Is gene-therapy wrong?
- Thread starter Red Magic
- Start date
Recommended Videos
It'll happen anyway, as the surrounding enviroment they grow up in affects them.
Nice parents = Nice child (Is the Norm)
Of course, you need to take into account the other people in the social surrounding.
But if the parents are good people, then yes. (Don't ask me how to see if they are "Good", because how would I know?)
Nice parents = Nice child (Is the Norm)
Of course, you need to take into account the other people in the social surrounding.
But if the parents are good people, then yes. (Don't ask me how to see if they are "Good", because how would I know?)
Um, for what purpose? If it's to avoid a hereditary disease, then, sure, get treating those illnesses ASAP!
If it's about hair colour, personality or physical attributes, then NO. Do not take away a child's individuality (and risk their lives) just for your own selfish reasons. Just don't.
If it's about hair colour, personality or physical attributes, then NO. Do not take away a child's individuality (and risk their lives) just for your own selfish reasons. Just don't.
Eliminating potentially debilitating diseases? Yes, absolutely.
Tailoring the ideal person? No, not so much.
Tailoring the ideal person? No, not so much.
The parents shouldn't have the ability to control their child like that. And imagine how devastating it would be to find out that everything your parents were proud of you for was the result of scientists poking at you in the womb? None of the love you got from your parents was earned, it was all set in place. They didn't really care about you, they just wanted a novelty child, one to show off to the other families.
If you can tweak life, why not? Why make life sacred? I wouldn't want it to be abused, but I can could say that about everything in the world. It's something that can prevent unwanted instances from mankind and bring us further and stronger.
"Moral strings" are just holding us back...
"Moral strings" are just holding us back...
Further and stronger?My idea of further and stronger is seeing past appearance and accepting someone no matter what they look like,and my idea of strength would be Joseph Merrick.A person isn't a sculpture or a piece of clay,if everyones "normal" then people start to become the same.
To ensure that children start off with no "hindering genes", sure. The less kids we get starting off with handicaps towards living whatever life they wish... the better.
Since laws can't be made as the following: "It's legal to alter the genes of a child, unless they want to make the child a perfect humanoid by appearance" - this would be the same as starting to quiz women who want to get an abortion as to why they want to get an abortion, not to mention prosecuting the ones you think "lied".
I'd say make the law: "It's legal to utilize gene therapy as a form of treatment" - regardless of what reason is behind it, different parents will mean different kids either way.
Since laws can't be made as the following: "It's legal to alter the genes of a child, unless they want to make the child a perfect humanoid by appearance" - this would be the same as starting to quiz women who want to get an abortion as to why they want to get an abortion, not to mention prosecuting the ones you think "lied".
I'd say make the law: "It's legal to utilize gene therapy as a form of treatment" - regardless of what reason is behind it, different parents will mean different kids either way.
If it's removing stuff like cancer genes and harmful stuff, go for it. But making your child to your own tastes is wrong, and it's like trying to play God.
In.... the womb?!?MalkavianPretzelKing said:
Err, think you got your facts wrong there, once the blastocyst has implanted in the womb that is WAY TOO LATE to start fiddling with the DNA.
On thing you CAN do is read DNA of the embryo and if you find the embryo has genes that will later develop into a serious genetic disease - like being born with no limbs and no eyes - then there is the option to have an abortion.
The problem is parents may simply have an adoption because they were hoping for a male but got a females instead so abort females.
This can have a huge problem (outside the issues of the ethics of abortion which I REALLY don't want to get into) if this is widely practised and males are routinely favoured this will lead to a severely lopsided generation of way more males than females. That isn't good for a healthy society as inevitably most men will most be able to find a wife or partner.
This also could lead to a population crash as if there are less females and they don't have more babies then there will be a sudden shock population dip.
Seeing past problems is tolerance, fixing them is improvement. Also, you misunderstand me in thinking I want a superior race. I want problems to be fixed, letting waste into a gene pool just makes it dirty and drags in down...MalkavianPretzelKing said:
lastly, how is being dealt an ailment strength?
It's impossible at the moment anyway, as there has been almost no research into what makes people genetically "above average"Avaholic03 said:
All the research has gone into genetic diseases, when things go "wrong" with growth. Trying to make the body work "better" by fiddling with genes is far beyond the horizon of any serious genetic research.
Even then scanning for genetic diseases is generally limited to advising couples if they should try for children depending on if their combination of genes are likely to give affected offspring.
Gene therapy (post fertilisation) is mostly limited to tailor made steroids and inhibitors, which simply we don't have the ability to change someone's genetic code after birth nor even after conception.
Science should have absolutely no moral hindrances to it. Morality is made by the majority and the majority knows dick.
If it's possible to make the perfect human then I personally think they are in the "moral" right to do so if not required to.
There's too much handwringing going on when it comes to scientific advancements.
If it's possible to make the perfect human then I personally think they are in the "moral" right to do so if not required to.
There's too much handwringing going on when it comes to scientific advancements.
I have no problems with making better humans, "objective" or "subjective" wise, as long as they are better.
IVF (in vitro fertilisation) produces weak offspring, dumber, shorter and most often infertile due to the lack of imprinting. So we are far from making better humans.
IVF (in vitro fertilisation) produces weak offspring, dumber, shorter and most often infertile due to the lack of imprinting. So we are far from making better humans.
The question extends beyond the mere sanctity of life. If we have the power to save a doomed life by curing a terrible illness in the womb, few would complain. But if we were given the power to determine everything about the resulting person you extend far beyond simply creating, preserving, or destroying life: you seek to engineer it. To do so is to literally toy with the power of the divine (literally or metaphorically depending upon your perspective) and the real question is can this power be leveraged in a way that is legitimately beneficial to the species. Once you start engineering people the ideas of natural selection are rendered moot and in the place of a system that inevitably resulted in a fair cross section of attributes that has lead us from living in caves and fearing the sun to our current state in only a few thousand years you would apply the wisdom of a handful of people most probably governed by little more than gender sterotypes, unfulfilled dreams broad social trends.clipped crow said:
It's as right as... Liking breasts. Yeah, let's go with that.
Personally, I wouldn't had mind if my parents had counter acted my syndrome. I don't know how I would live my life right now without it, but I can think it would be more social-friendly.
Also, it gives an ample opportunity to destroy in-bred syndromes such as retardation or other.
It could also turn the children smarter, faster, stronger...
Hell, in the future, we'll have space ships, super humans, a perfect society, peace and immortality.
I don't doubt it for one moment. We're evolving thanks to ourselves. And this is a step forward.
Personally, I wouldn't had mind if my parents had counter acted my syndrome. I don't know how I would live my life right now without it, but I can think it would be more social-friendly.
Also, it gives an ample opportunity to destroy in-bred syndromes such as retardation or other.
It could also turn the children smarter, faster, stronger...
Hell, in the future, we'll have space ships, super humans, a perfect society, peace and immortality.
I don't doubt it for one moment. We're evolving thanks to ourselves. And this is a step forward.