William Saletan is a twit. The possibility of eliminating (or greatly reducing the frequency) of genetic diseases is one of the greatest promises of modern medicine. Saletan laments that before genetic testing came along "parents weren't held responsible for a bad roll of the genetic dice" but now "if you don't take that precaution, you're "inflicting" the consequences." This complaint is rediculous. Before the germ theory of medicine was widely accepted, parent were not held responsible if their child grew sick or died from common infections. Today, a parent IS irresponsible to not provide a clean environment for children, soap, and antibiotics when necessary. Screening for genetic diseases will one day (I hope) become as easy and accessible as hand washing.

Also, I'm not sure if this is supposed to be a news or an oppinion piece but if it is supposed to be straight news, the obvious pro-life bias of Mr. Saletan just doesn't fit.

Embryos are created and destroyed all the time in nature. This is nothing new. Embryos are not people anymore than semen and oocytes are people. I would gladly destroy a 1000 embryos to save the life of one person.

So, carry your opinion to its logical conclusion. If screening for genetic diseases becomes as easy and accessible as hand-washing, should parents be punished by the government for not doing it? If the author's complaint is so "rediculous" (sorry, that made me laugh), should parents be considered irresponsible for just having a child the normal, old-fashoned way?

And if it's so "irresponsible," should the government step in and force them to do so?

"Parents weren't held responsible for a bad roll of the genetic dice." BS. Obviously, a parent might not know that they carried a gene for CF and then they'd reproduce and have a sick child. But if your family has a high incidence of cancer, heart disease, or diabetes, you don't need genetic testing to know that the condition is heritable. Genetic testing may increase the parent's responsibility, but even without that, I'd hope that someone who knew they had a debilitating illness in their family would be smart enough to drop out of the genetic crapshoot and decide to adopt if they want kids.

Agreed, Munich...

I think the author is pointing to an absence of an ethical framework beyond whether or not it's effective or desirable to save the life a person. That the latter is true does not dismiss the need to examine the ethical questions (both from a political perspective in the form of rights/obligations, and a personal one) that come out of eugenics. While science can give us options, it doesn't always describe the course of action we ought to take. It may very well be that screening embryos is the best thing we can do - medically, ethically and so on - but that is a conclusion we should arrive at after carefully considering all the science and balancing out the potential for harm (in the form of rights violation by government interference) with the potential for good (saving a life).

Why should the government step in and tell parents how to have kids? They have the potential joy of looking their inflicted child in the eyes and saying "we wanted to roll the dice on you, you're welcome."

What if the screening was for a propensity toward homosexuality? Gender selection? Brown eyes? Male pattern baldness? A big nose? Who decides when a genetic condition warrants "weeding out" and when it doesn't?

What if it was for a high IQ? Athletic ability? What are the social and political implications of allowing wealthy people to have only brilliant, athletic, attractive children, while forcing poor people to "roll the dice"?

("I'm so glad I'm an Alpha...")

I am wondering why you included diabeties in your comment. Diabeties is not yet curable and it is a real pain in the butt, but so long as you care for yourself as the Dr suggest you should be able to live a long happy mostly normal life. Why would you want someone to be denied the wonderful joy of having a child if science and knowledge can give them a healthy one?