Babies 'R' Us
If you had the chance to "design" your next baby, would you? An article on this subject last Monday on MSN caught my attention. The article discussed a procedure known as inheritable genetic modification (IGM), defined as the altering of genes that are passed on to future generations. This contrasts with non-inheritable gene therapy, such as when altered genes are added to body tissue, say, a diseased lung, in efforts to improve function. In other words, you could pick the baby's eye color and body type. You could strain out diseases such as cystic fibrosis. You could even make your baby a dwarf (and some parents with dwarfism have already screened their embryos to make sure their children are dwarfs). Granted, the technology to design babies doesn't exist yet, but some are pushing for it to happen.
However, the technology already exists for screening out lethal or disabling abnormalities without adding to or changing the future genes of the child. The embryo with the fatal abnormality is destroyed and another is implanted. This procedure is already being practiced on humans. IGM is different in that they actually change the genes within the embryo-straining out all 'imperfections' like being too short or slight of build and adding 'perfections' like heightened intelligence. As of yet, however, the technology hasn't been perfected. According to the article author, Scott McCredie, "mistakes often are made in the gene-altering process that lead to developmental abnormalities. This is one reason-and a good one at that-the technology hasn't been attempted in humans."
Just because you can do something means that you should do something, right? If God didn't want man to fly, He wouldn't have allowed us to discover flight. And surely what parent, if given the opportunity, would not strain out mental retardation, multiple sclerosis, cancer, and other disabling or deadly genes?
Is there a difference between straining out disabling or deadly genes and enhancing a child's mental or physical prowess? Should the ability to "save" our children from disabling or deadly genes belong only to those who can afford it? What might happen to humanity and human society if we begin creating homo superior?
The author asks this question: If IGM becomes a reality for humans…might [it] "distance us socially even more from the disabled, the sick and the poor especially if only the wealthy could afford to provide genetic engineering for their offspring"?.
As the world changes and science opens up more and more doors that will affect our daily lives, we as God's people have a choice to make. Will we try to ignore what's going on around us (what elephant in the living room?) and be seen as even more obsolete and irrelevant in life? Or will we try to address the issues in a biblical, loving, and consistent way in the public sphere? Life is happening around us. Our society is wrestling with issues of moral, ethical, and eternal ramifications. Why should we, the church, be silent about such issues?
Article cited: Scott McCredie, "Designing Your Baby," MSN Health & Fitness (URL: http://health.msn.com/pregnancykids/pregnancy/articlepage.aspx?cp-documentid=100157858).

The Elders