As SIG has so eloquently put it, there is a valid argument for screening, however, the arguments against include screening for non medical reasons such as male/female which could be used to provide only sons in certain cultures.

I won't pretend to be qualified to give an authorative opinion on what should be allowed / prohibited so all I will offer is that greater minds than mine should find a compromise solution between the two evils of banning screening and allowing unfettered screening and use this as an enforceable guideline for future medical procedures.

And what ever happens keep the church out of it.

Democritus speaks great wisdom... yes.. of course.. keep the 'Church' out of it..and surely you will have great gain.. wonderful advancment..and social victory is assured.

1 kings 22:8
The king of Israel answered Jehoshaphat, "There is still one man through whom we can inquire of the LORD, but I hate him because he never prophesies anything good about me, but always bad. He is Micaiah son of Imlah."

"The king should not say that," Jehoshaphat replied.

So the king of Israel called one of his officials and said, "Bring Micaiah son of Imlah at once."

10 Dressed in their royal robes, the king of Israel and Jehoshaphat king of Judah were sitting on their thrones at the threshing floor by the entrance of the gate of Samaria, with all the prophets prophesying before them. 11 Now Zedekiah son of Kenaanah had made iron horns and he declared, "This is what the LORD says: 'With these you will gore the Arameans until they are destroyed.' "

12 All the other prophets were prophesying the same thing. "Attack Ramoth Gilead and be victorious," they said, "for the LORD will give it into the king's hand."

13 The messenger who had gone to summon Micaiah said to him, "Look, as one man the other prophets are predicting success for the king. Let your word agree with theirs, and speak favorably."

14 But Micaiah said, "As surely as the LORD lives, I can tell him only what the LORD tells me."

15 When he arrived, the king asked him, "Micaiah, shall we go to war against Ramoth Gilead, or shall I refrain?"
"Attack and be victorious," he answered, "for the LORD will give it into the king's hand."

16 The king said to him, "How many times must I make you swear to tell me nothing but the truth in the name of the LORD ?

The science and technology of medicine are transforming the treatment of the diseased and the injured, and millions of people owe their health and lives to the dramatic medical innovations of the past few decades.

Some of the new technologies, however, are creating new problems even as they solve old ones. In particular, the new technologies have given doctors and patients a range of difficult life-or-death choices that they did not have even a few years ago.

For example, terminally ill patients can now be kept alive through artificial respiration, intravenous feeding, electronic heart stimulation, mechanical organ substitutes, or even transplants of body parts from other people or animals. Consequently, medical dilemmas frequently become moral and legal ones as well.

In the past if a baby was too premature or defective, or if a seriously ill person was dying, there was little the family doctor could do about it other than to offer comfort.

Today, patients can be hooked up for days, months, or years to machines that sustain their lives, and this step may be taken even if they are in constant pain or even if they are permanently comatose.

Thus, technologies that were intended to save people from unnecessary death may actually have the effect of depriving them of a dignified death.

Physicians are expected to do all they can to sustain life, even in the case of grossly deformed newborn infants who, in the natural order of things, would have no chance of survival for more than a few hours. Frequently, these babies are destined for short lives of extreme pain, suffering, and mental retardation. In practice, some physicians try to keep these infants alive, but others do not; some parents insist that the attempt be made, while others hope that the child will die. Parents and doctors thus become involved in "playing God in the nursery."

I know it's an individual choice, but I would like to know if my child
was going to be destined for a life of extreme pain, suffering, and mental retardation.

Democritus

If the decision to have an abortion remains purely "her choice" how will you restrict or regulate abortions?

It seems to me that soon a woman will be able to have an in utero whole genome scan. If the genome looks a little suspect – perhaps the baby MAY grow into an adult who is a bit dim - she can abort and try again.

In fact soon men may no longer be necessary. See:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/men/article3040118.ece

Quote:

Is nature determined to make men extinct? Senior scientists believe that women may evolve as humanity’s sole representatives — and social and political trends are lending weight to their theories. Lois Rogers reports


End Quote

"In fact soon men may no longer be necessary."

Um yes. As long as you define "soon" as in 125,000 years, according to that article.

Not that I'm dissing the article, which was excellent, and brings up many pertinent points, particularly the parlous state of boys' education.

But this forum does seem infected by thin end of the wedge thinking. Start screening for abnormalities (which we already do, by the way) and it's just a slippery slope to eradicating freckles and red hair. (Bit worrying for yours truly.) Let Sikh kids take kirpans to school, and grown-up Muslims will start hijacking planes. Let gay people adopt kids and pedeophiles will increase.

Just out of interest, what is it you people don't trust: democracy, or the people within it? Or, no, don't tell me, is it those evil feminists again?

Boaz_David, way to prove Democritus's point! High five!

Botheration

I think you are rather missing the point of the Times article. Our Y chromosomes may or may not expire in 125,000 years. Long before then males may become redundant because of artificial sperm.

Quote:

"...The technology to produce artificial sperm, or even CREATE OFFSPRING FROM TWO FEMALES, is already in the pipeline;..."

My guess is that within a decade a child will be born that, literally, has no genetic father. She will be the offspring of two females.

I'm not sure what you mean by "thin end of the wedge thinking." I'm simply pointing out what could be some emerging social trends. What this thread has to do with Sikh children carrying kirpans escapes me.

I think the bottom line is that we're taking our evolution into our own hands. If it is possible for Lesbian couples to select for Lesbianism then the future of humankind (womankind?) may well be Lesbian women who reproduce with artificial sperm.

Do the math. Since Lesbian women would not have to "waste" half their pregnancies on males their population will grow faster.