by Matt Barr

"Designer baby" issue isn't whether but how

To absolutely everybody's surprise, the Vatican is concerned that "screening embryos for disease before implanting them in in-vitro fertilization pose[s] grave ethical problems that could ultimately result in parents choosing the type of children they want." That's the AP's lead, and as we'll discuss, the kicker is probably a little off.

Scientists and doctors invited by the Vatican to speak said there were serious moral and ethical issues surrounding pre-implantation genetic diagnosis, known by its acronym PGD. In the procedure, a cell from an embryo is tested for genetic conditions and diseases, such as Downs Syndrome, sickle-cell anemia and cystic fibrosis.

If the embryo has the condition, it is typically discarded so that only healthy embryos are selected for transfer into the woman's uterus.

However, panelists warned that embryos could be tested for other traits deemed desirable for parents, such as a specific gender to ''balance'' out families.

There have also been cases where parents seek to have a child with specific non-diseased characteristics to help a diseased older sibling through tissue or organ donation, they said.

Ok, that last part is creepy, but there are definitely benefits to families, society at large and certainly the burgeoning children involved to avoid Downs Syndrome and sickle-cell anemia. This self-evident fact naturally leads all sorts of people to rag on the Vatican as backward theocons who don't care about quality of life and would condemn children to an existence wrought by disability (or, cleverly, smugly accuse the Vatican of favoring implanting diseased embryos).

(The link above includes this howler: Since 60 to 80 percent of all naturally convceived embryos are "discarded" during normal menstruation, "it's pretty hard to assert that human beings should be more careful of embryos than is Nature or, for believers, Nature's God." As commenters to the thread got out of the way early so they could concentrate on making fun of Catholics, even though probably roughly 60 to 80 percent of born human beings die of natural causes, we should still refrain from killing whomever we'd like. But doesn't the comparison depend on whether you think embryos and adults have the same right to life to work? Yes. Exactly.)

I think there's a distinction that doesn't matter to those whose point in the debate is to paint the Pope as a hypocritcal tyrant, but which is probably very relevant. Choosing traits for one's children, especially in the areas of predisposition to disease, intelligence, and other health and prosperity-impacting traits (maybe not so much gender and eye color), may very well be a good thing; in fact, to argue it's not you'd probably have to take refuge in a particular theology of whose privilege it is to bestow such traits on people.

But less clear, and less dependent on theology, is whether creating an embryo first, checking it for favorable traits, then discarding it if it doesn't measure up is the most humane way to do this. That it's the only way currently -- though it's hard to believe it will be for long -- doesn't mean the Vatican should just shut up about it.

Browse books from Amazon.com:
genetic+engineering liberation+biology