Doctors may soon be able to screen unborn children for 3,500 different genetic disorders, London’s Daily Telegraph reports. The testing won’t even be invasive: a blood test from the mother, a cheek-swab from the father.
If the tests were done for the benefit of the babies—if there were some way to treat genetic disorders in utero--this might be wonderful news. But that’s not the reality, as the Telegraph acknowledges:
At the moment the only genetic disorder routinely tested for on the NHS is Down’s syndrome.
Why do doctors screen for Down Syndrome? In the United Kingdom, where the NHS routinely does that testing, more than 90% of the babies diagnosed as having Down Syndrome are aborted. Does that answer the question?
Down Syndrome children can be beautiful, and extraordinarily capable of both giving and receiving love. But most parents, given a choice, evidently prefer to abort and try again, hoping for a “normal” child.
And why stop there? Wouldn’t you be more comfortable knowing that your baby wouldn’t suffer from the childhood bouts of asthma that might keep you awake at night? All things being equal, wouldn’t you prefer a son who would retain his hair, rather than one who would be visibly balding in his teens? And nobody wants a color-blind child…
In the Brave New World, a lot of guys like me will never be born.
All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a current donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!
Posted by: space15796 -
Dec. 01, 2018 10:31 AM ET USA
They are conducting themselves in a way that selects only naive or low information followers. Can that be their goal? Their “problem” is the informed and thoughtful faithful. We are not going away…
Posted by: Randal Mandock -
Nov. 30, 2018 12:24 PM ET USA
I continue to wonder where is the concern for "vulnerable individuals"? They are a category that goes part and parcel with the category "children." Our safe-environment training always addresses "children and vulnerable individuals" as a unit. Although seminarians are not to be classified among the elderly, the incapacitated, or the disabled, they are in a defining sense a "captive audience." What qualitative difference does sexual abuse of children manifest that abuse of seminarians does not?
Posted by: piloni -
Nov. 29, 2018 10:53 AM ET USA
Because this time, Blase Super Cardinal Cupich is on the job!