What Child Is This: An Essay on PGD

Science is a tool. Because it is a tool, it is therefore an amoral thing in and of itself, that is to say, there is nothing inherently wrong or right about it. For example, an axe is a tool, and can be considered a helpful tool to chop down wood so a man can provide warmth for his family. An axe can also be used as a weapon by that same man to chop down his whole family, but to say that the axe is bad or good, right or wrong, would be a category mistake. In the same way, science, especially those in the areas of medicine and life and death issues, is also amoral. However, guidelines and restrictions must be placed on the use of science. Some uses of science are clearly prohibited just as the use of an axe to murder a family is clearly prohibited. In a new and emerging area of science, that of Pre-Implantation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD), popularly known as “Designer Children”, new questions will arise that have not yet been answered in virtue of the fact that it is a new field. One cannot say that PGD is a good or bad thing because it is a tool, however, there must be some restrictions placed upon it because there are some obvious abuses of such technology.

            One of the abuses of PGD is that of gender selection. With PGD, a couple can find out in the very early stages of pregnancy whether the child they are carrying is either male or female. One very common application of this knowledge is abortion. Some cultures, such as India, would prefer a male child over a female child, and would abort the female child as soon as possible. Some may not have a problem with abortion, yet would still raise the objection that the use of PGD to abort a specific gender is sexism, and should therefore not be permitted on those grounds. So not only does it lead to an increase of abortions but it also leads to sexism.

            The sexism does not necessarily start after the child is created however. The technology that PGD can provide increases the odds of having a child come out a certain gender. Imagine a couple who used PGD made it so that their child has a 75% chance of being created a girl. There seems to be nothing wrong with this. In fact, in many personal conversations, the topic of whether a couple would prefer a girl or a boy comes up prior to them actually having it. If there is nothing wrong with the conversations, then why would having the ability to act upon their desire suddenly be wrong? Is not such a consideration of gender reasonable when a couple decides to adopt? It appears that there is nothing wrong. However, because the technology is still currently probabilistic and not certain, we can ask this couple who used their money in order to increase the odds of having a girl, “What would happen if it came out a boy instead, in spite of your efforts? Would you love it less?” There seems to be implied in the desire of having a girl that if it instead came out a boy, this couple would love their son less than if it was a girl. A couple that would not unconditionally love their child, but upon the condition of their gender, seems wrong.

            There is a fine line here that policy should walk on because the intentions of the desire of a certain gender can be a subjective thing, something can be known only by the subject, which renders policies that would disallow such use impotent. To help remedy this problem, companies that offer PGD ought to bring these issues to the attention of their clients and have them ponder their own hearts. Worldviews such as the Judeo-Christian worldview see children as a gift from God, and because children are gifts, and one does not make qualifications or requirements on gifts, one therefore does not make demands or qualifications on receiving their children. Adopting such a philosophy of children can do great good to deter the less than noble intentions upon this aspect of PGD.

            Similar critiques and questions can be raised to similar attempts for certain traits such as height, eye color, gracious endowment of sex organs, and many other arbitrary traits. However, gender is not a contingent part of human identity, but a necessary one. There is no such thing as a female version of Chuck Norris. There may be such a thing as a Chuck Norris with a twenty inch beard or perhaps no beard at all because a beard is not necessary to the identity of Chuck Norris, but the gender of Chuck Norris is necessary to his identity. If Chuck Norris was born a female, that would not be Chuck Norris. It would be someone else completely. But genes that give us arbitrary traits like skin color also need to be met with a warning. There is a temptation to reduce the human being to nothing more than their genes. Some atheists or materialists will have no problem with this, but for now their view of the world will be dismissed as blatantly false. There is much more to humans than matter or genetic makeup, such as their moral standing, integrity, loyalty, and other abstract properties that cannot be materially reduced. Another question that seeking couples should ask themselves is, “Am I going to be seeing nothing more in my child than their genetic information?” If so, then they should reconsider their decision to have a child.

            The desire for traits in children may take a disturbing turn. When one thinks of which traits a child should have, properties that would give a child the best advantage are usually the first that come to mind, such as intelligence. But what about choosing to give a child not something that would benefit them in their lives, but would instead disable them? Can we choose to purposefully give children disabilities? A British lesbian couple did exactly that. Both women were deaf and searched for a sperm donor who is also deaf in the hopes of producing a deaf child. What is wrong with this?

            One of the deaf parents argued, “But you know, black people have harder lives. Why shouldn't people be able to go ahead and pick a black donor if that's what they want?” Being black and being disabled are two very different things. One is an arbitrary skin color that says nothing about the content of one’s character or the ability to do a job, and the other impairs the ability to take in part of reality, the reality of sound, which does impair one to do a job. Equating a disability with being black is not analogous and is sort of racist. But perhaps there is a stronger analogy to justify disabling children. If a couple who are deaf and have a child naturally through sex and their child was born deaf, no one would think twice about it. It would be also fine if their child was not deaf. But if that is ok, why is it not okay in the case of the lesbian couple? It is not okay primarily because they are taking away their child’s right to an open future. The more open a future is, that is, the more possibilities they have to pursue excellence, the better off someone is. In the case of the couple who had their child naturally, they did their best to give their child as many opportunities, or as open a future, as they could provide. However, in the case of the lesbian couple, they actually took away opportunities from their child that was not necessary, opportunities they could have easily provided. It is this taking away of an open future which makes the two not analogous, and puts the lesbian couple in the wrong. Therefore, the use of PGD to take away an open future from the child that the child has a right to is immoral and should not be permitted.

            The use of PGD to produce designer children should not be allowed. There is a difficulty in determining the intentions of the parents to be. They could use it to either abort the child should it have a certain disorder or even a certain gender. The tendency to value one gender over another using PGD raises many difficult issues about the genuine love from the parent as well as seeing a child as nothing more than material, hence without love. And finally, there is the obvious abuse of PGD in taking away opportunities from a child. For these reasons, restrictions should be heavy, if not outright outlawed.