The complaint 'I would have been selected against' is logically incoherent. Any change in conception—including embryo selection—creates a different person. One cannot be 'harmed' by a choice that results in their non-existence; they are simply replaced by another potential person. The complaining 'you' would never have existed.
Related Insights
Many object to embryo selection because they mistakenly believe it involves altering genes. In reality, the technology simply reveals information about natural genetic variations already present in IVF embryos, allowing parents to choose, not tinker.
Up to 40% of natural conceptions are spontaneously aborted, often before a woman knows she's pregnant. This is typically the body's way of rejecting embryos with severe genetic abnormalities. This natural process provides a powerful biological precedent for the practice of pre-implantation genetic screening.
Ideologies that rely on a 'blank slate' view of human nature have made a catastrophic error. As genetic technologies become mainstream, the public is forced to confront the tangible reality of genetic predispositions in their own reproductive choices. This will unravel the blank slate worldview, a cornerstone of some progressive thought.
Fears of a return to 1940s-style eugenics are misplaced when focusing on individual reproductive choices. The critical distinction is between government-forced programs and individuals making informed decisions. Preserving individual autonomy is the key safeguard against the historical horrors of coercive eugenics.
The predictive power of embryo screening can be validated without controversial longitudinal studies on children. By testing if models can accurately predict trait differences between adult siblings using only their DNA, companies can prove efficacy for embryos, who are essentially unrealized siblings.
Philosopher David Benatar's antinatalism rests on an 'asymmetry argument.' He claims that for a non-existent being, the absence of potential pain is a positive good. However, the absence of potential pleasure is not considered bad. This asymmetry makes bringing a new life into existence an inherently immoral act, as it introduces guaranteed suffering for no net gain.
Standard IVF practice involves a doctor visually selecting the embryo that appears most "normally shaped." This is already a form of selection. Polygenic screening simply replaces this subjective "eyeballing" method with quantitative genetic data for a more informed choice, making it an evolution, not a revolution.
Polygenic embryo screening, while controversial, presents a clear economic value proposition. A $3,500 test from Genomic Prediction that lowers Type 2 Diabetes risk by 12% implies that avoiding the disease is worth over $27,000. This reframes the service from 'designer babies' to a rational financial decision for parents.
The ability to select embryos fundamentally changes parenthood from an act of acceptance to one of curation. It introduces the risk of "buyer's remorse," where a parent might resent a child for not living up to their pre-selected potential. This undermines the unconditional love that stems from accepting the child you're given by fate.
Fears about unintended trade-offs from embryo selection are largely unfounded due to 'positive pleiotropy.' The genes for many diseases are positively correlated. This means selecting against a disease like severe depression often provides a 'free' reduction in the risk of other conditions like bipolar disorder and schizophrenia.