Disturbing trend: Designer children designed to be disabled

I discussed a while ago about the possibility of genetic manipulation in the womb to modify genes linked to same-sex attractions. I argued against it, saying that it was wrong to “play God” in such a manner. Well, now I’ve come across an article quoting people arguing in favor of genetic manipulation to intentionally give unborn children disabilities. Wow.

For a number of years now, a great deal of discussion has taken place among scientists and in the popular media about the genetic engineering of children. Will it soon be possible, for prices widely affordable at least to the upper-middle class, to guarantee that children have a high IQ, or excellent athletic ability, or be over 6 feet tall, or have blond hair and blue eyes? Is it right to commodify children in this way, and have parents choosing options as they do with cars? And wouldn’t it be boring to live in a world someday where almost everyone is extremely intelligent and beautiful? Variety, or even the politically correct term “diversity,” is the spice of life.

But not everyone wants what seemed to be the three genetic engineering options: refrain and let nature take her course, attempt to repair genetic diseases but otherwise let well enough alone, or select positive qualities in children. There are parents who are deliberately ensuring that their children are born with disabilities, from deafness to dwarfism. A fourth option—inflicting permanent disabling conditions on children—is now being used.

For some years now, some deaf parents have refused to allow their deaf children to receive cochlear implants that would enable them to hear. The devices must often be implanted when children are very young in order to work, so such parents condemn their children to a lifetime of deafness when they could have been able to hear.

Some dwarf couples are even using in-vitro fertilization to create embryos in the lab, then killing the normal ones and implanting the ones with the dwarfness gene to ensure having a dwarf child .

In a Jan. 21, 2007 story, the Associated Press reported that, of American clinics it surveyed that perform embryo screening, 3% admit to screening in favor of disabilities. This story contains perhaps the most revealing statement on the question. It was uttered by a dwarf woman angered that anyone would dare suggest that deliberating inflicting permanent suffering on children is bad:

“Cara Reynolds of Collingswood, N.J., who considered embryo screening but now plans to adopt a dwarf baby, is outraged by the criticism. ‘You cannot tell me that I cannot have a child who’s going to look like me,’ Reynolds said. ‘It’s just unbelievably presumptuous and they’re playing God.’”

Funny to think that it’s playing God to say it’s wrong to use high-tech techniques to choose certain qualities in children rather than letting nature take her course. Isn’t intervening to choose a major genetic quality in your child much more like playing God?

It’s funny, we have some people using genetic screening to abort children with genetic abnormalities, while we have others destroying children without abnormalities. Seems to me like a simple trade would be in order. That’s the beauty of adoption: Lives can be saved and parents who are looking for a certain kind of child can find one. (For example, here’s a blog post containing pointers for people interested in giving children with Down’s syndrome a good home.) There’s no need to destroy life because it’s imperfect, or not imperfect enough as we’re finding now.

There’s an added wrinkle: what sort of parent would intentionally inflict a disability on their children? Being a parent is about giving your children the best you can, doing what’s best for them, not about making a photocopy of yourself. You want your kids to be better off than you are, not worse. A good friend of mine is “vertically challenged” and seeing what he has to go through just to do routine things, I can’t imagine intentionally inflicting that on someone. Even sitting in a chair takes effort for him. Driving requires special hookups to his pedals and many cars aren’t even an option for him, even with those extenders. How can a parent intentionally inflict that on a child?

We live in truly selfish times.

“Pot Is More Dangerous than LSD or Heroine”

Liberal UK Newspaper Apologizes for Efforts to Legalize Cannabis

The Independent on Sunday, a British newspaper notorious for its vigorous efforts to persuade the British government to decriminalize marijuana, has issued an apology for its previous position and announced that, due to new evidence concerning the dangers of cannabis, it will cease advocating decriminalization of the drug.

On March 18, The Independent published an article by writer Jonathon Owen in which Owen listed some of the more detrimental effects of pot use and informed readers the newspaper would no longer continue its campaign to decriminalize pot. Owen’s article, entitled “Cannabis: An Apology” lamented the newspaper’s previous decriminalization efforts and began with the subtitle: “In 1997, this newspaper launched a campaign to decriminalize the drug. If only we had known then what we can reveal today…”

Owen proceeded to summarize some of the newest data recently publicized in Britain on cannabis and the shockingly high numbers of users who are facing devastating consequences.

According to a separate Independent article written by Antonio Maria Costa, the executive director of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, “The cannabis now in circulation is many times more powerful than the weed that today’s ageing baby-boomers smoked in college. In the flower-power era, the concentration of THC, as the main psychoactive substance in cannabis is known, was typically 2 or 3 per cent. Present-day cannabis can contain 10 times as much.”

I’d always been kind of agnostic on marijuana legalization, but this does give me pause to reconsider that position. Some of the statistics in the linked article are surprising.

“Pot Is More Dangerous than LSD or Heroine”

Liberal UK Newspaper Apologizes for Efforts to Legalize Cannabis

The Independent on Sunday, a British newspaper notorious for its vigorous efforts to persuade the British government to decriminalize marijuana, has issued an apology for its previous position and announced that, due to new evidence concerning the dangers of cannabis, it will cease advocating decriminalization of the drug.

On March 18, The Independent published an article by writer Jonathon Owen in which Owen listed some of the more detrimental effects of pot use and informed readers the newspaper would no longer continue its campaign to decriminalize pot. Owen’s article, entitled “Cannabis: An Apology” lamented the newspaper’s previous decriminalization efforts and began with the subtitle: “In 1997, this newspaper launched a campaign to decriminalize the drug. If only we had known then what we can reveal today…”

Owen proceeded to summarize some of the newest data recently publicized in Britain on cannabis and the shockingly high numbers of users who are facing devastating consequences.

According to a separate Independent article written by Antonio Maria Costa, the executive director of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, “The cannabis now in circulation is many times more powerful than the weed that today’s ageing baby-boomers smoked in college. In the flower-power era, the concentration of THC, as the main psychoactive substance in cannabis is known, was typically 2 or 3 per cent. Present-day cannabis can contain 10 times as much.”

I’d always been kind of agnostic on marijuana legalization, but this does give me pause to reconsider that position. Some of the statistics in the linked article are surprising.

Quote of the Day

“[T]here is not a syllable in the plan under consideration which directly empowers the national courts to construe the laws according to the spirit of the Constitution.”

— Alexander Hamilton (Federalist No. 81, 1788)

Reference: Hamilton, Federalist No. 81 (482)

This is one of those historical points I’ve never understood. The consistent opinion of the Founders was that the Judicial branch wouldn’t be able to invalidate laws for violation of the Constitution, but they unilaterally declared they could in Marbury v. Madison, and it stuck. I’ve never understood that.