-
Eugenic Abortion 2.0
May 23, 2013 | 67 comments
-
Yoani Sánchez Uncaged
April 12, 2013 | 163 comments
-
Take the Helmets Off
February 4, 2013 | 68 comments
-
Let’s Pay Women Not to Abort
January 23, 2013 | 69 comments
-
The Millennial Divide
January 22, 2013 | 30 comments
Special Report
Gattaca at 15
The dystopian sci-fi thriller is fast becoming our reality.
(Page 2 of 3)
Many doctors encourage pregnant women to obtain prenatal genetic screening, and, if the test comes back positive for a genetic condition, to abort. A recent survey found that a quarter of physicians admitted trying to influence mothers’ decisions, usually encouraging them to end the life of a genetically disadvantaged child.
New DNA testing can screen fetuses for hundreds of genetic traits in the first trimester of pregnancy. Such tests are becoming cheaper, less invasive and more widely available. One test uses tiny amounts of free-floating DNA in the mother’s blood stream that can give researchers a baby’s an entire genetic code.
In June researchers at the University of Washington announced a new technique that can map a fetus’s DNA and thus make it easier to prenatally alter the genetic makeup of a developing child. Researchers say such a procedure may be available in clinics in as little as five years.
Pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) continues to grow in popularity. PGD allows parents to create designer babies. First, embryos are created via IVF; then, after a few days of growth in a lab, the embryos are screened, and those that are determined to have higher risk of having certain traits, including genetic disabilities or the “wrong” sex, are killed. (PGD is a favorite among Indian and Chinese nationals, who travel to the U.S. for the procedure because their own countries outlaw the practice.) Embryos who pass the screening process are transferred to the mother’s womb to continue developing.
A 2006 study by John Hopkins University found that 42 percent of fertility clinics offered PGD for sex selection. Dr. Jeffrey Steinberg of The Fertility Institutes uses PGD and has suggested that he will be able to screen embryos for eye and hair color within a few years.
Some experts believe this new technology is changing parents’ attitudes toward their children. President Bush’s Council on Bioethics warned in 2003, “The attitude of parents toward their child may be quietly shifting from unconditional acceptance to critical scrutiny: the very first act of parenting now becomes not the unreserved welcoming of an arriving child, but the judging of his or her fitness, while still an embryo, to become their child, all by the standards of contemporary genetic screening.”
A 2009 poll reported in the Journal of Genetic Counseling found that a majority of respondents would elect to have prenatal genetic testing for mental retardation (75 percent) and deafness (54 percent). Thirteen percent even said they’d desire testing for superior intelligence. The authors concluded: “Our study suggests that consumers desire more reproductive genetic testing than what is currently offered; however, their selection of tests suggests self-imposed limits on testing.”
In an interview, Arthur Caplan, head of the Division of Bioethics at New York University Langone Medical Center, predicted that within a decade, prenatal genetic screening will be available not only for physical and mental traits but also for behavioral conditions such as schizophrenia, depression, proneness to addiction, and even sexual orientation.
“We may all think that parents and society are very interested in diseases,” he told me, “but I’m here to say that they’re also very interested in personality and behavior.”
Many parents feel they have a right to genetically perfect children, and courts are increasingly willing to recognize that right. At least 28 states recognize “wrongful birth” lawsuits, in which parents of disabled children are granted compensation when doctors fail to inform them that their unborn child may be at higher risk of a genetic disorder.
Caplan believes American culture reinforces parents’ desire for genetic perfection. He said:
There’s going to be demand in a society oriented toward doing well, toward perfection, toward the value of the best you can be, even a society that says, “I want a better life for my child than I had for myself.” That’s an ethical principle that you can hear in every religion, you can hear it in secular society — it’s just around. So somebody’s going to say “Why won’t I test my kids, to [give] them a better life than I had?
Given all these changes, how long will it be before mothers feel obligated either to abort “imperfect” babies or to manipulate the genes of their embryo-children?
How long until those who do not get tested will be regarded as immoral? As Robert Edwards — test tube baby pioneer and Nobel Prize winner — has said, “Soon it will be a sin for parents to have a child that carries the heavy burden of genetic disease.”
Caplan explained where this view might lead:
About the Author
Daniel Allott is a writer in Washington, D.C.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (53) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Daniel Allott
More Articles From Special Report
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/10/24/gattaca-at-15
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Self-Righteous Republic
- Ailes: A Voice for the Silent Majority
- Peace in Our Times
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
John Navratil| 10.24.12 @ 6:43AM
More of what Eric Voegelin called immanentizing the eschaton.
Philosophically, this calls for knowing the DNA predicts future outcome (as so far as the phenotype is concerned), admits for no transcription errors (generally true) and that subtle genetic consequences are ignorable.
All the Darwinists out there ought to be scratching their heads wondering what the need for natural selection really is.
Appleby| 10.24.12 @ 7:04AM
Eugenics are irresistable to those who believe perfection can be achieved with no risk of error. Beethoven would have been aborted by these folks, or never allowed to develop at all, and probably replaced by George Clooney or some other He's Pretty But Can He Type. For us devout Catholics, this will be another test of what we believe.
By the way, since apparently next to Morbid Obesity and the Droopy Wee-Wee Syndrome, Racism is the biggest pandemic sweeping the world, would this mean aborting all Black kids or forbidding Whites to procreate? Think about it.
John Navratil| 10.24.12 @ 7:24AM
Appleby,
If I were king, it would be liberals. Oh, wait! They are doing it to themselves.
Snappy| 10.24.12 @ 10:34AM
Hey, Daniel, do a column on this:
Rape! Something "God intended"
Republican US Senate candidate Richard Murdock has suggested that pregnancies caused by rape were "something God intended to happen."
The statement is so shocking, so extreme, that it leaves me speechless.
But I'm sure many of you AmSpec readers will rush to Murdock's defence. It's just the kind of anti-abortion rhetoric that gets you excited.
John Navratil| 10.24.12 @ 10:42AM
Snappy,
Let Murdock speak for himself:
"God creates life, and that was my point. God does not want rape, and by no means was I suggesting that he does. Rape is a horrible thing, and for anyone to twist my words otherwise is absurd and sick."
But, I like the part about you being left speechless. Keep it up!
Snappy| 10.24.12 @ 11:52AM
He said it, and after saying it tried to "explain" it, just as you have attempted.
Here are Murdock's words verbatim:
"I struggled with it myself for a long time, but I came to realise that life is that gift from God. And, I think, even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen."
Mr Mourdock is backed by conservative groups including the Tea Party and has pledged no compromise with Democrats if he is elected.
Elected? No chance.
Snappy| 10.24.12 @ 11:55AM
God intended a woman to be raped?
You can worship that evil God all you like, but I will not.
Joellen| 10.24.12 @ 12:21PM
Snappy, YOU LIE! See, I've called it out. What Mr. Mourdock stated was GOD intended life to come out of something bad, the rape, which he stated was horrible and of course as any sane human being would state, he abhors. However, due to your dishonesty and being a liberal/progressive you must adhere to your god (the evil one) and spin, distort and confuse the issue to try and justify your evil acceptence of abortion. Will he get elected, I pray he does and if it's GOD's will (just like LIFE is GOD's will). However, whether he does or doesnt, Congressman Mourdock can rest his head at night knowing he is on the side of GOODNESS. Can you say the same thing "Snappy"? BTW, Guess who will be getting a "campaign" contribution from me today?
Joellen| 10.24.12 @ 1:29PM
The good Congressman Mourdock's #317-248-2012. It would be a wonderful message if TAS readers sent him a contribution TODAY!
John Navratil| 10.24.12 @ 12:23PM
Snappy,
One wonders what language you speak. It clearly one that isn't intended to convey meaning. I will subject Mourdock's, Obama's and your words to the same sort of subjective interpretation of definite and indefinite articles you of the left like to use is lieu of substantial argument.
Mourdock: "I struggled with it myself for a long time, but I came to realise that life is that gift from God. And, I think, even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen."
Obama: "No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for."
Snippy: "The statement is so shocking, so extreme, that it leaves me speechless."
In Mourdock's statement the fulcrum upon which you bend meaning is the 'IT' in "..even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen." One may question whether it refers to the rape or the conception. Substituting the appropriate noun we get "rape is something that God intended to happen" or "life is something that God intended to happen." Given the topic was Mourdock's lack of abortion exception for rape and arguing for his pro-life position, which do you think he meant? Never mind!
....
John Navratil| 10.24.12 @ 12:23PM
....
In Obama's statement, "No acts of terror...", the meaning hinges on whether he meant all acts of terror or this act of terror. Here the left conveniently chooses to read this general statement as a specific statement about Benghazi when the simple construction beginning "This act of terror..." would have been unnassailable. OK, he mispoke. It happens - not that you would ever give such a doubt to Mourdock. If so, he could have clarified his remarks instead of doubling down. In fact Obama has made statements which conflict with your arch interpretation many times since. Don't let that get in the way of your narrative any more that Obama wants to let an ascendant Al Queada get in the way of his.
(For a the complete text of Obama's Rose Garden remarks, see: http://www.forextv.com/forex-n.....azi-attack)
In your statement, you say you are left speechless. You are a liar. You are not speechless. You keep blathering on. Is it because the statement is not really shocking and extreme or is your speech so nuanced as to admit hyperbole. How do you expect you to understand yourself when the message text trumps its meaning and you demand to be spoken too in terms you find unambiguous. OK - parse this - You are a rank partisan more interested in counting coup than discussion. You reject the plain meaning of a message in order to find one which suits your purpose. I abuse myself responding to you.
Snappy| 10.24.12 @ 2:16PM
Please try to think rationally about Murdock's shocking statement.
Here's a rational deduction:
If God intended the rapist to impregnate his victim, then God intended the victim to be raped.
Indiana religious leader Dan Parker, quoted by AFP news agency, said: "As a pro-life Catholic, I'm stunned and ashamed that Richard Mourdock believes God intended rape."
In August, Missouri Senate candidate Todd Akin almost derailed his own campaign when he said that in cases of "legitimate" rape, "the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down" and avert pregnancy.
At the time, Mr Romney and other senior Republicans urged Mr Akin to stand aside, but he refused, saying he had misspoken and asking to be forgiven.
Mr Akin lost millions of dollars of funding as a result of the gaffe.
Romney has condemned Murdock's statement, and has said that his administration would not oppose abortion in instances of rape.
John Navratil| 10.24.12 @ 3:22PM
Snappy,
Nothing rational about. Rational means agreeable to reason, sensible. That's YOUR deduction because it fits YOUR narrative. It doesn't matter what Mourdock says, you already know his mind.
The rest is your typical ploy of assembling a number supposedly relevant facts without a thread to stitch them together and devoid of conclusion. Indeed the are completely disjoint.
Trish| 10.24.12 @ 3:33PM
Idiot.
As Snappy says, "Romney has condemned Murdock's statement". Only a fool--such as you apparently are--would try to defend Murdock.
Stop trying to argue. And get up off your swollen prostate and go outside and grab a rake or something. Move around and maybe a little oxygen will reach your withered brain.
John Navratil| 10.24.12 @ 4:21PM
Trish,
What Snappy says bears only a tenuous link to reality. Look it up for yourself.
Andrea Saul, Romney campaign press secretary, said Wednesday: “Governor Romney disagrees with Richard Murdock and Mr. Murdock’s comments do not reflect Governor Romney’s views. We disagree on policy regarding exceptions for rape and incest, but still support him.” You might, at this point, look up the meaning of "condemn".
Thanks for the medical advice, but I prefer a doctor who has had an actual education. But did you have anything to say for yourself or are you content to let Snappy do your thinking as well?
Trish| 10.24.12 @ 4:24PM
little boy,
you jes want to argue, doncha? well i'm not gonna play your silly game. so there
Joellen| 10.24.12 @ 4:34PM
BRAVO JOHN, BRAVO. Stay strong my Brother - as I know you will.
Mr. Melvin| 10.24.12 @ 5:24PM
It's only rape, baby!
And if you get gang raped by an atheist, muslim, and Republican, which seed is God's?"
Which seed?
John Navratil| 10.24.12 @ 5:43PM
Mr. Melvin,
I didn't know Republicanism was a religion. I know atheist Republicans, Hindi Republicans, Catholic Republicans, Protestant Republicans. I even know a Muslim Republican and a Confucian Republic (just one of each). I know socially conservative Republicans and fiscally conservative Republicans, a couple of gay Republicans. I know Republicans who were Democrats, but I don't know any Democrats who were Republicans.
I suggest the answer depends on whom you ask. What do you say?
Albert Constantine Jr.| 10.24.12 @ 6:59PM
JN;
I'm not sure if Snappy feels that he has to post under multiple names, or if he has to travel to this site with a pack of like-minded fools. Fight on, my brother.
Joellen| 10.24.12 @ 7:46PM
Mr. Melvin, why would you perpetuate one evil act to right another? Abortion is murder, the murder of an innocent baby, which only GOD knows why, he deign that life to be, even under such circumstances. I truly suggest that you, Trish and Snappy look into your hearts and instead of lashing your anger at those of us who defend all life, ask yourselves why you are so quick to deny life. By the way, did you three ever hear of Adoption Agencies?
Mr. Melvin| 10.24.12 @ 8:44PM
I don't know about Snappy or Trish, but I will fight for pro-choice.
If, by chance, and it looks unlikely, Romney is elected, we pro-choice advocates will demand, demand, demand that the choice be left up to the woman.
You Obama haters can rant and rave all you like, but we--his supporters--will never give in. Never! And Obama is pro-choice.
Frog in Uniform | 10.25.12 @ 3:59AM
Melvin? You and your One were an accident. You were not supposed to be. You belong to the past. And you won't even be history.
Frog in Uniform | 10.25.12 @ 3:48AM
quote "if God intended the rapist to impregnate the victim, then God intended the victim to be raped" This is either plain nonsense or this is muslim mindset. In both cases you're too dumb to write about relevant topics. And you have such a poor command of your own language that I, as a Frog, had no difficulty understanding Mourdock's statements, whereas you went straightforward to the wrong interpretation.
And re "You can worship that evil God all you like, but I will not." I don't think you need to blame on us the obvious fact you keep God out of your life.
Tom Kyba| 10.24.12 @ 11:10AM
Snappy. Is that some sort of egotistical reference to your snore-inducing comments? tell you what. You clean up your yard first then come back and complain about others'. It should take you 10 years or so. See you then.
Rhoetus| 11.1.12 @ 11:23PM
Brave New World was an analogy that has nearly come to pass.
Pecos Pete| 10.24.12 @ 7:22AM
ObamaCare at its best.
Jack of Spades| 10.24.12 @ 7:41AM
It's one of the more bitter ironies that the types who thought of Gattaca as a dire warning of the dehumanizing potential of science now applaud the world it prophesied with eagerness, reserving their contempt for any pro-lifers who question the ethics.
goldminor| 10.24.12 @ 10:41PM
How else can Gattaca come to fruition without society reaching the point where enough people feel that it is ethical or at the very least, not immoral, to utilize eugenics. With population growth ever increasing, thus making life ever more competitive, some people are going to stack the deck in their favor and/or future favor, if they can. Others would probably take advantage of eugenics for a somewhat narcissistic approach to the future in trying to create a clone-like child of themselves. Anyway, I really enjoyed the movie, which is my reason for signing up to comment on here. Although, after sorting through the early comments, I was beginning to wonder if anyone was actually going to try and converse about this article.
MarkS| 10.24.12 @ 7:59AM
I've not seen the movie, though I'll make an effort now, but I've always thought that of all the futurist writers and thinkers Aldus Huxley got it right in Brave New World. Aside from the human engineering and the callous attitude it engenders towards imperfection or humanness, I think he was spot on as regards social and political trends as well.
Seems to me from Allots piece that Gattaca is just the tale of the middle journey to Huxley's nightmare destination.
Joellen| 10.24.12 @ 8:03AM
The irony of this is we rightly abhored and fought to stop Hitler because he desired the "perfect race" and yet through the manipulation of words, we now justify doing exactly what Hitler strived for.
Pecos Pete| 10.24.12 @ 8:08AM
Joellen: Excellent comment.
Albert Constantine Jr.| 10.24.12 @ 8:50AM
It bears mentioning that this whole article is about how a theme presented in a film is reflected in our contemporary world. American Spectator is becoming the Friday contest.
The Big E| 10.24.12 @ 8:52AM
So very, very true.
The Big E| 10.24.12 @ 9:13AM
My "amen" comment was to Joellen - not Albert Constantine Jr.
Albert Constantine Jr.| 10.24.12 @ 9:47AM
I don't mind an affirmation, but I concur that her comment was much more profound and deserving of your reply than mine.
OP4| 10.24.12 @ 8:34AM
I still say "Idiocracy" is a more accurate forecast of what our future holds - and no less disturbing.
Jacob McCandles| 10.24.12 @ 9:08AM
Agreed. The opening scene is the best:Clevus manages to have so many kids, then gets in an accident, has his testicles torn off and reimplanted (probably on the taxpayer dime) then has a bunch more kids. Mike Judge is great.
"Get your hands off my junk!"
Butch| 10.24.12 @ 6:03PM
The first five minutes ought to be in textbooks. Big Jake: agree with you about Mike Judge. I think he's a genius.
Eddie_Valiant| 10.24.12 @ 9:01AM
The secularists feel empowered with with a communist in the White House. In Massachusetts, there's ballot questions for assisted suicide and medical marijuana. Both questions are on the ballot due to the state's "initiative petition" process and are being promoted by Soros-funded organizations.
Eugenics is not new; Margaret Sanger was one of its first advocates. Sanger is the founder of the predecessor to Planned Parenthood, the modern organization that is responsible for aborting more than half of all unborn black infants. The eugenics movement was determined to eliminate undesirables, and in their view, all blacks were in that category.
As a Catholic, I will do whatever I can do to stop genetic engineering. We have no idea what the result of such engineering will do; it could lead to our destruction as a species. God created this world we live in and He will not be tossed aside. If he is, will we certainly be the architects of our own elimination.
The Big E| 10.24.12 @ 9:01AM
Gattaca is, in my humble opinion, the best science fiction movie ever made (with the possible exception of 2001). If you haven't seen it, you should, even if you do not like science fiction.
But remember, while Gattaca portrays a world where genetic perfection is the goal, it also reveals the inherent flaw in that world. Vincent becomes an Astronaut despite his genetic inferiority - so obviously the idea that a person is limited by their genes is simply untrue, or else he would never have risen above janitor - regardless of whose genome he used. And the movie implies that throughout society there are other such people - called "borrowed ladders" - who go undiscovered precisely because the underlying assumption of the society in Gattaca - that genetics is destiny - is false.
PolishKnight| 10.24.12 @ 11:16AM
The film had more plot holes than the Lord of the Rings (why didn't Frodo just ride an eagle to Mount Doom?)
If a hair follicle can be tested instantly for DNA, why bother with a urine test? Why allow a person to provide it when the technician should extract it themselves (as they do today with paternity tests, more on this later.) Why bother with fingerprints (the trick of using a fake fingerprint was on James Bond and I imagine that the authorities would be on the watch for it from bank robbers/fraud.)
It's frightening to consider that in the near future, identity fraud will become impossible. On the other hand, with identity fraud largely a social problem and menace while undocumented immigration is tolerated and even welcomed by both the right and left, one wonders why we should bother even caring anymore? Average citizens have to show their ID to take an airplane, get their children registered for school, or rent a car. Undocumented immigrants don't have to do any of that and they can even vote without ID. Heck, maybe we should all become undocumented immigrants!
John Navratil| 10.24.12 @ 12:59PM
PolishKnight,
There isn't a science fiction movie which can pass this test. Isn't riding an eagle just as much of a plot stretch?
Still, I liked the movie for it use of the symbolism of DNA - even to making the title from the symbols for the nucleotides - as scientific perfection in counter-position to the vagaries of life.
It was a morality play. Why didn't the little match girl knock on the door, got to the police, find a railroad station, sleep in a barn?
PolishKnight| 10.24.12 @ 1:07PM
Of course science fiction, by definition, has an element of fantasy especially in movies which need those fun explosion sound effects in space. But some plot holes are just too big. Also, the tone of the film was kind of dreary and maudlin. I know that was intentional, but combined with the implausibility of the film's own science it undermined the moral points it was trying to make. The protagonist didn't have a chance due to the technology of the era that would expose him and not due to him being unable to compete effectively on merit.
goldminor| 10.24.12 @ 10:50PM
That's an easy one. Sauron, Lord of Mordor, would have easily spied them coming. Frodo would have had no defense at that point. The eagles only get in at the end as the kingdom of Mordor is collapsing around them.
Petronius| 10.24.12 @ 9:54AM
Another twist on Brave New World. It used to be so easy when wars were fought for cultural supremacy as a primary objective. But just killing any and all who are "not one of Us" involves too much effort these days. Slaughter is one thing. But nobody wants to clean up the mess after.
PolishKnight| 10.24.12 @ 11:07AM
Long before Hitler, societies were obsessed with eugenics without needing to know what DNA was. Spartans abandoned deformed babies on a mountaintop to die. And most ancient cultures, and most non-western cultures, don't even bother with a pretense of discriminating against people based upon perceptions of perfection and eugenic conformity. The Chinese routinely advertise for office positions with height requirements and pictures on CV's.
On a personal basis, people routinely put physical perfection on the top of their list in selecting a mate and therefore the type of children they will have. This boils down to the philosophical question of which "child" to "murder". If a couple select an optimal child in the lab and choose to raise it, they are therefore selecting and discriminating "against" an imperfect child. But simultaneously, a person who uses a "natural" method and puts the fate in God's hands, how is that different than a mountaintop where you abandon a different child, in this case the laboratory ideal, to "die" on the mountaintop? I'm reminded of a line from pirates walking a victim off the plank: "Remember. It's the sea that will kill you. Not us."
Tom Kyba| 10.24.12 @ 11:14AM
I metaphysically guaruntee that when liberals see dystopian-world movies like this, 1984 etc. they always consider it the inevitable result of right wing ideology. Introspection is a silver bullet to leftists.
PolishKnight| 10.24.12 @ 11:20AM
One of my favorite films, the Big Lebowski, is about a hippy slacker who encounters a hostile, and probably corrupt, Malibu chief of police who beats him up and Lebowski cries: "F'ing fascist!" and later refers to him as a "reactionary." I laughed my head off. I can't imagine Malibu populated and run by right wingers, can you? They violate California laws that the beaches should be public access by erecting illegal fences and sending out private security guards to intimidate the little people.
Sometimes leftist dishonesty is genius, other times simplistic, and at others insane. I know one thing for sure though: they never are sympathizing with my personal self-interests.
goldminor| 10.24.12 @ 10:56PM
@ Tom....nicely put. I have commented along similar lines this year. They can not grasp that they could be just as capable of instituting societal control over others in the 'Name of the Greater Good'.
CLD| 10.27.12 @ 10:58PM
Thank you, Daniel, for this excellent essay.
My sincere hope is that the modern world will heed its warning. My sincere suspicion is that the modern world will not.
Cloudbuster | 10.28.12 @ 1:10PM
What should disturb anyone, even aside from the moral implications, is the unknowables -- the unintended consequences.
We currently can't breed dogs or livestock that have the beneficial traits we want without the accrual of unwanted, unintended negative traits. In the livestock industry, they recognize "hybrid vigor. Line-breeding for positive characteristics inevitably creates populations with crippling genetic defects and lack of vigor, requiring the breeders to outbreed. Lately, some breeders are championing the value of completely hybrid stock -- continually breeding across established breed lines.
The human genome is unimaginably complex. It's arrogance of the highest order to think that humans are able to wisely self-select for an improved species. We will, without a doubt, inevitably cripple our own species due to unintended genetic consequences if we continue down this road. At the very least, it is certain that extremely positive outlying genotypes will be weeded out with the negative ones, due to simple ignorance, and we will be left with a stagnating mediocrity.
Rhoetus| 11.1.12 @ 11:21PM
If the Kennedy's were sterilized it would be good for our country.