New Medical Ethics: Designer Genes For Your Baby, and after-birth AbortionsNicholas West However, we have apparently permitted a technocratic elite with a warped sense of ethics to dictate our evolution once again. A Telegraph articleentitled, Genetically engineering ethical babies is a moral obligation, says Oxford professor cites theEditor-in-Chief of the Journal of Medical Ethics,Julian Savulescu, as advocating the arrival of genetic cleansing for those who might have a propensity toward personality flaws. And, furthermore, that this cleansing is a sign of good parenting and a strong concern for society. Now, Im sorry to issue an ad hominem attack right out of the gate, but since Savulescu introduces the subject of genetic evaluation, this guys family tree goes back to Romania (perhaps central think Transylvania) home to such distinguished rulers as Vlad the Impaler, Vladsdescendant Prince Charles, and power-mad collectivist, Nicolae Ceauescu. Im not saying there is a direct genetic connection between this esteemed academic and brutal psychopaths, but perhaps we should encourage Savulescu to study himself first and foremost just to be sure. Anyway, we often like to say in the alternative media, You cant make this stuff up. Well, someone has, and they are intruding upon our otherwise potentially sane reality. TheJournal of Medical Ethicshas now set itself head and shoulders above the rest as the most Orwellian-named collective of openly bragging social engineers to which the medical profession has thusly given voice. This line of thinking is echoed by Savulescu, who uses the inherent concern of parents to offer their children the best of what life has to offer as a reason for them to pre-determine what type of life has value, and which does not. Notice that the persuasive argument of parental choice quickly morphs into the what is good for you is good for society argument. By conflating the two, it conveniently opens up the door for collectivized state control of life itself. It is also concerning that these comments were made to Readers Digest, which seems like a clear propaganda campaign to popularize the concept of rational design, as opposed to presenting it for peer-review in less widely read scholarly medical journals even his own. If the black-and-white deterministic view that a rational need to eradicate the potential to harm oneself or others based on countless variables sounds logical to you, then please consider where this type of thinking has invariably led: extermination by dictators. In other words, the ones doing the rationalizing are also very important in this equation. So, just a quick quote from another self-proclaimed ethicist only concerned with the well being ofsociety and for doing a service to those who might have a difficult life ahead of them: This philosophy which led to the estimated deaths of 350,000 Germans (including a few doctors/executioners hanged later at Nuremberg) is now believed to have been a precursor to the even more indiscriminate killing to follow, as indicated by this brief summary of the T4 program signed by Hitler in October of 1939 as a mercy killing of the sick and disabled. Of course, any involuntary form of euthanasia should more properly be called eugenics, which is invariably where this mental disorder of reasoning leads that reasoning being that in order to value some humans, you must extinguish others. The above historical example is not to highlight one single worst villain, but to demonstrate a worldview which keeps cropping up again and again within the halls of government-endorsed medicine and science. In fact, eugenics has a long historyestablished in Americawell before Hitlers arrival and apparently continues long after his death. As noted in a piece of criticism linking some of the current euthanasia policies of the Netherlands with those that began inNazi Germany and later morphed into open eugenics, Wesley J. Smith highlights: It is for this reason alone that if we must have such genetic testing done for the sake of saving humanity, or ensuring the greatest safety and happiness for all, then only with proper logic can it be argued that we have a moral obligation to start with the leaders of governments worldwide, and their minions in academia and science who through their justifications makedemocide that much more efficient for singular psychopathic leaders to carry out. However, Id much rather embrace technological advancement in a way that increases the options for self-determination, rather than breed a perpetual zombie race with happy smiles on their genetically designed faces and not a critical thought within their sterilized minds. Even if occasionally a Hitler, Stalin, Mao, or Pol Pot shows up, along with their enablers. Because with that same dangerous natural freedom, so too can minds of great wonder and peaceful intentions develop and hopefully offer an opportunity for sustained enlightenment of the human race. Perhaps we should then focus more on revisiting history, where such heavenly ideas as designing the perfect human have only led us to hell; and seeing current parallels, learn to throw these ideas in the trash upon first sight. Based on the poll numbers within the Telegraph report about Savulescus statements, wherein 80% of readers disagree with his argument, humanity shows at least some indication of learning from its past blind faith, and perhaps still has enough time to further increase its resistance against the virus ofsocial engineers and their designer babies. Please weigh in with your own views about the pros and cons of rational design in the comment section below. Read other articles by Nicholas WestHERE 