andreas@innovative.se (Andreas Engstrom) wrote:
> What I'm getting at is the unfortunate tendency in our society to
> think of everything science has achieved in the most recent, say,
> thirty years, as "unnatural" and of everything else as "natural".
> Why isn't gene therapy "healthcare"? Because it's too new.
>
> I'm not saying that this is how _you_ think, just that it's
> a trend that worries me. The luddites are coming closer..
Actually, I view "natural" and "human" as the two categories -- with an
implicit recognition that humans are just the latest natural thing. There
is, no doubt, a blurred line between the two -- but I think it's a mistake
to lump them into the same basket, as humans have been traditionally (and
still are) basically at war with nature. We need to keep the line drawn so
that we don't overstep ourselves too much and provide for our own downfall
(through the implicit link between human and natural)
> Do you mean selective
> abortions based on the genetics of the foetus?
Sure. Even selective control of which sperm and eggs develop into fetus's
wouldn't be all bad -- although it is a bit "invasive".
> And how far were you
> willing to take it? In Sweden there is right now a debate about
> mothers who abort their children because they are female. It's not
> that common, but it does happen. Who would control the "selection"?
The first layer of control is definitely the mother -- as long as it's
inside her body, she has absolute control. I think that, given the
technology, it might be wise to have *all* fetus's tested in the early
going -- but the decision to abort or not (or whatever other options there
are) MUST remain in the woman's control.
ERiC