How should the state regulate reproductive technologies?

The government is to abolish the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) this year, as part of its " bonfire of the quangos ", a traditional rite. But how should the state regulate reproductive technologies? If abortion is a right for women, why should their choices about fertility treatment be subject to second-guessing by government moralists? On the other hand, surely the state has an interest in balancing medical and scientific advances against other considerations. The use of embryos for experimentation is very different from the use of foetuses. The law needs to take this fact into account, and to police the shifting borders of acceptability. Now that it is practical to screen embryos for particular genes, surely a democratic government needs to decide, as the HFEA now does, which genes should be screened for? Or do we want to live in a country where it is legal to decide whether a child is worthy of being born on account of its gender, skin colour, or expected intelligence and athletic ability? Monday's response Julian Savulescu : The conservative approach of the HFEA has retarded research and limited the reproductive applications of technology Wednesday's response Ruth Deech : Taking regulation away from the accountable and expert figures of the HFEA is risky and misguided Friday's response Brendan McCarthy: Embryos cannot be reduced to commodities