it doesn't matter whether a person has a genetic predisposition toward violence, or pedophilia, or homosexuality, or whatever; we will look at behaviors separate from their origins, and not use "genetic makeup" as an acceptable reason for accepting what is otherwise viewed as unacceptable behavior.
I'd take issue with the inclusion of homosexuality in that list. You may not find it pleasant, but it neither harms nor threatens you nor your children (IMO) - you probably wouldn't be happy if your children were homosexual, I suspect most hetero parents wouldn't be; but it's hardly unaccepted behaviour for most civilised people, still less to be ranked with violence or paedophilia.
Also, the issue of a genetic component is far more dubious... apart from anything else, knowledge of genetics indicates that such genes would be counter-survival and thus unlikely to be propagated. It's only a relatively secure society that can support the luxury of non-reproductive genes, and I don't think our genetic makeup will have changed that much since the last ice age.
I agree otherwise, however. Genetic makeup should not be an 'excuse' for crime, any more than environment, upbringing or circumstances. If there genuinely are genes which make these likely, what it might do is suggest areas to treat.
Then, of course, if you find your embryos do carry the genetic coding making them likely to embrace psychopathic violence, or compulsive paedophilia, you'll have the chance to abort them early... I wonder if that will play? It'll be an option, I'm sure. Will you even be given the choice NOT to do so? |
