Gene Selection in Embryos

The category is better defined as "bioethics".

It should be acceptable for parents planning on having a child to perform gene-selection upon embryos.

The major benefit of embryonic selection is the ability to prevent genetic diseases from one's immediate offspring.

-I have kept my position light as to keep the debate open-ended. Take this position any-which way you prefer.

I don't necessarily agree. I understand that a parent would want to keep their child free of genetic disease, and I actually have a congenital disease.

However, it's like playing God. That's not okay in my eyes. It's Eugenics. It's what Hitler was trying to do and it's a little scary.

Thank you Democritas for entering the debate. I must say I do sympathize with your condition- and I stress that if it is a genetic disease, using a technique like gene-selection you could guarantee that your children can be born free from it.

Firstly as to your claim that embryonic selection is reminiscent to Nazism and eugenics- you have muddled various ethical and biological issues and are claiming different things to be the same. Eugenics is based mainly on scientific models and theories that with the emergence of new genetic information, have proven to be incomplete and faulty. It is undeniably true that embryonic selection for genetic enhancement can be used as a technique for eugenics; but the fact of the matter is that the only ones ever actually practiced (because of cost- efficiency- and intended results) have been euthanasia {like the Nazi's}, legal restrictions {like China's one-child policy}, and Sterilization {practiced in North America until 30 years ago- and on a mass scale in India}. Blaming gene-selection for the many ethical nightmares caused by the various misuses of eugenics is like blaming bullets and gunpowder for the atrocities of world war II- yes they played a part but their link is not a form of guilt by association. Gene-selection has never actually been used for eugenics purposes, and probably never could, since the process in expensive, limited in range and result, and invasive to the female body. Hopefully now you realize that eugenics is a separate and distinct issue from that of gene-selection- and that playing the Nazi card is a poor way to convince people (Hey Hitler used a comb! Combs must be wrong!- sorry- out of context and anecdotal).

Anyways back to the core issue: Gene selection. What does this mean? First eggs are harvested then fertilized, the result embryos then have their DNA sequenced. From the DNA sequences we can find out what genetic diseases may be present. The preferred embryo (preferred could mean many things: gender, lack of certain diseases, existence of certain traits or abilities ect.) is then selected, not altered, then implanted back into the mother in hopes of conception.

Only a few embryos are harvested, and those that are not used can even be frozen instead of being discarded. the process takes place before conception- so any right-to-life argument generally collapses, and finally the limited amount of results available from selecting embryos means that the choices being made are entirely focused on disease, gender, (and more far-fetched and unlikely) appearance & intelligence.
There is no possibility to create a "super-race", since we would not be capable of reproducing any more than a hand-full of healthy people (not super-strong Aryans like much fantasy has thought) due several factors I named above (expense, invasiveness, and limit of results).
This is why Gene-selection should be thought of as an acceptable practice.

Since Democritas has added nothing of value to the argument- and has also forfeited, the debate is unfortunately quite easily mine.....

I urge Democritas to write.....perhaps she has a legitimate reason for not responding, but you'd think 72 hours would me more than enough....oh well- my argument still stands.

Democritas, i hate to say it but your argument is an epic fail....