I think the point must be made steven, that the article and premise of this whole thing, embryonic genome screening, does NOT involve abortions.

There is no way in the near future that embryos could be scanned in utero.

What we are talking about here is screening embryos in vitro, as part of IVF treatment. The embryos not chosen for implantation suffer the same fate as embryos that don't get implanted now, none get "aborted". Foetuses are be able to be screened in utero (not embryos) and that another question altogether.

The premise of embryo screening is not a "thin end of the wedge" at all. As for screening for sexual attractiveness and intelligence etc. that's just science fiction, if they were fertilised the normal way (ie egg-sperm), then you would likely have to screen a great many embryos to get what you specifically wanted, as genes are generally randomly assorted from the parents. If people want "designer babies" that have genes that aren't in their own gene pool to begin with, like blue eyes for example when neither parent has the genes for that, then that's another thing again, that would require donors, and usually the only people that would take that option would be people who are sterile and require IVF.

The technology isn't scary, and personally I don't see many people wanting to take the "get pregnant, screen foetus for attractiveness intelligence etc.- abort if not good enough". I can only see that really being an option for the vast majority of people if they carry majorly defective genes (they would be able to find that out much easier before pregnancy), and then they could have the option IVF and pre-implantation screening instead. No abortions, steven. You can argue about the morality of genetic screening all you like, but leave abortion out of it, that's a different kettle of fish.

steven,
On what basis would you seek to restrict or regulate abortion? If it is from a medical expense view, then I would agree that more emphasis should be on prevention, and abortion shouldn't be seen as a convienient remedy.
I'm not convinced that forcing someone to go through an unwanted pregnancy is good for the mother, a resented child or an already highly populated world.

That's exactly what I'm talking about rojo. I believe steven has an interesting point to be made about taking control of our evolution, but totally spoiled it by mentioning abortion. That's a hot issue around these parts and this discussion will likely be totally derailed by it's discussion.

Personally, though steven on the "genetic destiny" issue, I have no problem with people weeding out characteristics or genes they consider undesirable for their child to have. Most people want their child to have some of their genes if possible and so the total genetic diversity is unlikely to diminish. The only genes likely to reduce in frequency are the ones that cause major pathologies, and I honestly don't think they'll be missed.

Fascinating.

There is still, to the best of my knowledge, a religious sect that believes in divine destiny to the point where they refuse medical attention, believing that whatever happens to the patient is "God's will".

This seems to me to be the only possible place from which to attack the increasing use of technology to influence the "outcome" of the gestation of a human being. From anywhere else, it is hypocrisy, pure and simple.

Medical interventions can themselves result in unhappy human beings. Who can forget the flood of thalidomide victims back in the '60s? What "rights" did we exercise then, over the fate of those children? Who here would willingly trade their own lives to live as they did?

And if we are prepared to condone medical treatment after the event, but not extend the same principle to prevention of the problem in the first place, is that not a perfect example of double standards?

The Guardian gets all po-faced about "designer babies", as if that is automatically a bad thing. Why is it not a real consideration that this might just be nature's way of providing us with the tools for the survival of the human race itself?

Progress was never created by reactionaries, always by revolutionaries. It seems to me to be a totally valid argument that we should, having been given the intelligence to create the tools for safe and selective procreation, that we implement them as soon as we possibly can.

If the result is fewer, smarter, healthier, more attractive people inhabiting the earth, then that surely can't be all bad.

In fact, the more I think about it, the more I see it as becoming compulsory.

Bring it on.

Knowledge is power. Or as Romany would say, "Education, Education, Education!" I firmly believe that the better educated a woman is in preparing for her pregnancy, the better equipt she is to handle it.

Knowing exactly what's happening to her body and why, is vital. Better informed, better prepared. Better result.

With those thoughts in mind, why wouldn't she want to know if the child she's carrying is deformed in any way? If the technology is available, why wouldn't the parents of the child use it?
Then at least they know as to the choices open to them.