How about Isaac Newton? Arthur Kaplan asks some interesting questions:

As genetic testing moves into the world of mental health, we are going to face some very tough questions. Will medicine suggest that any and every variation from absolute normalcy is pathological? How can we draw lines between disabling diseases such as severe autism and more mild differences such as Asperger’s, which may give society some of its greatest achievers? Will parents have complete say over the kind of children they want to bear? And what sorts of messages will doctors and genetic counselors convey when talking about risks, probabilities and choices that involve not life and death but personality and sociability, genius and geekiness?

Some, like Jonah Goldberg, have already pointed out the irony and conflict in some so-called "liberal" positions in the light of changing technology. He uses the example of how upset the gay community will become if a "gay gene" (or more likely, complex of genes) is discovered and can be tested for prior to birth. An absolute right to abortion, after all, implies a right to abort because the fetus is (or at least will become) homosexual.

Does the abortion debate take on a new flavor when it's no longer simply about the convenience of the mother, but the viability (both physical and social) of the fetus? Perhaps Bill Gates' spinal cord could have been used to develop stem cells to save many others. Would that have been a good tradeoff? When we decide to end the lives of the unborn (or, for that matter, the born), we can never know what potential we're losing. The ultimate question of course, is whether or not it will be a decision of the government, or of individuals.

There is also the possibility that genes or gene complexes responsible for desirable traits may also be responsible for undesirable traits. Perhaps high IQ is linked with a high probability of insanity, or homosexuality, or alzheimers, or some degenerative disease. It may be impossible to eliminate bad traits without also eliminating some good traits, and impossible to code for good traits without also getting some bad ones. Nature tends to be perverse like that.

Rand hit the nail on the head with his last sentence. The real issue about all of this biomedical and social issue stuff is: Will individuals make these decisions, or will it be government.

But what if those individuals makes decisions that the society, through their government, have decided are not acceptable? (Like when tindividuals engage in prostitution.) But what if those individuals all get together, voluntarily, and use government as their means of expressing their wishes? (As they do when they pass a tax levy to fund libraries.) Don't assume that the government are the bad guys and the individuals the good guys in this argument, either.

The basic question (how and who should decide what genetic traits are good/bad) is fine, though far from new, but I don't much care for the way they are throwing a diagnosis around. While the MSNBC article is careful not to actually say Gates has Asperger's syndrome, it certainly hints strongly enough. Lately, it seems to be popular to diagnose people who tend to be introverted as having Asperger's. On another website I've seen there were some kids diagnosed with Asperger's, and several others that were self diagnosing based on very fuzzy definitions of symptoms. In some cases, the diagnosis itself may cause real problems. Sure, there are some people with serious personality disorders, but most of this looks like a case of a fancy label for part of the spectrum of personalities.

Don't assume that the government are the bad guys and the individuals the good guys in this argument, either.

I'm not hearing a good justification for general government interference in this matter no matter who the government represents.

Yes, you know the government will be involved one way or another, but at least if individuals get to choose, there won't be uniformity. If the government chooses badly, everybody suffers. If individuals choose badly, a few suffer.

Just want to point out the Gov't. already *has* made the decision -- Roe v Wade established the exceedingly frightening and dangerous precedent of the Federal Gov't arbitrarily DEFINING what a human life is/isn't. And once a definition is established, it can be changed, which, of course, is the dangerous part.

- Eric.

Huh? What human life is has been subject to law for centuries. For example, killing a dog is not the taking of a human life. Discarding surgically excised tissue is not taking a human life. Burning a corpse it not taking a human life. So Roe vs. Wade didn't suddenly mark the beginning of where law decided what a human life was. If we have laws that involve the notion of 'human life' (such as, say, the laws against murder), there's no way the law -- either expressed explicitly or interpreted by the courts -- can avoid defining what that is.

What Roe vs. Wade was was a definition that a large group doesn't agree with. But don't pretend it was doing something utterly new in making distinctions.

All the things you cite are NOT definitions of human life by gov't., not by any stretch of the imagination. However, in Roe v Wade, the SCOTUS made a specific, arbitrary decision as to how many months of gestation is required before we call the child "human". And, as I said, when the gov't can make ANY such (re)definition, that sets precedent for redefining yet again. And if the gov't is ceded that power, where does it ultimately stop?

- Eric.

Of course those are definitions of human life -- negative definitions, just like saying a fetus of a certain age isn't a human life is also a negative definition. What you don't like is that your own *positive* definition isn't the one the SCOTUS agreed with. Other people, say animal rights activitists, would feel the same way about other distinctions, for example the of killing of dogs (read Singer sometime on this).

Why do you imagine *your* prejudices should define what the judiciary should or should not do?