Conor Friedersdorf
Conor Friedersdorf
Conor Friedersdorf is a staff writer at The Atlantic, where he focuses on politics and national affairs. He lives in Venice, California, and is the founding editor of The Best of Journalism, a newsletter devoted to exceptional nonfiction.
  • Darren Hauck / Reuters

    Wisconsin Republicans Consider Cracking Down on Campus Protests

    The Badger State is debating a law that would suspend or expel students who shut down speakers or interfere with their free expression. Does it go too far?

  • Aaron Bernstein / Reuters

    How Drug Prohibition Fuels American Carnage

    Attorney General Jeff Sessions appears not to understand the most basic cost of the drug policy he recommends: the guarantee of violent crime.

  • Joshua Roberts / Reuters

    Donald Trump No Longer Wants to 'Stay Out' of Syria

    His interventionism is a betrayal of all who supported him due to his claim that the U.S. “gets nothing” from the conflict and should “stay out.”

  • Gianni Fiorito / Mongrel Media

    The Film That’s Missing From the ‘Century’s Greatest’ Lists

    The Great Beauty excels by offering an unsurpassed meditation on a question that confronts all humans lucky enough to live in modernity.

  • David Ryder / Reuters

    'You Have to Live With One Another'

    A human-rights lawyer advises the left on how to seek advancement in a democracy.

  • Eric Thayer / Reuters

    Donald Trump's 'America Second' Cuba Policy

    The president is pursuing a course that will harm American citizens––and that may help his family’s business interests by hurting its corporate rivals.

  • Jonathan Ernst / Reuters

    The Buck Stops Over There

    The commander in chief’s gravest decisions are being delegated to unaccountable generals who’ll be used to insulate him politically if things go wrong.

  • Reuters

    What Do Spy Agencies Tell Foreign Governments About Americans?

    A new ACLU freedom of information request aims to find out, in concert with civil society groups abroad seeking similar answers from their countries.

  • Kevin Lamarque / Reuters

    Republicans Are a Majority Without a Mandate

    The political realities of the Trump-era render the party unable to govern the country effectively, often for reasons of its own making.

  • Reuters / Mike Segar

    How Conservatives Awoke to the Dangers of Sean Hannity

    The Fox News host is under attack as never before because many Americans are now forced to take what he says seriously for the first time.

  • Neil Hall / Reuters

    How Far Should Societies Go to Prevent Terror Attacks?

    Almost everyone is unwilling to do certain things to eliminate terrorism. And that is fortunate, for the endurance of a free society depends upon it.

  • Reuters

    'Terrorism Is Aimed at the People Watching'

    Tabloid-style coverage of mass murder helps those intent on using violence to stoke fear.

  • Alexander Shcherbak / TASS / Getty

    The World's Worst Negotiation

    In a single brief meeting with Russian officials, President Trump not only divulged classified information, he also handed them a damaging account of his decision to fire James Comey

  • Yuri Gripas / Reuters

    The 'Trump Derangement Syndrome' Dodge

    Beware trusting pundits who exploit the least defensible critiques of the president to avoid acknowledging his most dangerous flaws.

  • Reuters

    The Fraudulent Populism of Tucker Carlson

    The Fox News host attacks a host at a rival network for informing the public by violating an unwritten code among elites.

  • Yuri Gripas / Reuters

    Donald Trump's Loose Lips Vindicate His Critics

    The implications of news reports that the president compromised intelligence sources and damaged national security.

  • Yuri Gripas / Reuters

    Trump Finds That Doing Is Harder Than Criticizing

    The president embodies the very quality that he attacked as “pathetic” in his commencement address at Liberty University.

  • Should Parents Who Refuse to Edit Their Babies' Genes Be Punished?

    As I wrote a few weeks ago, advances in biotechnology could make this a pressing question in the near future—and under certain conditions, this reader’s answer is yes:

    My gut instinct is that I would lean towards punishment if the parents were to have the fetus tested for genetic abnormalities and diseases and the test came back positive, but the parents still refused to consider gene editing.  It’s knowingly bringing preventable suffering into the world. If the attendant medical procedures were as cheap and safe as a course of antibiotics, would it be unethical to deny a potential human gene editing to avert a serious disease?

    Yes, I believe so.

    Another reader used a fanciful thought-experiment to reach a similar conclusion:

    Let us imagine two prospective parents, set A, each carriers of the Tay-Sachs gene. They have a one-in-four chance of passing two copies of the gene onto a child. Doing so is a death sentence for the child by its eighth birthday.

    Now imagine two other prospective parents, set B. These parents decide that on their child’s eighth birthday, they will sit with the child and several friends for a nice game of Russian roulette. The only difference between A and B is that with most handguns, B has given its child a slightly better chance of survival.

    I use the graphic analogy to drive home the essential point: Parents who knowingly risk passing on bad genes to a child can cause real harm. They are gambling with the life of another human being. In any other context, such behavior would be instantly recognized as abuse and protective state intervention would be not only defensible but also obligatory. The fancy phrases about dignity and fundamental liberty and so forth are what Peter Singer called “the last resource of those who have run out of arguments.”

    On the other hand, the next reader supports penalties for parents who refuse medical interventions, yet does not believe similar penalties will, or should, be applied to parents who refuse gene-editing:

    It is my understanding that the majority, if not all, of the cases pursued against parents for not obtaining medical interventions for their children are in cases where there is a clear and immediate danger to the child’s life and health, along with a clear and immediate medical intervention for the child's condition. Such medical interventions must not only have a high probability of success, but also have a high probability of not causing secondary conditions worse than the treated disease or condition itself.

    In all cases I can think of, gene editing is not and will not be like this. Gene editing is more like vaccination, and prosecutions of parents who refuse to vaccinate almost never occur. In some respects the case for prosecutions of anti–gene-editors would be even weaker than it is for “anti-vaxxers.”

  • Jonathan Ernst / Reuters

    Donald Trump's Own Words Become 'Exhibit A' Against Him

    The president’s interview with Lester Holt exposed White House obfuscation, unethical interactions with James Comey, and circumstantial evidence that the FBI director’s termination was improper.

  • The Pro-Choice Case Against Mandatory Gene Editing

    Valentyn Ogirenko / Reuters

    A reader reflects on our ongoing series:

    There’s a circle I absolutely cannot square:

    I am a strong advocate of abortion rights. I believe women have the right to conceive or not conceive and to abort a pregnancy for almost any reason. Somehow, the intuition which causes me to adopt that position doesn’t map to the context of genetic manipulation. I am entirely comfortable with laws which punish women and men for procreating negligently by failing to use genetic screening and manipulation. I could try to put a veneer on this and reconcile the two views, but I don’t think I can do so honestly. I wonder any of your liberal readers face the same dilemma?

    If you have an answer for how to resolve those two views, let us know. This reader spells out the conflict:

    In order to be pro-choice, one must hold to the supremacy of the mother’s rights vis-a-vis the fetus. The mother gets to decide what happens with her body, notwithstanding any moral claims we might contemplate assigning the fetus. In that case, it’s hard to see how a pro-choice person could, with ethical consistency, advocate the compulsion of a mother to undergo a procedure for the health of the fetus, which is certainly what gene editing would entail. The mother gets to decide what happens with her body, after all.