LIFE DIGEST: Some Brits push to design deaf children

By Tom Strode - Jan 8, 2008 - 2

British deaf advocacy organizations are lobbying for the right to produce babies who will be hearing impaired.

Deaf parents should be able to screen embryos created through in vitro fertilization in order to have a child who does not hear and, therefore, fits in better with the family, a deaf rights leader says, The Times of London reported Dec. 23.

“Most parents would choose to have a hearing embryo, but for those few parents who do not, we think they should be allowed to exercise that choice and we would support them in that decision,” said Jackie Ballard, chief executive of the Royal National Institute for Deaf and Hard of Hearing People. “There are a small minority of activists who say that there is cultural identity in being born deaf and that we should not destroy that cultural identity by preventing children from being born deaf.”

Ballard’s advocacy came as Parliament considers legislation that would bar parents using genetic testing from selecting an embryo with disabilities if there are healthy ones in existence, according to The Times. The British Deaf Association is lobbying to remove that provision from the bill.

An American bioethics specialist said the problem is more than just engineering deafness.

“Some might say that the wrong here is producing children intentionally to have a disability,” said Wesley Smith, a consultant to the Center for Bioethics and Culture, on the weblog bioethics.com. “But the real wrong here is that children are becoming mere products ordered out of a catalogue – only worth bringing to birth if they suit parental desires and satisfy parental ‘lifestyles.’ It marks the end of loving our children unconditionally.

“Designing children to be deaf is just as morally wrong as selecting embryos out because they will be hearing impaired.”

Normally in producing designer babies, screening, or preimplantation genetic diagnosis, is used to select only the apparently healthy embryos for implantation in the mother’s womb.

Assassinated Bhutto defended unborn children

Benazir Bhutto, who was assassinated Dec. 27, not only was a promoter of democracy in Pakistan but a leader of the global women’s pro-life movement, according to an American group of anti-abortion feminists.

Bhutto, 54, who died as a result of an apparent suicide bomb attack, was described as an “international advocate for women and children, born and unborn, especially those in developing countries” by Feminists for Life of America (FFL).

She “refused to choose between meeting the needs of women or between protecting unborn children from abortion,” FFL President Serrin Foster wrote in a tribute on the organization’s website. Bhutto described sex-selection abortions, which normally result in the killing of female babies, as “tragic” and said the practice “still haunts a world we regard as modern and civilized,” according to FFL.

Bhutto spoke against sex-selection abortion at the 1995 United Nations Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing, according to FFL. She urged delegates “to chart a course that can create a climate where the girl child is as welcomed and valued as a boy child, that the girl child is considered as worthy as a boy child.”

FFL named Bhutto a Remarkable Pro-life Woman® in 1998.

Bhutto became the first prime minister of an Islamic state in 1988. She served twice as Pakistan’s prime minister but was removed both times from office by the country’s president. After living in exile for nine years, she returned to Pakistan in October and appeared likely to win another term as prime minister in January elections before the fatal attack in Rawalpindi.

Third team converts skin cells into stem cells

Another research team has reprogrammed skin cells into embryonic-like stem cells, providing more evidence for the validity of a technique that is not destructive.

Scientists at Harvard Medical School and Children’s Hospital in Boston reported in a Dec. 23 article in the journal Nature they took the skin cells from a volunteer and converted them into the functional equivalent of embryonic stem cells, according to Reuters News Service.

Two research teams, one in Wisconsin and the other in Japan, reported Nov. 20 they had reprogrammed skin cells from adult human beings into the embryonic-like cells. Unlike the Harvard research, however, those skin cells came from cells grown in labs, Reuters reported.

The reports are especially satisfying for pro-life advocates who oppose embryonic stem cell research because it requires the destruction of human embryos.

The new technique is known as “somatic cell reprogramming.” Researchers refer to the cells developed from skin cells as “induced pluripotent stem” cells.

Embryonic stem cells are considered “pluripotent,” meaning they can develop into all of the different cell types in the body. Adult stem cells, also referred to as non-embryonic stem cells, typically have been regarded as “multipotent,” meaning they can form many, though not all, of the body’s cell types.

Stem cells are the body’s master cells that can develop into other cells and tissues, giving hope for the development of cures for a variety of diseases and other ailments.

Despite their potential, embryonic stem cells have yet to treat any diseases in human beings and have been plagued by the development of tumors in lab animals. The use of stem cells from non-embryonic sources—such as umbilical cord blood, placentas, fat and bone marrow—has produced treatments for at least 73 human ailments, according to Do No Harm, a coalition promoting ethics in research.

Support for embryonic stem cell research falling

A recent public opinion survey shows Americans back non-embryonic stem cell research over the more hyped alternative that results in the destruction of human embryos.

The poll by Virginia Commonwealth University in Richmond found 75 percent of respondents said they support non-embryonic experiments, while only 54 percent endorse embryonic stem cell research (ESCR), which destroys the tiny human being when cells are extracted, according to LifeNews.com.

The 54 percent support for ESCR marks a fall of four percent from VCU’s 2005 survey. Opposition to ESCR has risen from 32 to 39 percent since 2005, LifeNews reported.

The survey showed decreased support for ESCR even though the question did not indicate embryos are destroyed in the experiments, according to LifeNews.

Glendon confirmed as Vatican ambassador

The U.S. Senate has confirmed Harvard University law professor Mary Ann Glendon, a well known pro-life advocate, as ambassador to the Vatican.

Senators approved Glendon’s nomination by President Bush in a voice vote Dec. 19 shortly before they adjourned for the Christmas recess, according to LifeNews.com. Bush named Glendon as one of the original members of the President’s Council on Bioethics in 2002.

A Roman Catholic, Glendon, 69, is the first woman to lead a Vatican delegation to a major United Nations meeting. Pope John Paul selected her in 1995 to lead the Vatican’s representatives to a U.N. women’s conference in Beijing, Catholic News Service reported.

Further Learning

Learn more about: Life, Abortion, Stem-Cell Research, Citizenship, National, Science, Bioethics

2 comments (post your own) feed

Post a Comment




Notify me of follow-up comments?

Before You Submit Your Comment (below), Read This:

Thank you for your interest in the ministry of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission (SBC).

Comments are moderated to preserve the family-oriented nature of this website and in an attempt to avoid comment spam. We welcome opposing viewpoints, and we will not turn comments away as long as your views are presented with respect to everyone.

Your comments will not appear immediately and are subject to editing or deletion. We will make every attempt to check new comments in a timely manner, though there will likely be delays on the weekends and around holidays.

Please follow the these guidelines to insure your comments will be posted:

  1. Use a real name, at least a real first name. We find folks are less-rude online when not hiding behind a screen-name.
  2. Name-calling and vulgar-language will not be tolerated. Zero-tolerance is our policy. We will not spend time editing profanity. If it contains foul language, your post will be deleted. Oh, and we decide what is and what is not vulgar.
  3. Comments must be on topic. General comments (compliments, complaints, and otherwise) are best delivered here or expressed on your own personal Web site.
  4. And please, do not type in ALL CAPS. It looks like you're screaming at people.

Additionally, within Baptist polity, please recognize that many issues and decisions are addressed at a local church level. SBC denominational (national) offices have no control and desire no control over the activities of a local church. This entity is not responsible for overseeing and insuring the ethical behavior of Southern Baptist pastors or church members. If your concern involves a legal civil or criminal matter, we suggest you contact the proper local officials.

Issues involving pastoral staff or other church members, local Baptist associations or state Baptist conventions are local issues. Therefore the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission cannot and should not address such issues. While we regret we are unable to assist you, we encourage you to seek a biblical resolution of the issue at the local church level. If your question or submission pertains to a matter covered in this text, it is likely we will not acknowledge your submission.

Other than that, we welcome you and hope to see thoughtful discussions at ERLC.com