Reproductive Genetic Technologies

Three groups in U.S.: first group dominated by nonreligious and liberal religious respondents espouse “the dominant public discourse about suffering,” i.e., it is not to be tolerated but conquered through technology. Second group, largely liberal Protestants and Jews, “seems to understand why there might be a debate but clearly falls on the side of relieving suffering through RGTs. . . These religious groups “do not have the strong counternarrative identified by theologians. . . . [The third group of] largely conservative Protestants (evangelicals, fundamentalists, and Pentecostals) tends to see a legitimate debate about whether we should end suffering through RGTs. . . many come down on the side of not relieving suffering through RGTs at all” for three reasons: (1) they do not want to eliminate suffering by ending the life of the sufferer; (2) they do not want to imply that those who have genetic qualities that lead to suffering are less valuable to society; (3) they see a purpose in suffering (J. H. Evans, 1068-1070 & passim). . . . Re RGTs, “despite attempts of religious leaders to claim that all people have equal value, most of the respondents who find meaning in suffering ultimately feel compelled to justify the utility to others of the sufferer (e.g., the pedagogical function of suffering for others), because in this country we value people ultimately in terms of their utility” (1072).