Have
you ever wished you looked different? Maybe you want a different eye color or
your teeth are really crooked. Maybe when you were a kid you were teased about
your freckles or when you fell off the tire swing your broken leg didn’t heal
quite right. Perhaps you were born with a “disability” or “deformity” and
always feel awkward about meeting new people. Maybe, like me, you learned to
talk around a stammering older brother and though he grew out of it, you never
have. Maybe there’s a quirk about you that you wish you could change. And
maybe, just maybe, you’ve thought about your own children and wondered if
they’ll have to deal with the same kind of stuff.
Advances
in genetic research have begun to open doors for couples who want to screen the
embryos (fertilized eggs) they produce. Pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (or
PGD), a technique developed to look for genetic diseases in embryos, can also
be used to determine the sex of the embryo. As science continues to advance,
people are looking forward to a time when hopeful parents can select more than
their child’s sex—they could select the physical traits of the child.
This
is not yet a possibility, and there are serious ethical implications of the
availability of such a procedure. Some on the “for” side of this issue argue
that human life does not begin until the implantation of the embryo in the
uterus. Others on the same side argue for the “14-day mark,” which is related
to the early development of the embryo. Because monozygotic twinning can occur
until the 15th day of the pregnancy, the embryo is not yet a human
fetus.
This argument
makes me pause. It makes sense to me. When I consider identical twins I know,
it is clear to me that they are two different people. If their lives began at
conception, wouldn’t they be two halves of one whole? Or which twin is the
“copy” of the person before the splitting? No, identical twins are genetic
clones, not halves of one whole. They are distinct people—each twin possesses
all the faculties of any other human being.
The argument
that centers on implantation for the beginning of life makes less sense to me
because the embryo itself does not have new properties, just a new location. In
the 14-day mark argument, the embryo matures until it can no longer split and
form an entirely new human being because the cells are differentiated past that
point.
To make the
ethical hubbub a little clearer, I need to emphasize that this is not like
ordering a Sonic burger. This is not selecting children from a menu of sex and
physical traits. This is producing several embryos in a lab using the couples’
eggs and sperm and then sending out the ones that do not meet the criteria. For
now, technology can only screen for genetic diseases and sex. The leftover
embryos—which could survive if allowed to be born, but are the wrong sex or
genetically damaged—are usually sent to labs for embryonic stem cell research.
Once they arrive there, they are destroyed in the process of removing their
stem cells.
In a new
development, though, a recent press release from the Advanced Cell Technology
Company claims that their researchers have found a way to harvest embryonic
stem cells without destroying the embryo itself. Instead, they use what they
call “single blast technology,” where they take one stem cell and use it to
produce more stem cells. This is similar to the PGD procedure that I briefly
mentioned earlier. In PGD, the DNA in that one cell is analyzed for genetic
diseases, which is possible because geneticists know where to look on the
chromosomes for the mutated gene.
This
new and less destructive possibility makes me stop and think again. If
embryonic stem cell research is ethically objectionable because the embryos are
destroyed in the process of harvesting the stem cells, then is it okay if the
embryos would not be harmed? But still, what would happen to all the leftover
embryos from in vitro clinics? Would scientists freeze them for later use? That
would probably not be a viable option because there are already hundreds of
thousands of embryos worldwide—where would we keep them all? Then again, they
probably wouldn’t take up very much space, so maybe a bank of catalogued
embryos would be a good human resource (literally). Then all we would need
would be artificial wombs and the human race would be set. I mean, if aliens
invade the planet, I know I would want a fallback, just in case.
If
the ethical concern of using human embryos for spare parts is avoided by the Advanced
Cell Technology Company’s technology, then all that remains between me and a
designer baby are twenty years of scientific advances and my own personal
beliefs. Since I have no control over the pace of science, I can only consider
my own reaction. The first question I ask is, “Is it ethical?” Well, if there
is no destruction of the extra embryos then I would answer with I don’t believe it’s unethical. The next
question I ask, though, is this: “Is it responsible?” Just because science can
do something, does that mean it should? If this technology is advanced and can become
available to the general public at an affordable price, should it be made
available? Should scientists and doctors give the choice to those with the
means of creating the child they dream of having?
It appeals to
me, but no. I prefer to let God be in charge of the life-making while I focus
on the homemaking. I am thankful for advances in medicine, but I do not feel
that attempting to pick and choose the traits of my offspring is a responsible use
of technology.
Besides, my
husband is so good-looking, I’m bound to have beautiful babies.
From the Author:
Thank you for reading! For more
information on PGD and the Advanced Cell Technology Company, check out the
following links.
