Looks like we’re on the edge of taking a huge step towards eradicating some types of genetic diseases. This is straight out of Evolve. Science fiction becoming science.

But, the technology is at least partly in the hands of the voters. Will it be approved? If not, what can be said of those that vote against it?

Here’s a paragraph straight from the novel:

“As well as the moral implications of engineering embryos, there are questions over how the procedure would impact on a child’s sense of identity and whether they should be allowed to contact the donor later in life.”

Does anybody actually achieve any “sense of identity” (whatever that means) from any part of their genetics? (The answer is yes, but think about what that means. Think about those who do find identity in their genetics and think about their usual “causes” or beliefs regarding equality and discrimination. Then think about the randomness of genetics. Then think about if they’re helping or hurting their “cause” by associating their identity so closely with their genetics.) Especially think about this question just from the standpoint of genetic disease. If anybody does achieve a sense of identity from their genetics, would anybody want that identity to be associated with disease? Do people that are genetically susceptible to cancer find comfort in the “sense of identity” that comes from knowing that they’ll likely get cancer? If presented – later in life – with the option: you can go back to having muscular dystrophy-causing genes or not, who would choose the disease-causing genes?

-JD Cross