[MichiganConservative]

Just for the record, I disagree with you based on my study of human development and embryology. Post #32 was sarcasm. I am unsure if your post is sarcasm as well.

I do not believe that just because someone may die of cancer someday is a good reason to prevent them from reaching that stage.

I think this practice of screening embryos is just to ease the minds of parents who just couldn't stand the thought that "their perfect baby" could have a genetic "defect".

People need to grow up. Maybe their "perfect" baby will become an alcoholic.

[free_at_jsl.com]

I don't claim to have any answers here... I only have my own opinions and I know where I got them. I would be very interested in opinions from everyone else with regard to the question posed in post #29. Sperm are alive as well as eggs. When fertilization occurs, those two separate lives merge into a new one. Where should the protection begin? What kind of protections are we talking about? How can the rights of all of those involved be protected without infringing anybody's rights? These are tough questions.

[orionblamblam]

> I do not believe that just because someone may die of cancer someday is a good reason to prevent them from reaching that stage.

OK, so you would prefer to have kids that would die horribly of ass-cancer, rather than kids that wouldn't... because that's what you're suggesting here.

Left to nature, these parents would have kids who would carry a Horrible Gene. But thanks to medical science, these parents can still have kids, just kids without the Horrible Gene. Is it some great tragedy that the kids with the Horrible Gene won't get born? Won't, in fact, get implanted? No more so than it's a great tragedy that any particular egg fails to fertilize or a fertilized egg gets spontaneously aborted. There are great tragedies enough in life to get all emo about a few non-implanted cells.