Could We Or Should We?

An article in the The Independent this earlier this week reviewed the machinations occurring in Great Britain as their Parliament considers whether or not to make mitochondrial donation legal when it comes to In-Vitro Fertilization (IVF).

Though the process or "three parent" IVF was banned by the Food and Drug Administration there has been no public discussion about whether or not the procedure was safe.  Saint Barnabas Medical Center in New Jersey performed the procedures on many of the children currently alive and is studying whether or not there were any long term affects, but has refused comment to those interested in its survey results.  It would seem they are unwilling to share the bad news that their actions did not produce children without healthcare worries, but perhaps transferred new worries to the parents.  After all, if the results were good I suspect they would be ringing the newspapers instead of avoiding the questions like Cindy Lucus who would not answer questions for me or the Independent.


Science seems very comfortable treating children as a commodity.  If you want one, we can provide one.  You do not need to be in a marriage, you do not need to be in a marriage of man and woman.  We can develop a child for you - in the lab.  Perhaps, you would like a tall boy, blonde hair or brown, green eyes, or blue.  Science seems able to make all these decisions for us without questioning the cost.

The cost of course is not just is the procedure safe short and long term, but is it safe from how we view children.  Are they just a commodity that if I produce, but don't want I can dispose of easily?
  The American left loves to talk about caring for children, but again and again, children seem to simply be a commodity.

I can have a child on demand.  My friends who veer liberal also tend to be the first to complain about their child's selfish desires - I wonder if those are genetic too.  Moreover, while it is uncomfortable for anyone to think about, IVF is linked to higher birth defects.  Again, these are the same parents generally who think abortion on demand is okay or abortion to save a child from a birth defect.

Once again, it seems science is ready to take its hand into the world of God.  Once again, it appears that the slippery slope of science (and dollars of course) is more interested than a perfect child than any child.  It was only last week that scientist Richard Dawkins suggested it immoral to not abort a child who had been diagnosed with Down's Syndrome in utero.  Immoral to kill a child because of a disease?  Really?

This is the talk of Adolph Hitler.  Once again the reality is, Adolph Hitler spoke of systematically killing those children deemed "mentally defective."  Here, Mr. Dawkins speaks of the same idea yet he is not ostracized by the scientific community.  Hitler too believed in the mercy decree of allowing people the peace of death rather than suffering through life as "defective."

While the two items seem different, they are not.  In both cases, science wishes to enter the world of creation by adding their two cents.  They believe they can safely create a human being from three person's genetic material, but the issues is not can they, but should they.  Unfortunately, it does not appear that anyone is asking that question.