It Is True That The

Most Economics That Is Taught In College And Universities Today Projects Itself As A Value-neutral Science. This Claim Has Always Been Open To Question, But I Think It's Especially In Doubt Today.

If Parents Are Aiming At Choosing Children Who Will Be Good Athletes, Or Great Musicians, Or Who Will Get Into Ivy League Schools, Or Who Will Be Tall Enough To Make The Basketball Team, Then There Is A Danger That The Life Of The Child Will Bear The Burden Of That Expectation; And The Risk Of Disappointment And The Cost Of Disappointment Will Be Even Higher Than They Are Now, And Even Now They Can Be Considerable.

I Find This In All These Places I've Been Travelling - From India To China, To Japan And Europe And To Brazil - There Is A Frustration With The Terms Of Public Discourse, With A Kind Of Absence Of Discussion Of Questions Of Justice And Ethics And Of Values.

If We Go Too Far Down The Road Of Choosing The Genetic Traits Of Children, My Worry Is That Parenting Will Be Less A Kind Of School For Humility Than It Should Be, And We Will Become Too Accustomed To Regarding Children As Instruments Of Our Ambition And Of Our Desires.

Parental Love Is Not Contingent On The Talents And Attributes The Child Happens To Have. We Choose Our Friends And Spouses At Least Partly On The Basis Of Qualities We Find Attractive. But We Do Not Choose Our Children. Their Qualities Are Unpredictable, And Even The Most Conscientious Parents Cannot Be Held Wholly Responsible For The Kind Of Child They Have. That Is Why Parenthood, More Than Other Human Relationships, Teaches What The Theologian William F. May Calls An “openness To The Unbidden.