This forum post is hidden because you have chosen to ignore mbillingsley. Show Details
This forum post is hidden because you have submitted an abuse report against it. Show Details
He’s been no stranger to controversy and the editor of the Journal of Medical Ethics Professor Julian Savulescu has written a column in the upcoming edition of readers digest which argues that parents should screen embryos for genetic markers that may indicate potential personality flaws and should seek to remove the threat of these genes being part of any future children they have because it is a moral obligation to ensure we have a more intelligent, better behaved and less violent society. Here are some quotes:
"Surely trying to ensure that your children have the best, or a good enough, opportunity for a great life is responsible parenting?"
"So where genetic selection aims to bring out a trait that clearly benefits an individual and society, we should allow parents the choice.
"To do otherwise is to consign those who come after us to the ball and chain of our squeamishness and irrationality.
"Indeed, when it comes to screening out personality flaws, such as potential alcoholism, psychopathy and disposition to violence, you could argue that people have a moral obligation to select ethically better children.
"They are, after all, less likely to harm themselves and others."
"If we have the power to intervene in the nature of our offspring — rather than consigning them to the natural lottery — then we should."
Do you agree with Professor Savulescu’s views? Is there a moral obligation to create better societies and should science be tasked with the job?