It's not the technology, it's how it's used.

For the Colson Center, I'm John Stone Street with the point.

Technology is a gift, but there are real problems with certain forms of prenatal screening.

When used to help parents prepare to care for an infant with an anticipated genetic condition, it's an amazing asset.

Instead, however, it's too often used to decide whether or not a child should live.

Recently, in the Scientific American,

Daniel Navon raised his own concerns about prenatal screening. It's big business, he writes. The

annual market is already around $4 billion and is growing rapidly. The problem, he said,

is that including a condition on a prenatal genetic test implies that it may be incompatible

with a life worth living.

One result, he warns, could be that religious communities and staunchly pro-life states

would see increasing populations of those with genetic orders. Well, so be it. That wouldn't be a

crisis. We have to always resist any temptation to try to build a perfect world,

especially when it comes not by eliminating defects, but by eliminating people.

Navon's predictions prove true.

That would be a badge of honor for those states.

For the Colson Center, I'm John Stone Street.