Off the Record

Get the "Off the Record" Feed

the unborn baby and the bath water By Diogenes | July 01, 2009

    For more than a decade, thousands of older women undergoing in-vitro fertilization have relied on an expensive embryo-screening procedure to boost their chances of getting pregnant.   

Thus begins a cautionary story in the Wall Street Journal. But soon you realize that the real problem is not only getting pregnant but staying pregnant-- that is, 1) avoiding miscarriage and 2) having a pregnancy that the mother won't choose to abort. Read on:

Most medical experts agree that embryo screening can significantly reduce the risk of serious chromosome-related illnesses, such as Down syndrome.

There's no risk that the mother will contract Down syndrome. It's a chromosome disorder. The mother's chromosomes were set for life some years ago: back when she was an embryo. The Journal account doesn't quite explain who faces the risks of illness-- it would be impolite to talk about the baby, at a time when the mother still might decide not to continue the pregnancy-- but of course it's the embryo.

For women, embryo screening has offered two benefits: it helps them determine whether they will be able to continue the pregnancy, and whether they want to continue the pregnancy. For embryos, the procedure never offered any benefits at all. Just risks. The risk of contracting a chromosome disorder that will cause miscarriage. The risk of contracting Down syndrome, which will cause a restricted life. And the risk of becoming unwanted.

Now the doctors tell us that the screening process can help identify chromosome disorders in embryos, but it might also cause chromosome disorders in embryos. So it's not at all clear that there's any benefit to would-be mothers. For embryos, the cost-benefit analysis hasn't changed.

If you found this helpful, please support our work. Make a pledge or one-time donation now!

It's Your Turn to Sound Off!

» To ensure well-meaning comments, only donors are allowed to Sound Off.
  If you're a donor, log in; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!

Sound Off! Comments

• Posted by: extremeCatholic - Jul. 04, 2009 12:15 PM ET USA

  Exactly who is at risk here anyway? It is not as if 17 percent of the cells of the "would-be" mother are being removed. There is no "would-be" to the unborn unique human embryo. He or she already has already be brought into existence, and faces THREE set of risks (not faced by the naturally conceived): natural death by the fragility of their living form, unnatural death by the choice of the "would-be" mother to do this test with its own risks, and then a "successful" test indicating a genetic tr

• Posted by: TheJournalist64 - Jul. 01, 2009 5:43 PM ET USA

  We as a culture continue to create moral problems and then demand a technology to defeat the illnesses caused by the immoral behavior. The obvious solution is to end the immoral behavior. Now it appears that the technologies are causing more problems, other than the obvious baby death. Where is Werner Heisenberg when we need him?

• Posted by: Chestertonian - Jul. 01, 2009 5:35 PM ET USA

  An underlying problem in all of this is the belief that everyone who wants to be a parent has the right to be a parent, treating the child as property, to possess or dispose of as the mood strikes. As this was the attitude toward slaves, so it is the attitude toward unborn children; we can abort because they are not fully human persons. The same attitude makes it likely infanticide will soon be promoted as "mercy killing" of imperfect new borns as well.