IVF

Should the Government Ban Parents Using IVF from Picking Their Kid's Eye Color?

There is no compelling ethical reason to limit this exercise of reproductive liberty.

|

BabyBlueEyesZoltanNagyDreamstime
Zoltan Nagy/Dreamstime

Prospective parents using the IVF services provided by clinics associated with the Fertility Institutes company can have their embryos screened for genes associated with over 400 hereditary diseases, as well as gender determination and even eye color. Despite the objections of some bioconservatives, it is now generally agreed as a matter of reproductive liberty that it is ethical for parents availing themselves of assisted reproductive technologies to screen for genes that confer higher risk for hereditary diseases, and then select those without the traits for implantation.

Researchers are now developing and deploying screening tests that take into account the interactions of hundreds of genes that increase the risks of disease conditions like aetherosclerosis or diabetes. The Wall Street Journal reports that the company Genomic Prediction has just begun offering its Expanded Pre-Implantation Genomic Testing for just such polygenic disease risks.

Sex selection of embryos with the goal of avoiding sex-linked hereditary diseases is now, for the most part, also ethically uncontroversial. The American Society for Reproductive Medicine notes that there is no ethical consensus with respect to non-medical sex selection. It is, however, noteworthy that a 2017 survey of several hundred American IVF clinics reported that 72.7 percent of the clinics offered sex selection. And among those clinics offering sex selection, 93.6 percent of them reported performing sex selection for family balancing, and 81.2 percent reported performing sex selection for elective purposes (patient preference, regardless of rationale for the request).

One often expressed concern is that pre-implantation sex selection will skew male-female population sex-ratios. Certainly, this effect has been well-documented in some traditional cultures in which techniques such as sex-selected abortions have been used to favor the birth of male children. However, there is very little evidence that such strong preferences for male children exist in many industrialized countries. For example, a 2006 survey of Americans probing their views on sex selection reproductive technologies found that 50 percent wished to have a family with an equal number of boys and girls, seven percent wanted more boys than girls, six percent wanted more girls than boys, five percent wanted only boys, four percent only girls, and 27 percent had no preference.

If using pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) to select embryos to avoid disease and to choose the sex of future children is ethical, what about other characteristics? As an example of what may soon be possible, The Journal cites an ethical conundrum posed by Stephen Hsu, a founder of Genomic Prediction.

An IVF doctor has two healthy, viable embryos and must choose which to implant. One has a hypothetical risk score that indicates the embryo is at high risk for struggling academically in school. The second embryo has a score indicating the future child likely won't struggle. Do you tell the parents?

"It seems ethically not defensible to withhold the information from the parents," he says, "and ethically defensible to reveal it to them."

Hsu is right: Withholding information that might be relevant to a person's reproductive decisions would be clearly unethical.

Not everyone agrees. For example, Josephine Johnston, director of research at the Hastings Center bioethics think tank, tells the Journal that she recognizes that parenting often comes with "the understandable desire to give your child advantages," like height, or musical talent. However, allowing parents to select among IVF embryos for such traits, she adds, "can seem awfully close to a eugenic mind-set, where we thought we can sort the worthy and fit from the unworthy and unfit." In addition, she argues that selecting against gene combinations that increase disease and disability risks, and in favor of those that confer health or psychological benefits, would risk increasing societal prejudice against people who are currently disadvantaged by diseases and disabilities through no fault of their own.

Allowing parents using IVF to test for and choose gene combinations that have a greater chance of endowing their prospective children with benefits like health and academic success is not ethically comparable to the state-mandated eugenics programs that involuntarily sterilized some 60,000 citizens in the United States (not to mention the Nazi horrors). In fact, legally forcing them to forego such testing is an exercise of state-mandated eugenics, since the government is deciding for parents what sorts of offspring they will be allowed to have.

But what about allowing parents to choose among IVF embryos for such apparently incidental genetic traits like eye color? The Journal cites a couple who availed themselves of such testing offered by a Fertility Institute clinic. The testing indicated that in a group of five of their embryos, one would be likely to have blue eyes.* The couple pointed out that testing for eye color is just one more thing once they've already started looking at an embryo to rule out diseases. As it happens, the couple has decided to start their family the old-fashioned way, allowing the random combination of their genes to determine their offspring's eye color. In any case, if the screening technology is safe and effective, there is no compelling ethical reason to limit this exercise of reproductive liberty.

*Aesthetically speaking green, hazel and brown eyes are superior, but some of my best friends dauntlessly endure the burden of blue eyes.

Advertisement

NEXT: TSA Confiscates Bullet-Shaped Ice Cubes, Even Though Unusable Bullets Are TSA-Approved

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Sex selection of embryos with the goal of avoiding sex-linked hereditary diseases is now, for the most part, also ethically uncontroversial.

    So… what if they just want a boy?

    1. If Mad About You is a valid reference, then this technology has been around since the 90s.

      1. Well after raising a child with another man in the ’80s without even bothering to test for paternity, Paul could be forgiven for moving to the opposite extreme for his second sitcom offspring.

        1. I want this to be funny, but I feel you referenced yourself into a corner.

    2. Is Diane making a response to Bailey or to a Peter Schwartz article about NAMBLA?

  2. I don’t want to live in a world where my beautiful blue eyes are something common.

    1. Shouldn’t everyone have blonde hair and blue eyes? I heard that once somewhere.

      1. Sure. That’s fine. I have dirty blonde hair, so that’s different enough for me.

        1. Since you are 6′ 8″, I don’t think you ever have to worry about not standing out in a crowd. Also, you should to go Japan and take pictures of yourself riding the train during rush hour.

    2. Shouldn’t everyone have blonde hair and blue eyes? I heard that once somewhere.

      1. And we heard it twice here.

  3. “”However, allowing parents to select among IVF embryos for such traits, she adds, “can seem awfully close to a eugenic mind-set, where we thought we can sort the worthy and fit from the unworthy and unfit.””

    A lot of people don’t seem to understand why 20th century eugenics was bad. 20th century eugenics was bad because it involved forcefully sterilizing and murdering people. Choosing an embryo for implantation which is likely to have a higher IQ is technically “eugenics” but unlike 20th century eugenics it doesn’t involve violating someone’s personal autonomy and hurts no one.

    Using the word “eugenics” in this situation is just a scare term that totally ignores why things like Buck v. Bell were bad policy

    1. It’s no more ‘eugenics’ than to allow people to select their reproductive partners in a non-random fashion.

      1. Well, I bet that the progressive SJWs have a plan to impose some egalitarian order on THAT aspect of human relations nbn shops…

        1. Relationships… (Damn phone…)

    2. But Eugenics is scary. What do you have against a good fright?

  4. Since the 1972 LP platform plank that became Roe v Wade lets women and doctors decide–not Fuehrers and fascisti with guns–many reproductive issues were happily freed from State planning. One of the roots of the Nazi horror is the ethical definition of altruism as the good, from their slogan to their death camps. Altruist collectivism elbowed aside freedom of choice and love of a flourishing life as the separation between good and evil. Selfishness was culturally associated with jewishness back before DNA was even chemically understood. To wipe out selfishness to make the world safe for blonde christian altruism was a step further than American eugenicists had gone when Teddy Roosevelt worried about “race suicide,” but the direction was the same. This similarity in kind of motivation was what the defense quoted at Nuremberg, citing Oliver Wendell Holmes in a bid for lighter sentences. Those trials were still news when Ayn Rand wrote the Non-Aggression Principle underlying the LP.

  5. I predict that Government Almighty will forbid selecting blastocysts for higher intelligence… They will SAY that it is to keep the lower-IQ folks in good company, and not discriminated against, but the REAL reason why they’ll want to do this, is to protect Government Almighty from an onslaught of more intelligent voters, who would vote Libertarian, and take an AXE to the size of Government Almighty!!!

    1. +1

    2. Not only that, but without a large pool of people with double digit IQs, the government would be unable to find any employees.

      1. Einstein did his best stuff when he was working as a patent clerk.

        1. Way to spoil a meme.

  6. Leaving defective infants exposed was ethically uncontroversial in ancient Sparta for similar utilitarian rationalizations. It does not mean it was not a terrible practice.

    1. That was a different time, as is well documented about historical Sparta. A child born with unimpressive abs would have had no chance at surviving the harsh green screen conditions.

    2. The movie was pretty persuasive to the contrary.

      1. It was propaganda.

    3. “Leaving defective infants exposed was ethically uncontroversial in ancient Sparta…”

      This kind of thing was fairly common in many primitive societies. In Iceland (I have studied the history there a wee tad) the pre-Christian Vikings did the same. As Iceland Christianized, there was (at least) 2 sticking points that almost led to civil war between Thor-Odin followers and the new Christians… Eating horse meat was one; leaving unwanted offspring exposed was another. The new Christians “let it slide” for a while on both of these things (and more?), for a while, in the name of peace!

      1. Christians need every young boy they can get!

      2. Well we all know what happened to Thor from the last Avengers

    4. I can see Cory Booker doing this.

    5. Pretty common practice in the ancient world. Indigenous populations often did this. The more collectivist a society is, the more this is common.

      Collectivists are uncomfortable with anything out of the norm. Some societies even sacrificed twins, because they were not the norm.

  7. Researchers are now developing and deploying screening tests that take into account the interactions of hundreds of genes that increase the risks of disease conditions like aetherosclerosis or diabetes.

    Fat lot of good these analyses and screens are gonna do. “Look, if you don’t want your kid to suffer from CAD, you really should’ve been born Asian rather than Nordic.”

  8. An IVF doctor has two healthy, viable embryos and must choose which to implant. One has a hypothetical risk score that indicates the embryo is at high risk for struggling academically in school. The second embryo has a score indicating the future child likely won’t struggle. Do you tell the parents?

    If we agree that academic success is determined through genetics by a significant percentage, doesn’t that open the door for all sorts of justifications to get the government involved to level the playing field?

    1. I’m just sad to see that Bailey is apparently a Charles Murray-esque monster. Trying to lead some eugenicist charge that genetics and intelligence might have any causal link.

      1. I can’t tell if this is sarcasm.

        However, it is indisputable that IQ is a heritable trait.

        1. The best estimates ive seen are that if you dont have a very negative environmental issue (eating lead, mercury poisoning) that IQ is ~80% heritable.

          Of course those few, rare environmental inputs can throw some individual cases way out of whack. Like take you from average to mentally retarded. So we shouldn’t ignore them.

          Education, parenting, etc seem to be negligible inputs.

          Interestingly, there was a study I read a while back that indicated a full 15 point boost for IQ in children whose mothers took iodine supplements during pregnancy. it was a very small sample though, so I’m a little suspect.

    2. It really makes some assumptions that raw intelligence is something a genetic test can accurately measure and how important it is without other factors to academic success.

      “Sorry, folks, your kid is hyperintelligent but he has the motivation of a jellyfish, so that why he’s a mediocre student. Unfortunately, we did not test for laziness.

    3. Eenie meenie miney moe?

  9. Just to be clear, does this involve “destroying excess embryos”? If so, from my standpoint the article buries the lede.

    A laboratory doesn’t have a womb, so it cannot defend the killing of embryos under a theory of “my body, my choice.” More like “my test tube, my choice,” which doesn’t really rally the SJWs, does it?

    I’d propose a Dr. Frankenstein Rule that if you create a human being in a laboratory, then whoever owns the laboratory is the legal guardian of that human being, with all the responsibilities of a guardian, including not killing the ward. If guardianship is transferred to a family, it should be under the same conditions as the original guardianship, including not killing the ward.

    1. Just to be clear, does this involve “destroying excess embryos”? If so, from my standpoint the article buries the lede.

      with all the responsibilities of a guardian, including not killing the ward.

      Hmm… does maintaining integrity until or past viability constitute killing? What about implantations with a high likelihood of failure? The embryos needn’t be destroyed, they could be stored until they’re no longer viable. Alternatively, it’s not at all unusual to implant several embryos (or even several rounds) and only have one or two (or sometimes 8) successfully gestate.

      With IVF, you don’t have to kill the embryos in order to collect enough genetic material to do the testing. You don’t have to do it with naturally conceived children either it’s just much harder without the embryo in a dish.

      1. I’ll lay my cards on the table – if an IVF center cannot operate without killing off “excess” embryos or letting them die off, then so much the worse for the IVF center, it shouldn’t be operating.

        1. I’m not exactly opposed to your notion. It would seem that both logic/logistics and morals align with the notion that there should be a good faith effort to get all the embryos implanted, if not at least afforded the opportunity to implant. Fertilizing unwanted eggs is a waste, storing unwanted embryos is a waste, and, IMO, the latter option of implanting eggs as abundantly as possible falls well within notions of saving lives, doing no harm, and ‘being fruitful and multiplying’.

          An IVF center *could* operate without “killing off” excess embryos. I have my own notions about whether they should and tend to leave it up to others to act on their notions.

          1. How about the concept that IVF, especially if one, or both, of the gametes involved, are from a parent, who is unable to conceive on their own, is perpetuating a genetic condition, that nature was addressing, through denying it be carried on to the next generation?
            IVF is messing with the natural evolution of the human species.
            Some people can’t have kids. They should adopt if they really want to be parents.
            But an artificial end-around of genetic flaws short-circuits nature’s ability to weed out that which is preventing the reproduction.

      2. “The embryos needn’t be destroyed, they could be stored until they’re no longer viable.”

        To be clear, does this mean they are in frozen petri dish and age out so they can’t survive in a womb, or does it mean they just die off?

        1. The former would be the more scientific interpretation of the phenomenon, the latter would be the more religious one.

          If you take a fertilized embryo and perfectly preserve it so that it never loses viability but you never implant it, have you killed it? Sounds like a purgatory situation, but I’m no expert.

          1. “Sounds like a purgatory situation, but I’m no expert.” … I approve of your humility! I try to stay appropriately humble most of the time as well…

            I myself have been trying my hardest to reach the experts in the afterlife, on such matters. I have had absolutely NO luck on ferreting out God… He seems intent on hiding!

            However, I have a lead on Satan! If you want to contact Satan for an expert opinion here, then try this:

            Satan J. Trump
            1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW.
            Washington, D.C. 20500

          2. I’d be happy to be held to my own proposal – would it be consistent with the duties of a guardian to keep the ward literally frozen indefinitely and denied the chance for natural human development?

            This would be a matter of the law of guardianship – and you can use “religious” as an epithet all you want.

    1. Definitely no.

      1. Definitely maybe. The book, not the movie.

  10. What kind of horrible people will decide which of their children gets to have a life based on what eye color they have? Should such people reproduce in the first place?

    1. No! We need to run genetic tests on ALL new blastocysts to detect and root out, all such potential-future “…horrible people will decide which of their children gets to have a life based on what eye color they have”!!!

      And if perchance, American female tourists travel overseas to become implanted with such monster-babies, bypassing USA rules and laws, then all fertile-age USA women returning from overseas, must be tested for the presence of monster-babies, via forced amniocentesis, and if they do have implanted monster-babies, they must have forced abortions!

      1. I am not saying the babies are monsters. I am saying the parents who would base such a decision on something so trivial are monsters.

        1. Monsters? If my parents gave me blue eyes in vitro instead of grey, I should consider them monsters?

          Giving me baloney sandwiches with mayonnaise would be be more monstrous

    2. Wait until they can just tweak for anything they want. You’re gonna see a hella lot of Japanese babies with round blue eyes. I don’t even want to think about attached vs. detached lobes…

      1. I’d rather see that than a bunch of tattoos.

  11. Eventually custom embryos will be the norm. But in the meantime, we can have fun imagining the statist outrage that parents might pick a trait (say, blue eyes or red hair) which increase susceptibility to skin cancer by .00001%.

    1. Eventually custom embryos will be the norm.

      By the time this is the norm biological enhancements will be obsolete.

  12. Only government Top. Men. are wise enough to be allowed to practice eugenics. /sarc

  13. Yes.

    Select embryos for eye color, if that is your want.

    I have green eyes, so I have no dog in this fight.

  14. Ah, the eugenics future, where you ask a doctor to create a bunch of kids for you, and list off their traits so you can pick the one you want. Then you execute the rest for not being good enough.

    That is the “ethical” future you envision and advocate for Bailey. What a beautiful world.

    I’ve got an ethical conundrum for you: There are a lot less people willing to advocate this than there are babies that will be executed if it is enacted. So, from a utilitarian perspective wouldn’t it make sense to just execute every one of you we can find? Much less loss of life, eh?

    1. And this is all based on treating a blastocyst (which has no nervous system) like a real human. This is like treating an acorn as if it was a full-grown oak tree.

      Theft of full-grown hardwood trees is a real problem in the real world… The tree thieves know you are on vacation for a week, and move in… And can make thousands, even tens of thousands, of dollars, by stealing your tree (cut it up for wood). Would you punish one who stole an acorn from your property, the same as you’d punish the tree thieves?

      1. Acorns and oak trees have the same moral value in our society. Your analogy does not say what you think it says.

        1. No, I think anyone who seriously proposes that the acorn thief deserves the same punishment as the tree thief is a blind, blithering idiot. The same is true of those who want to punish blastocyst-murderers or blastocyst rejectors (for freezing them forever and not bringing them to term) the same as murders of born children and adults… These are blind, blithering idiots also.

          Till God or Nature or Karma or Evolution (or some other “boss”) tells us who has a soul, and who doesn’t, all we are left with is moral intuition. My moral intuition tells me the above.

          1. “Till God or Nature or Karma or Evolution (or some other “boss”) tells us who has a soul, and who doesn’t, all we are left with is moral intuition. My moral intuition tells me the above.”

            Yay relativism. Except my morality and intuition and reason all tell me you are wrong and are supporting murder… So where do we go from here?

            1. Put it up for a vote, and live with the results… It’s the best we can do for now. It ain’t perfect, but I see nothing better in sight.

              1. And why should I agree to this? My morals, my God, my intuition, all tell me this is wrong. None of them say “take a vote and whoever has the most people agreeing with them is right”

                1. You don’t have to agree to it. You’re free to use persuasion all day long, so long as people agree to listen. After that, use force at your own risk… Other people (and groups of people, AKA governments) may very well use counter-force in return. Are the blastocycsts of other people worth it to you, to start a fight? Your call, of course…

                  Self-righteous people throughout the ages have “heard God”, and all that “God” seems to want to say is, “Go ye and slay the infidels and unbelievers” And these same self-righteous folks can never seem to find the time and patience to sit quietly and humbly long enough, to hear the OTHER type of God, who says, “Go ye and love your neighbor, as VERY best you can, and do NOT start fights with them, unless there is NO other choice at hand, and then do that, only after LONG and careful pondering.” … Even atheist Isaac Asimov was wise enough to say, “Violence is the last refuge of incompetents”.

                  1. You miss the point. Why should I persuade murderers to not murder? Why not use other, more definitive means like force? Why should I agree to your rules at all? Morality is relative and your “persuasion” and “voting” are anathema to me. Why would I even play your game?

                    1. OK, go murder some abortion doctors if you are hell-bent on that. Don’t come crying to me for bail money though!

                    2. Ok, so we are to brute force then. So, he who has the conviction and strongest army sets the rules? So much for the NAP?

                    3. You, not me, leaned in with…

                      “Why not use other, more definitive means like force?”

                      Your God, not mine, seems to be the one taking issue with the NAP here…

                    4. I said that I do. Not God. As to your God, there is only one true God. since you’re arguing as though yours is fine with infanticide, I’d have to wonder, what do you worship, moloch?

                    5. “… there is only one true God….” Says who? All that we can know in the here and now, is that no two persons on this Earth conceive of God in exactly the same way… We all carry a different “God” in our heads. The “God” in my head says don’t tell other people what to do, unless it is an absolute emergency, and evil-doing must be prevented, and there is NO other reasonable choice. And that’s just talking about telling them what to do, let alone using force!

                      In short, my God tells me to mind my own business, and to encourage other people to do the same. It works better in the long run, than screaming and yelling and bossing, and pointing guns at people.

                    6. 1. Cosmological argument is my response
                      2. The Magesterium and anyone following it have a uniform concept of God. Which is a lot of people.
                      3. I get it, you worship moloch. More sacrifices must be made, who am I to question your paltry deity’s need for blood, amirite

          2. An acorn and an oak tree may very well have different material value, but they have the same moral value. The material value is important in judging the harm done to me by the theft, but the moral harm was done to me , not the acorn or the oak. The acorn and the oak are not moral ends in themselves, unlike humans.

        2. I think he is arguing that unborn humans are property, and lack any rights, just like acorns and trees. That’s the only real conclusion you can try to draw from that ridiculous comment.

          Not that he backs it up with anything.

          1. Answer the question, then, Smart Guy. Would you punish one who stole an acorn from your property, the same as you’d punish the tree thieves? If not, why not? Any then why does my analogy not hold water?

            1. PS, I’d be OK with blastocycsts and acorns and trees all being Sacred Property or Divine or having souls in your mind, I’m OK with all of that. I just hate to see disproportionate justice, and waste of court time and money. Fine the acorn-thief $0.25 and the tree thieves $35,000 or some jail time or both. And punish the blastocycst-murderers with a $5.00 fine and move on!

            2. I didn’t answer it because surely you are aware of what is wrong with it. Are children economic property to be sold on the market? They aren’t the same and so they are treated not the same.

              For example, let’s compare a sapling oak with a toddler. If you steal the sapling you will be faced with the fine based on a projected value of the sapling, which is not necessarily the same as if you had cut down a fullgrown oak tree. Its much less.

              Now wise guy, under your retarded example we would punish a man who kidnaps a toddler less than we would had they kidnapped a 30yo and drastically less than if they kidnapped an elderly person.

              See how stupid your analogy is now?

              1. Blastocycts aren’t children, and more than acorns are trees. One has a nervous system, and one does not. And there’s a TON of other differences!

                I can buy unfertilized eggs on the market, and women are paid to have them harvested. Are those who dicker in these markets horrible sinners also?

                1. I explained why they are treated differently. You are discussing theft of a piece of property, whose punishment is value based. An acorn is WORTH LESS than a sapling which is worth less than a mature tree, which is worth less than an ancient tree.

                  THE DIFFERENCE IS THE VALUE. THE PRICE. If an acorn had as much economic value as a fullgrown oak you’d face the same punishment as a full grown oak. It tiers as they mature IN PRICE.

                  1. Now compare that with humans. We don’t punish you less if you kill a 1yo than an 80yo.

                    Now, apply your analogy to the growing little kid in someone’s womb.

                    You can’t buy and sell people because it is immoral. So it would stand to reason that selling embryos is also evil and should be banned

                  2. OK then, I’d be OK with a $5.00-fine for disrespecting the growth potential of a blastocycst. $5 per each blastocycst wouldn’t be that hard to absorb for those who deal in such assisted reproductive technologies, as expensive as they are! And the $5 fine could be accompanied by a short pamphlet explaining how much of a sinner the user of such “tech” is, and all of us righteous folks could feel good about it… The bad deeds HAVE been punished!

                    Where would YOU set the punishment level?

                    1. Murder is murder. I dont lower or raise the punishment based on age.

                    2. “Distrust all those in whom the urge to punish is strong.”

                      ? Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

                      Too many people and too many societies get too many big boners about punishing and justice, and they forget all about mercy.

                      “For judgment is without mercy to the one who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment.” James 2:13.

                      People WILL disobey any rules you care to make up! And then you have to decide, is all this punishment worth the costs?

                    3. People will commit murder. Is it really worth the cost of punishing them? People will commit theft. Is it really worth punishing them? Rinse and repeat, ad nauseam.

                      As to mercy, in the Christian sense, which you are abusing here, why not take a minute to actually learn what the term means.

                    4. What you call mercy is not mercy, it is a perversion. Here’s the Venerable Fulton Sheen on the topic.

                    5. Matt 23:23 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices?mint, dill and cumin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law?justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. 24 You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.”

                      Don’t be counting exactly 10% of each and every little herb-type you grow in your garden, like a bean-counter, and thinking that’s what’s needed. A bigger part is MERCY, meaning less punishments. I looked for a Jesus quote that even better expresses “Stop worrying so much about justice & punishment, & worry more about mercy”, but I can’t find more and better ones… I doubt that you are going to change your mind anyway. You are counting blastocycsts like a bean-counter, and ignoring the bigger picture of MERCY, less punishments, in the same way as the Pharisees bean-counted their herbs. Think about it if you have any open mind at all, please…

                    6. Are you insane? you literally are twisting the meanings of words and passages from the scripture in order to suit you. That is what the pharisees were accused of. Even in your own quote He specifically points out that they neglected justice in order to only pay the bare minimum.

                      It’s a passage about being just and merciful, and doing so in a fashion greater than the law requires. That doesn’t mean abandoning the law, or justice, it means fulfilling it.

                      You’re twisting the words of Jesus to fit your desires and then accusing those who seek to apply justice and mercy of being bean counters at a tithe. As if we need to sacrifice more children. Are you sure you don’t worship Moloch? Because you could be a high priest of him.

                    7. Blastocyst = child? Are YOU insane?

                      You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.

                      Matthew 7:5

                      In the face of nuclear wars and trade wars and the collapse of the fed-guv due to deficit spending, and stupid shooting wars, over-regulation, licensing preventing people from doing honest work, and all flavors of human inhumanity to humans, you focus on blastocysts!

                      If these are not specks in your brothers’ eyes, then what is?

                    8. Yeah, how dare I think the sacrifice of millions of children to moloch every year is anything compared to the government having a deficit. How dare I place the inhumanity of child sacrifice above the inhumanity of licensing law.

                      It’s not human as long as I call it something else. Then I can ignore my duties to justice, mercy, charity. Talk about being a pharisee. Wow dude. You might want to look at that spec in your eye. It’s gotta take a lot to ignore it.

                    9. I see that calm, cool, and rational, proportional thought is beyond you. To quote you…

                      “Keep on smoking what you’re smoking.”

                      Just FYI, MeThinks that what you are smoking, is self-righteousness. When is the last time you went to help change the diapers of the 3 or 5 children (some retarded in some cases) of a single mother, in hopes to relieve the pressures she feels towards aborting her next child? THAT would be the Christian thing to do, instead of advocating more guns to be pointed towards more folks’ heads, who have disobeyed what YOU think they should do, and not do!

                      Gentleness and kindness will out-perform force and violence in the end, and the threats thereof, mark my words…

                    10. When was the last time I did that? I dunno, I’ve been busy having kids, changing their diapers, and not aborting them. You know, that “remove the plank from your own eye” stuff you I insincerely posted.

                      But as to the last time I talked with a pregnant single girl about not aborting her kid, that was last week. I opened my home to her and am giving her a place to stay. So, now that we have established that I’m not the straw man you imagine…

      2. Uh, yeah… sure. Keep on smoking what you’re smoking. it is definitely not harming your intellectual faculties.

    2. Ah, the eugenics future, where you ask a doctor to create a bunch of kids for you, and list off their traits so you can pick the one you want. Then you execute the rest for not being good enough.

      That is the “ethical” future you envision and advocate for Bailey. What a beautiful world.

      As I mention above and has been covered in the endless abortion debates, we don’t consider a ‘conventional fertilization’ with a failure to implant to be an execution. So, there’s nothing stopping the doctor from fertilizing a few embryos, separating the desirables from the undesirables, and implanting the undesirables under conditions with a low probability of successfully implanting and the desirables under high probability conditions. Good faith efforts are made, do no harm is observed, and children/embryos that previously had no chance at achieving humanity are given a chance.

      1. Because that isn’t analogous to making the embryos and then just waiting for them to die, rather than implanting them.

    3. Executed? So you’re in favor of reversing Roe v Wade?

  15. Three generations of brown eyes are enough.

  16. But, but, but, but- You’re allowing the parents to kill the innocent unwanted blastocyst *person*! The government should force the couple to implant *all* the embroyos, viable or not. God will choose!!

    1. You’re allowing the parents to kill the innocent unwanted blastocyst *person*! The government should force the couple to implant *all* the embroyos, viable or not. God will choose!!

      It’s not either/or. Even with IVF and genetic markers children with brown eyes are going to be born into conditions that selected against it.

  17. Reproductive choice should be left to our ruling elites.
    They’ve been to college and know a lot of shit.
    When have they ever failed the American people?

    1. Yes, and ***ANY*** higher degree, even one in theology, will allow you to declare yourself to be an “expert bioethicist”, and draw down the big bucks and get consulted! Bioethics experts know what is best for us peons and our progeny!

  18. Reproductive liberty… Is that the new politically correct buzz phrase for eugenics?

  19. Fair skin is awful in America in 2018 when most people are gravitating towards the Sun Belt.

  20. > “It seems ethically not defensible to withhold the information from the parents,” he says, “and ethically defensible to reveal it to them.”

    Unless it’s a FATHER and the “information” is the fact that the child isn’t his. Then “best interest of the child” becomes the standard. (More like the best interest in the whore of a mother that wants a wallet)

    1. Amen Kyfho Myoba I hear you!!!

      In the face of blastocycst-worshippers… So long as the blastocycsts are HUMAN and not monkey, ape, gorilla, cetacean, yada-yada, with the human-blastocycst-worshippers having NOTHING to offer other than “moral intuition” at the end of the day, to distinguish between these categories, insofar as to which need to be worshipped, and which can be safely ignored… While I share your concerns, I must utterly throw up my hands in defeat, as to the chances that “society” will ever give your concerns a fair hearing!!!!

  21. As a general rule of thumb, if it’s legal for a parent to hire a doctor to make a modification in a child after birth, it should be legal for a parent to hire a genetic engineer to make that modification in the child prior to birth. Hence, parents in New Jersey can order a designer baby without a foreskin, but they cannot alter his sexual orientation. Changing gender is also legal here. For some strange reason, Americans take it for granted that parents might want to tinker with their kids’ sex lives/ reproductive systems but freak out when they consider changing an embryo’s eye color.

    1. Or some of us think all of that is wrong. Imagine if the news ran what you just said, rather than the blue eyes vs brown eyes headline.

  22. Finally we can have Khan Noonian Singh, as was foretold…

  23. The woman has a constitutional right to choose.
    This is settled law.
    (At least until Saturday)

  24. I don’t see a problem with this.

    However we are not that far away from the Brave New World scenario.

    With CRISPR/Cas custom germ line cells could be created.

    We can already fertilize and grow an embryo to at least the blastocyst stage.

    The recent lamb in the ziplock bag experiment pushed back the point where a uterus is no longer necessary to midpoint of pregnancy or less. It is early but we will get there. The gap between those stages will likely be closed at some point not too far away.

    Cloning is old tech already.

    Then what will we all be alphas? Will we grow people for certain tasks? We need gammas too.

  25. You mean – no compelling ethical reason apart from humans are not parental property.

  26. The only part of anything about medicine the government should be concerned about is false advertising

    Everything else is none of their damned business.

  27. As for selecting embryos for specific traits like intelligence, good looks, athleticism and long life:

    I have never once met expectant parents who said that they hoped that their child would be stupid, ugly, clumsy and short lived.

    If it’s possible to select embryos that are most likely to live long, happy and productive lives then what is the downside? If some of the most horrible hereditary diseases can be avoided then who will defend playing genetic roulette?

  28. The new Godwin’s Rule should be “Eugenics” since about 99.999% of the time people use the word they are using it incorrectly.

  29. There is no need to tolerate by picking your kids eye color. It is not immore. Every one need to learn more about this post. Kindly read best ivf clinic in Hyderabad India

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.