I would say though, if the pressure to give birth to well-above-average-ability children became immensely strong, *and* the technology to detect this only operated late in pregnancy (say, in the final 20 weeks), there might, for the first time, be a genuine case for laws protecting the "rights of the unborn". I certainly question whether it would be morally acceptable to abort a foetus that would otherwise be viable simply because testing revealed that it was unlikely to develop exceptional talents, particularly so since removing such a late-term foetus from the mother's uterus isn't usually in itself enough to terminate it.

However, again, if the pressure was strong enough, people might well do it anyway. Making it illegal may well only drive the practice on to the blackmarket and into backyard operations, which would surely be worse.

Perhaps a possible solution is to require parents to attend an informational session about the development stage of their foetus, and the exact details of the operation, complete with high-quality video likely to appeal to their protective instincts. That would surely keep to a minimum the number of parents that would still choose to go ahead with such a procedure. After all, how many parents would commit infanticide these days if they found out that their newborns had congenital defects?

Although wiz, what I was getting at is that even if the pressure was strong, abortion of foetuses because of non-pathology reasons, hoping for a better child next time is an extremely emotionally taxing and inefficient way of "enhancing" children. It is for these reasons, I believe that abortion is a non-issue for this kind of thing. However, it remains an issue for (and only for) genetic and developmental diseases.

Steven ,
If a woman wanted to produce children for childless couples she could well be prepared to spend some money ,if she could recoup it,on giving birth to an enhanced child.

No doubt the couple with the money that want the best will pay a lot more for their [almost] flawless baby .

The windfall may help her own "normal " children achieve success in their lives .

I think the idea is immoral, but then morality seems to be fast dissapearing into the bog under the weight of our consumerist society .

Steven, I did feel that the "how-to" of any enhancement program would contribute to the moral dimension of this debate, thus, I contacted Taylor.

Wizofaus and Bugsy,

You both present compelling arguments against abortion of non-optimal children.

Also, the window of opportunity for having a "normal" baby is rapidly narrowing as women are leaving it later to conceive. Fertility slowly declines from 26 yrs. Doctors warn that as soon women reach 30 yrs they should be intending to conceive. The risk of giving birth to a baby with abnormalites increases with age of the mother and amniocentesis is routinely performed when the mother reaches 35 years and above. This itself is not without risk to the mother and newborn, contributing deformities and alloimmunisation in the baby, even miscarriage. Prof. Bill Ledger, Sheffield University stated: "I spend too much of my life in clinics with very intelligent sensible woman who have left it until 40-something ... even with IVF they can't conceive." The chances of many women getting pregnant and carrying to term in their forties is small. Add this to the findings that possibly the age of the father at conception is now linked to problems, such as late- onset schizophrenia in the child.

Many couples may never have an "optimal" child anyway - how does one measure this in particular couples - and the risk of ending up with no child at all is a distinct possibility.

Even with enhanced abilities at birth, it doesn’t necessarily follow that the child will do well at school - there has to be a motive/stimulus. IQ capacity is certainly not maximised at school level. Einstein’s genius emerged later. If he had followed a different career path ...? Some people with very high IQ are often quite content not to “use” it, but just “go with the flow”.

cont ...

If the brain can be enhanced, it seems to me that, if possible, it would be better done later rather than earlier. When the teen - even older person - wants to follow a field, and makes their own decision to have IQ enhancement. This would also provide time to assess any undesirable traits a person might display, that would be abhorent if enhanced.

It is already possible to store a baby’s stem cells in a stem-cell bank.

It would be interesting to know the outcome of those children who are accepted into university at an early age because of proven “brilliance”. Maturity, distinct from IQ, is an important factor. Many mature age students often do far better than those who enter straight from school with top matriculation results

Danielle, I didn't feel I was trying to present an argument "against abortion of non-optimal children". Just trying to address the sort of moral concerns that might come up, and, more particularly, the best routes to addressing them. Even if I was 100% convinced that aborting a late-term foetus was morally equivalent to infanticide, I would strongly question whether criminalising the act was the correct response.