Very dubious ground, morally.

It's a short step from removing this gene to looking at removing other "defects" and then the definition of what is and isn't a defect becomes all too critical.

Won't their faces be red when it turns out to be a boy!

(Obviously guys can still get breast cancer, but it's a joke, so ease up.)

Just one step closer!

but on another note, surely this is great news for the world of Genealogists!

It's messing where they shouldn't be messing!

I agree, all babies should be born with the breast cancer gene. I don't see why a parent would want their baby to have little to no chance of getting breast cancer. This is worse than those people that vaccinate babies for various diseases. You're supposed to just roll the dice. Thats basically what having a baby is.

Fair enough. We'll just do it your way and damn the consequences then.

This is clearly a black and white issue with no grey area.

This is a very, very touchy subject indeed.

I am totally against "designer kids" i.e.: being able to choose your kids sex/eye color/hair color/height etc. BUT if there was a way to take out a cancer gene, well, I'm all for it.

I've known WAYYYY too many people with cancer and no one should ever have to go through the kind of suffering that comes along with having it.

haha, you got me.

I personally would love to give birth to a baby that will never get sick, already be 21, potty trained, and a genius. But I'm a man, and therefore it will likely not happen.

If you come from 5 generations of people that got breast cancer and died, even in the last 2 generations after surgery and treatment, I could see wanting to nip that in the bud at the first opportunity.


edit: wait, did pock just call me a nazi?