8 weeks old) in your question, it remains a pertinent one.

-If by attractiveness we take into account abnormalities like cleft palates,
- By dim those unlikely to attain the mental abilities of say a kindergarten pupil,
- by homosexual... no not going there. It wouldn't be something I'd check for or lose sleep over, but others may and if it disturbs them that much maybe screening is for the best.

In essence yes, I support the ability to screen. The example in your link highlights a disease where the child mightn't get beyond puberty, creating a huge amount of anguish for both parent and child. Who would wish such a scenario on anyone if it were avoidable?

If, as the article suggests, screening is only permited for serious abnormalities then it would be an extreme disservice not to have the option to screen.
I'm guessing the main objection to this will be the "slippery slope" brigade, but really if the ultimate eventuality is more clever/beautiful/healthy(whatever) people and less people suffering then the down side pales in significance.

Amniocentesis testing has been available for many years, for those that want it, to detect foetal abnormalities during pregnancy, and is generally used at or beyond the 14 week stage. Well beyond the embryonic stage

if every baby was born at the best end of the human spectrum, it would be a much better world.

ultimately, we can hope to screen out cancer, diabetes, serial killers, and politicians. and it wouldn't hurt if everyone was beautiful and smart.

getting there is the hard part: a great number of people think mother nature should prevail. so do i if an undemocratic government gets to control births. that's one reason why i'm struggling to lead oz out of the 14th century and into democracy.

It said in the article that they may consider only allow the screening for the more serious type of the disease.

My missus has Cystic Fibrosis and has had a double lung transplant. She can't have children naturally so if we head down that path we'll be going through surrogate. We WILL screen the foetus/s for diseases like CF and whatever else for the sake of the future of the child. Until you've walked in the shoes of someone who's had to deal with a life like that I wouldn't judge.

One shouldn't use words like "designer babies" when referring to screening for potentially fatal diseases.

Would you love a child that was born with some of the diseases out there any less?, of course not. Would you volunteer them for it if you knew the life ahead?.

Screen for serial killers?. Someone can be a sociopath, but not kill. I reckon there might be some 'environmental' factors involved as well buddy.