February 24th, 2009
Is there a meaningful difference between these two:
1. Selecting between two embryos for implantation, choosing the one that will turn into a baby with a disability instead of the one that will turn into a non-disabled baby
2. Genetically tinkering with an embryo such that it becomes disabled when it would not otherwise have been.
I’m not sure how to logically defend approving the former while preventing the latter, but my gut says that’s the way it should be. Does anyone have any ideas on this? Or even just thoughts in general on this topic?
I would say that there is no moral difference between those two situations. They differ in a matter of degrees, however in both cases a choice is being made by parents in regard to the abilities of their child.
A fun corollary (call it the Gattaca problem): Take dis-ability out of the equation and simply look at choosing between embryos with different levels of ability. What are the moral implications of the making of that choice?
Right. Yeah, that seems less problematic to me but not without problems. Maybe I’m just reacting to the newness of the idea but it seems sort of creepy to try and mess with the genes to make superbabies. Though, I would want to do it to my own embryo if I thought I had some kind of dread genetic disease that is guaranteed to be passed along and I want to save my kid from it.