Designer Babies and the Destruction of Life.
I checked an old email account last night and to my amazement there read an email entitled Designer Babies in Singapore? (X1). I opened it and there was a letter informing of publication in The Straits Times. I had happened to miss the particular article and to my disgust it was about getting designer babies. The article, Get a Designer Baby If You Want to, was written by Andy Ho and was published on March 14, 2009.
Mr. Ho, who seems to propose more of a secular humanist perspective, rambles on and on about how good it would feel to choose your own child's traits, and have a child free of deformity; however, he neglects to mention that this process of genetic selection requires the screening and destruction of embryos. Moreover, as one ponders over the issue, this would seem more like a process of eugenics, and society or one's parents would deem whether one is fit to live. The process of genetic selection is a horrible crime against society and against God's plan for humanity. What is most horrendous about this act is when genocide is committed against people it is considered a crime against humanity, but when it is committed against those who have no voice; mainly the old and pre-born it is ignored. This process of selection will not improve society, but create more areas in which prejudice and discrimination can occur. Consider that it will be a form of social stratification and that those who cannot afford such a process would be at a constant disadvantage in a world where the genetically modified are seen as superior, or those who are naturally born will be discriminated against, as they don't have the modification deemed appropriate by society.
As I had mentioned earlier, I had received knowledge of this article via an email and the good Father who informed me wrote The Straits Times with a response. I will like to give a platform for you all to hear his words, as the Times lamely opted not to post his reply "due to space constraints"; nevertheless, they only presented one side of the issue. Please keep in mind that these words are a response to Andy Ho's article so you should have read the article linked above to get a full understanding of his words.
Designer Babies for a Brave New Singapore?
My letter concerns Andy Ho’s article in ST of 14 March, page A22, in your weekly Daedalus column on “the triumphs and challenges of science and technology”. I honestly could not believe what I read, though the facts related in the article were not new to me. What shocked me was the flippancy of the statement that concluded the article: “I say go get that olive-skinned, brown-eyed, squint-free, brunette baby girl with curls and no risk of breast cancer, if you feel you want to, regardless.”
I wonder: is he just trying to show us to what kind of bizarre choices this “triumph of science and technology” might lead? Or is he testing the water before moving on to proposing that these “enlightened” procedures would be good for Singapore?
I agree that there is no need to appeal to religious motives or to a gift-giver, or to be moralistic. A secularist, as Andy Ho apparently claims to be, could very well subscribe to humanistic instead of utilitarian principles – that actions are right and good insofar as they promote happiness. And humanistic principles are more than a matter of aesthetics or feelings; they refer to fundamental ethical choices that go beyond our “feeling good” about something, like about being a good parent.
“Design your own baby if you feel you want to, regardless”- regardless of what, I wonder or, better, regardless of whom? Is it not ultimately the baby who is concerned? What about his or her preferences, likes or dislikes? Why does the author limit himself to the freedom of parents to make both important decisions (like sex or reasonable assurance of “normality”) and trivial ones (like eye or hair colour)? Why not advocate that parents would be free to cancel the order of the product in case this offspring does not correspond to what they paid for, or sue the doctor for malpractice? By the same token, why not advance the idea that children would be entitled to sue their parents for having made the “wrong” choice, a preference that goes against one’s own liking? Or that "abnormal" children could sue their parents for having been born if they took the risk of giving birth with the possibility of a deformity (as in a 2001 French court case)?
In conclusion: the reasoning and arguments of the article are clever but misleading.
Links of Children Suing their Parents: http://childrenhaverights-saynotoreprotech.blogspot.com/2008/02/parents-sue-over-baby-manufacturing.html
Mr. Ho, who seems to propose more of a secular humanist perspective, rambles on and on about how good it would feel to choose your own child's traits, and have a child free of deformity; however, he neglects to mention that this process of genetic selection requires the screening and destruction of embryos. Moreover, as one ponders over the issue, this would seem more like a process of eugenics, and society or one's parents would deem whether one is fit to live. The process of genetic selection is a horrible crime against society and against God's plan for humanity. What is most horrendous about this act is when genocide is committed against people it is considered a crime against humanity, but when it is committed against those who have no voice; mainly the old and pre-born it is ignored. This process of selection will not improve society, but create more areas in which prejudice and discrimination can occur. Consider that it will be a form of social stratification and that those who cannot afford such a process would be at a constant disadvantage in a world where the genetically modified are seen as superior, or those who are naturally born will be discriminated against, as they don't have the modification deemed appropriate by society.
As I had mentioned earlier, I had received knowledge of this article via an email and the good Father who informed me wrote The Straits Times with a response. I will like to give a platform for you all to hear his words, as the Times lamely opted not to post his reply "due to space constraints"; nevertheless, they only presented one side of the issue. Please keep in mind that these words are a response to Andy Ho's article so you should have read the article linked above to get a full understanding of his words.
Designer Babies for a Brave New Singapore?
My letter concerns Andy Ho’s article in ST of 14 March, page A22, in your weekly Daedalus column on “the triumphs and challenges of science and technology”. I honestly could not believe what I read, though the facts related in the article were not new to me. What shocked me was the flippancy of the statement that concluded the article: “I say go get that olive-skinned, brown-eyed, squint-free, brunette baby girl with curls and no risk of breast cancer, if you feel you want to, regardless.”
I wonder: is he just trying to show us to what kind of bizarre choices this “triumph of science and technology” might lead? Or is he testing the water before moving on to proposing that these “enlightened” procedures would be good for Singapore?
I agree that there is no need to appeal to religious motives or to a gift-giver, or to be moralistic. A secularist, as Andy Ho apparently claims to be, could very well subscribe to humanistic instead of utilitarian principles – that actions are right and good insofar as they promote happiness. And humanistic principles are more than a matter of aesthetics or feelings; they refer to fundamental ethical choices that go beyond our “feeling good” about something, like about being a good parent.
“Design your own baby if you feel you want to, regardless”- regardless of what, I wonder or, better, regardless of whom? Is it not ultimately the baby who is concerned? What about his or her preferences, likes or dislikes? Why does the author limit himself to the freedom of parents to make both important decisions (like sex or reasonable assurance of “normality”) and trivial ones (like eye or hair colour)? Why not advocate that parents would be free to cancel the order of the product in case this offspring does not correspond to what they paid for, or sue the doctor for malpractice? By the same token, why not advance the idea that children would be entitled to sue their parents for having made the “wrong” choice, a preference that goes against one’s own liking? Or that "abnormal" children could sue their parents for having been born if they took the risk of giving birth with the possibility of a deformity (as in a 2001 French court case)?
In conclusion: the reasoning and arguments of the article are clever but misleading.
[By: Fr. Paul E. Staes, CICM]
Links of Children Suing their Parents: http://childrenhaverights-saynotoreprotech.blogspot.com/2008/02/parents-sue-over-baby-manufacturing.html
My brothers and sisters in Christ, I hope that both mine and Fr. Staes' writings have put some thoughts into your minds and perhaps moved you pray over the matter, or speak up on the subject. As I had written in my previous posting, we must be pro-life all the time. We must fight to protect life in all its forms; from creation to its natural end. We must pray for those around us, especially those deceived by erroneous opinions and we must always remember the ends do not justify the means.
Dominus Vobiscum.
Comments