I'm very concerned about where this is leading.
First off, as Sonya points out, there's the moral gray area of in vitro fertilization – deliberately producing fetuses that you have no intention of carrying to term. It's questionable enough when done for parents who otherwise cannot have children, but if everyone with a genetic condition they don't want to pass on to their child starts doing it? I don't know, it just creeps me out. And I'm pro-choice. I don't understand how anyone who thinks abortion is immoral can support this.
Next, there's statements like:
"The parents will have been spared the risk of inflicting this disease on their daughter. The lasting legacy is the eradication of the transmission of this form of cancer that has blighted these families for generations,'' he said.
Think for a second about what that means – the parents "inflicting this disease" on their children.
If a woman with a similar family history of breast cancer decides not to use this technology, is she then guilty if her daughter develops cancer? Even if the answer is no, will she be made to feel guilty?
Third: we don't know absolutely that there isn't some other effect of this gene that makes it a valuable resource to the gene pool. While it seems at first like a laudable goal to rid the population of cancer-causing genes, I fear that we don't have a good enough understanding of gene expression yet to appreciate all the repercussions.
And that's all without even going into the moral vacuum of a world where people want to choose their fetuses based on genes associated with intelligence, or particular sorts of looks, or male versus female, etcetera.
I say


