Consider This

On Tuesday, we talked about a few things that got myself thinking about alternatives and effects.  The potential aftermath must also be taken into account. 

We talked about the ability to choose characteristics for embryos and the possibility of regulating the selection process.  It is understandable why parents would go through all the testing and sorting to ensure the best quality life for their children and to give their children the best opportunities in life.  Although it would be beneficial since laws would prevent the uprising of a superior race and the abortion of fetus deemed “not favorable”, I feel that creating rules would not limit the ability to choose the physical characteristics and talents a child would have.  Many families, especially those who can afford it, would find alternatives in other countries.  An example of this was during the time preceding the Supreme Court Case Roe vs. Wade where women were not allowed to have abortions in the US but migrated to Mexico where abortions were not regulated.  The same would happen today if we discouraged parents from having their designer babies.

We also talked about genetic screening to see if people are carrier for different diseases and cancers.  However, while we mainly talked about screening of teenagers and adults as a result of family history, we forgot to mention the screening of pregnant women.  These screenings determine if the fetus is born with life threatening diseases or with genetic mutations and abnormalities.  This has thus greatly impacted the rate of abortion (1 out of 3 women will have at least 1 abortion, so in our class, 2 of us). The increased ability to get rid of the child we do not want actually negatively impacts the number of carriers for a certain disease.  Take for example a couple where both the male and the female are carriers for Tay-Sachs.  If we follow the Punnett Square logic, there is a 25% chance the baby will be born with Tay-Sachs and a 75% chance the baby will be born without Tay-Sachs.  But there is a 50% chance the baby will be a carrier and a 25% chance the baby will not be a carrier. If we compare this to a couple where one is a carrier and the other is not, there is a 50/50 chance of being a carrier and not being a carrier.  Suddenly, it seems like everyone has the gene to pass to his or her child!

(I would also like to comment on Mr. Bonamo’s question on insurance companies paying for genetic testing that he mentioned in his post.  With the introduction of genetic testing and screening, people would be more curious to know if they are a carrier for diseases.  As a result, insurance companies would be more selective about who they wish to insure and are likely to deny a person coverage if he or she has the oinka genes for cancer.  Whether or not this person actually has cancer would not matter anymore, but the potential to have cancer based on genetics is more important).