Great post: I especially appreciate the point you make in relation to Ord. It occurs to me that given how frequent spontaneous abortions are--which occur when embryos are flushed from a woman’s body, for reasons that are poorly understood, but probably have to do with a chemical detection of abnormalities--we might infer that nature is already doing PGT-A screening. If so, religious conservatives might hold that PGT is just improving what the body already does. Though IVG will present real problems for anyone who thinks embryos have moral rights.
> It is reasonable for a pro-life advocate to prefer genetic testing if IVF is already taking place, but it is understandable if a pro-life advocate dislikes it when it motivates more couples to use IVF.
The problem is indeed this. If this is true, pro-life advocates (like me) should *not* support PGT. Meaning they should argue that it should be illegal so as to prevent people from using IVF.
Great post: I especially appreciate the point you make in relation to Ord. It occurs to me that given how frequent spontaneous abortions are--which occur when embryos are flushed from a woman’s body, for reasons that are poorly understood, but probably have to do with a chemical detection of abnormalities--we might infer that nature is already doing PGT-A screening. If so, religious conservatives might hold that PGT is just improving what the body already does. Though IVG will present real problems for anyone who thinks embryos have moral rights.
I've been thinking about this:
> It is reasonable for a pro-life advocate to prefer genetic testing if IVF is already taking place, but it is understandable if a pro-life advocate dislikes it when it motivates more couples to use IVF.
The problem is indeed this. If this is true, pro-life advocates (like me) should *not* support PGT. Meaning they should argue that it should be illegal so as to prevent people from using IVF.