In an effort to piss people off
Here’s my take on the right-to-lifers and, somewhat by extension, folks who rally against selecting egg/sperm pairs based on (a) genetic compatibility, (b) physical characteristics, and (c) penchant for disease.
The whole argument is that you’re denying life. Right-to-lifers say that life starts at conception. Anti-genetic filtering-ers essentially say that life starts before conception.
Ok, taking those two pieces of information and assuming them as truth for purposes of a thought experiment, riddle me this [batman]. How many counts of murder should we charge an assailant with who kills a person (man or woman)? If the victim is a man, how many sperm could be created by that man that, by Anti-genetic-filtering-ers standards, is already life? And if the victim is a woman, the same question for her eggs. Now, extend that one step further. If even a single sperm or egg matures and becomes a living, breathing, walking human, how many sperm/eggs will that human create? And so on. We quickly see that the assailant should be charged with essentially infinite counts of murder. (For those who are confused and believe that there is a finite number, look up the mathematical term “limit” in your nearest pre-calculus book.)
This is wholly ungainly. Sure, the assailant has committed murder either way, and will face the stiffest penalty of the jurisdiction.
I do agree that the view held by some segments of our population – that looks at abortions like going to the dentist – is horrifying, but I also see that, in certain cases (rape, terminal illness, etc.) the parent(s) should be allowed a choice – assuming they pass a proper psychological screening and such.
As for genetic filtering, I think that selecting out certain genes – cancer (if determined), chrons, etc – is valuable and necessary for the survival of humanity.
So there. That’s my story, and I’m sticking to it.
