(NaturalHealth365) There you are in your fertility doctor’s office. The results of the genetic tests on your embryos just came back. Your doctor informs you that one of them has the AR gene (androgen receptor genes), which has been correlated with an increase in violent behavior. What he does not tell you is that the AR gene only correlates with increased violence in already existing criminal populations.(1) The AR gene is not a scary “defect”, it is the gene that codes for testosterone and other androgen hormones in males.(2)
STOP! Modern medicine is being used to control the population
In male children that come from a loving home, the AR gene may just be the gene that gives your son that extra spunk in life – that extra motivation to become great. But there, in that moment in your fertility doctor’s office, your doctor convinces you that statistics matter and that you should “let this one go” and consider another embryo there waiting in petri dish for a chance at life.
This is the genetically controlled, Orwellian future that Julian Savulescu, Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Medical Ethics and Professor at Oxford University, advocates. In an article published in the Telegraph titled, “Genetically engineering ‘ethical’ babies is a moral obligation”, Savulescu advocates genetic cleansing to remove “personality flaws” from our society.(3) Yet, science is proving more and more that genes by themselves do not cause breast cancer any more than they cause someone to become violent or altruistic.
The real danger of over-simplifying medical science
The reality is much more complex. Humans are much more than the sum of our genes. By geneticists assessment, the environment around your genes (called your “epigenetics”) is at least half the story. In other words, we have the ability to positively intervene through lifestyle, diet, and even prayer, to influence the way in which our genes are expressed.
In this and other journal articles co-published by Savulescu, he and his colleagues use poetic words to sugar coat the reality of genetic manipulation of the human race, calling human genetic engineering “procreative beneficence”, “rational design”, “rational evolution”, “reproductive autonomy”, and even “genetic enhancement”.(3, 6) Robert Sparrow published a scathing retort to Savulescu’s Orwellian future in the Hastings Center Report in 2011, saying, “Ultimately, the world it would lead to is not all that different from that championed by eugenicists one hundred years ago.”(4)
Modern science has a twisted (sick) vision of our future
Today, more than ever, genetic manipulation is threatening to turn the miracle of conceiving a child into a petri-dish science experiment – where couples can pre-order blue eyes, altruism, and “non-violent” behavior. With infertility rates skyrocketing in recent decades, couples often turn to assisted reproductive technologies (ART) such as invitro-fertilization (IVF) and artificial insemination (AI) and now genetic selection to fulfill their dream of becoming parents.
Professor Savulescu argues that his future is distinct from the Nazi eugenics movement, in part, because couples are the ones making the choice, not an oppressive government. However, most couples do not have a background in genetic research, and therefore are left to decide the fate of their future children through the eyes of their fertility doctor, who may not fully understand the future ramifications of engaging in genetic selection.
Is this a “better” society or Nazi-type eugenics?
Turning Professor Savulescu‘s moral argument on its head, just because we can engage in genetic selection does not mean that we morally should. As a society, we have been on a moral slippery slope for decades now. Today, you can conceive a child in a petri dish, test a developing fetus’ genetics in-utero, and abort a child up until the moment the cranium hits the birth canal. And now, even legal infanticide is being considered to weed out “undesirables”.
To show just how far Savulescu’s Journal of Medical Ethics is willing to blur moral lines, co-authors Alberto Giubillini and Francesca Minerva advocate “after-birth abortion” for children up to the age of 3. The abstract reads as follows: “By showing that 1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, 2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant…the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.”(5)
The question we all have to ask ourselves is: in a greedy world where “banksters” decide the fate of our nation, do we want them funding and controlling a new eugenics movement driven by profit and devoid of ethics and guiding humanity’s future potential?
About the author: Dr. Roy Dittman is author of Brighton Baby: A Revolutionary Organic Approach to Having an Extraordinary Child, a ground-breaking, three-book trilogy (first book due out in print in September 2012).
With over 30 years of experience in perinatal and longevity sciences, Dr. Dittman’s life-long commitment to transforming the way in which we conceive, birth, and raise children inspires couples to take action now to protect their future children’s destiny. You can follow him on Facebook, at BrightonBaby.com, and through his weekly blog on NaturalHealth365.com
1. Rajender S, Pandu G, et al. Reduced CAG repeats length in androgen receptor gene is associated with violent criminal behavior. International Journal of Legal Medicine, 2008; Volume 122, Number 5, pp. 367-372.
2. Androgen receptor. Wikipedia.org
3. Richard Alleyne. Genetically engineering ‘ethical’ babies is a moral obligation, says Oxford professor. Telegraph, August 16, 2012. Available online at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/9480372/Genetically-engineering-ethical-babies-is-a-moral-obligation-says-Oxford-professor.html#
4. Sparrow, Robert. A not-so-new-eugenics: Harris and Savulescu on human enhancement. Hastings Center Report, January-February 2011; Volume 41, Issue 1, pp.32-42.
5. Giubillini A, Minerva F. After-birth abortion: why should the baby live? J Med Ethics, February 23, 2012. doi:10.1136/medethics-2011-100411
6. Kuhse H, Singer P, Savulescu J. Chapter 20: Genetic Enhancement. A Companion to Bioethics, Second Edition. January 15, 2010.