Geel_jire Posted June 16, 2009 You may not know it, but gender selection based on pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) has been available to paying couples since at least 2001. One of the world leaders in providing this service is the Fertility Institutes, with branches in Los Angeles, New York, and Guadalajara in Mexico. According to their website, they’ve had over 3,800 cases of gender selection with a 100% success rate. Besides offering gender selection, they screen embryos for genetic defects such as breast cancer, cystic fibrosis, and over 70 other diseases. The Institutes are directed by Dr. Jeff Steinberg, a pioneer of IVF (in vitro fertilization) in the 1970s, and a successful scientist-businessma n today. In early February, the Fertility Institutes created enormous controversy by announcing that they planned to offer PGD services allowing for the selection of eye and hair color for children. Steinberg was quoted by the BBC as saying, “I would not say this is a dangerous road. It’s an uncharted road.” As a scientist experienced in PGD/IVF techniques, Steinberg was aware that the technology to select physical traits in humans has been available for years, but no one would touch it. “It’s time for everyone to pull their heads out of the sand,” Steinberg said. Transhumanists and other fans of procreative freedom were excited by the news. source Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Geel_jire Posted June 16, 2009 so they have no problem with choosing the gender of the baby and deciding not to have a baby because it may develop 1 in 70+ diseases .. or be born deaf, blind or disabled in any way but all of a sudden they have ethical concerns when it comes to selecting hair and eye color .. what a backward people. More recently, a January 2009 study by researchers at NYU Langone Medical Center found that an overwhelming 75% of parents would be in favor of trait selection using PGD – as long as that trait is the absence of mental retardation. A further 54% would screen their embryos for deafness, 56% for blindness, 52% for a propensity to heart disease, and 51% for a propensity to cancer. Only 10% would be willing to select embryos for better athletic ability, and 12.6% would select for greater intelligence. 52.2% of respondents said that there were no conditions for which genetic testing should never be offered, indicating widespread support for PGD – as long as it’s for averting disease and not engineering human enhancement. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nin-Yaaban Posted June 16, 2009 Its wise to leave those type of things to god. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jacaylbaro Posted June 17, 2009 Designing and Engineering eh ?? ,,, Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Khayr Posted June 17, 2009 so would you pick blond hair and blue eyes? Sell...sell...selll. ...sold! Everything is relative to a price! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cara. Posted June 17, 2009 I would definitely consider screening for serious conditions like cystic fibrosis, mental retardation, or a serious heart defect. I think what the survey shows makes sense. Think of surgery: most parents would want their child to undergo surgery for a heart defect or to cure blindness. But how many people think it's right to have a child undergo surgery for cosmetic reasons like changing his/her eye color? It may seem "backward" but it reflects a desire to maintain human variety while raising healthy children. At any rate, genetic engineering is hotly debated and discussed, so it's hardly viewed that casually. When Hollywood is making movies about it, you can bet the issue is something others have thought of. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Pujah Posted June 17, 2009 Blond hair, blue eyes –check No retards – check Tall handsome kid – check What is the world coming to … Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
