Genetic engineering is OK
Genetic engineering is wrong
April 5th, 2006, 04:04 PM
why is genetic engineering considered for the most part unethical? i am catholic myself and catholics are against genetic engineering. i, myself, am all for it. people say that it disrupts god's plan, and disrupting nature. but, we ARE part of nature. god made us, too. anything we do should be considered nature, just as what animals do is nature. everything on earth or in the universe is natural.
On the practical side, in the broad scope, it allows for golden rice, and variants thereof. Imagine giving food to the children of Africa, and making sure they have a balanced diet simply by modifying the food, so farmers do not require intensive training. It provides a valid solution to many of the problems around the world. As it appeared on the cover of Times, we COULD save 1 million children a year from dying by these methods.
If you are given the chance of curing your five-year old child from a fatal disease, but the longterm effects are not certain (but it is expected there are none), can you really say no, because you are not absolutely certain?
On the theoretical side, I see two streams. First of all, the irrational fear of Hitler Germany. The love of equality, and the hatred of someone deviant seems to have manifested itself in a phobia against someone developed to be deviant. What exactly is against someone creating a blond, blue-eyed child with hightened intelligence?
That said, the probablity of that being a possibility is very small. Such genetic modifications, regarding intelligence that is, is incredibly complex. At most, we will be able to keep in certain variations (blond hair, blue eyes), that according to some will die out in the coming ages.
A propos, people are by definition different, some better in certain subjects than others. It is impossible to create one perfect human being. The subjective nature of man comes to show this. Besides, education is in the least a big factor (more reasonably, a dominate factor) in the determination of what kind of a person someone will turn out to be.
The discrepancy of one side trusting billions of parents on being able to raise their parents to become sensible social beings, but on the other side not trusting them in their capability to create educated choices on the genetic formation of their children is inexplainable.
On the other side there are those who honestly believe in the pure nature of a human embryo and that fiddling with it is unnatural. Sadly, however, they never define unnatural. That is to say, whether man is in fact natural or not. In a way we are. In a way, everything we do, and everything we make is natural insofar that we come from nature, and that our behaviour is controlled by nature. Perhaps he is not natural, insofar that all he does that deviates from nature is unnatural. But than, clothing, using advanced language, et cetera, in fact, everything that makes us human is to be considered 'unnatural'.
Less of a moot point is perhaps the observation that there is nothing extreme about modifying ourselves. We are merely changing what we are in a more direct way. Do we not change our children by teaching them? If we were truly natural, that is to say, indifferent, we would merely serve as an example, and not spend time on them.
How fare can we go with modifying the genetics of our children? Is that not really up to the parent of the child?
Mr U
Well, if there were side effects, and you decided not to use the treatment, then there wouldn't be a person left to have the side effects. A crippled person is better than a dead one. otherwise, why would we have healthcare at all?Originally Posted by HomoUniversalis
I am not going to vote because the question is stupid.
Genetically engineer what?
Is it wrong to shoot a gun? Well that depends on what you shoot at and why doesn't it?
I am not in favor of Parents genetically engineering their children. They already have too much damn control over their children's lives already!
As for genetically engineering things like cattle? Give me a break. We already treat them like meat or milk producing machines, so I hardly think manipulating their genetics matters in that context.
But since human genetic engineering is the only thing that is really controversial I would presume that is what you are talking about. So now you have the pointed at people so what was the next question? oh yeah, why? Why are you going to genetically enineer humans?
In general I believe that it is immoral to create life without love. If we create humans for selfish reasons, we will deserve the nightmare that I guarantee will be the result. Read the book called Frankenstein.
you are correct in saying that i mostly meant genetically changing humans. the church is also against any bioengineering, but GE crops are already too numerous for the church to do anything about. and also cloning. is it right to clone a human? is it right to make a human better, stronger, more powerful right there at birth? is it right if you asked a person before you did it? is any genetic engineering right? well, i think that humans is a little extreme, but bioengineering plants/animals is just speeding up selective breeding, so there is nothing really wrong. i dont think it is "playing god" bioengineering anything, because god doesnt give them the genes in the first place, he just gave us the function to be able to have children. he gives children souls, but we provide the genes.
Read Mary Shelly's book. Frankenstein's creation was stronger and smarter, all the better for his creation to understand that what his creator did was terribly wrong and to seek revenge. Life invariable includes the experience of suffering, therefore to create life is to be responsible for suffering, therefore logic dictates that creating life is inherently immoral. There is only one thing that can justify the creation of life and that is love, for then the creator shares in the suffering of his creation.
That is just the problem. You cannot ask the person beforehand any more than you can ask a baby if it wants to be born. Parenthood is an act of the ultimate arrogance, to thrust your life upon a child and to think that you can do a good job as parent. We take enough upon ourselves already without taking on the responsibilities of manipulating a child's genetic structure. These are not experiments where we can just try again when they do not turn the way we planned.
It is playing god whether their even is a God. I don't believe God gives children their souls. And their is a big difference between giving your child a piece of yourself (genes) and decided which part of yourself they can have let alone altering the genes so that it is not a part of yourself at all.
Nay, for the creation of suffering is not immoral. Suffering is beautiful. It is the most profound emotion a person can experience. It can elevate one to feeling the most important or the most insignificant being of the world. Love is so powerful because it is so closely linked to suffering.Read Mary Shelly's book. Frankenstein's creation was stronger and smarter, all the better for his creation to understand that what his creator did was terribly wrong and to seek revenge. Life invariable includes the experience of suffering, therefore to create life is to be responsible for suffering, therefore logic dictates that creating life is inherently immoral.
Love? I engineer, genetically, out of agape. Know of what you speak..There is only one thing that can justify the creation of life and that is love, for then the creator shares in the suffering of his creation.
There are similar acts of 'ultimate arrogance', like government, and there is, as such, no ultimate arrogance. In fact, your hold over immorality as not including suffering might very well be designated as being this 'ultimate arrogance'.That is just the problem. You cannot ask the person beforehand any more than you can ask a baby if it wants to be born. Parenthood is an act of the ultimate arrogance, to thrust your life upon a child and to think that you can do a good job as parent.
Few things turn out the way something is planned. And those that do are often the less satisfactory, because they do not allow us to grow. It is through the unexpected element, yes, through suffering, that we grow, that we learn to overcome ourselves.We take enough upon ourselves already without taking on the responsibilities of manipulating a child's genetic structure. These are not experiments where we can just try again when they do not turn the way we planned.
Part of yourself? How about instructing it in your vision, with your morality? How is that not giving a child part of yourself? How will you recognise your child on your deathbed, but his chosen appearance or by his manners and acts?It is playing god whether their even is a God. I don't believe God gives children their souls. And their is a big difference between giving your child a piece of yourself (genes) and decided which part of yourself they can have let alone altering the genes so that it is not a part of yourself at all.
Mr U
how can you say it is the ultimate arrogance? it is the ultimate sacrifice. raising a kid to 18 costs about $100,000. and the sacrifice of time and energy is priceless.
Sacrifice? really? then why in the world would you do it? It doesn't sound logical at all.how can you say it is the ultimate arrogance? it is the ultimate sacrifice. raising a kid to 18 costs about $100,000. and the sacrifice of time and energy is priceless.
Sound like the words of a serial killer. You can get off on it if you want but gifting it to others is immoral. Not that i think you are completely serious after that last comment.
Yeah I agree that suffering is a good thing most of the time. But when I said that suffering was a good thing in another forum, someone insisted that there was a lot of un-neccessary suffering in the world. I pointed out that a lot of un-neccessary suffering was self inflicted, and concluded that where there was life, there would be some un-neccessary, meaningless, non-helpful suffering going. So I still stand by my original statement. You can modify if you like to, "creating life without love is immoral, the measure of immorality and the love required being commensurate with level of life involved.
Government is an absolute necessity and is dealing with a situation that already exists. It is true that it shares a lot in common with parenthood and is an even more humiliating experience that parenthood. Your second statement is unintelligable.
Good then you would agree that too much planning and control would be a bad thing.
PLLLEEEESE..... They have to endure 18 years of you shoving things down their throat. At least the food and the morality can be upchucked into the nearest wastebin, but if the parents start tampering with your genes or even start deciding which ones you should get, suicide would be the only way to rid yourself of their damnable interference in your life.
Look I have 3 sons and I hope they don't feel this way about my contributions to their life, but then I do try to minimize how much I force on them. I have been able to get a few points of morality accross but most things have to be learned for yourself.
why did jesus sacrifice? sacrifice is a part of life. i am sacrificing time talking to you. suffering is offered up to god. also, there is the joy in children. also seeing them get rich to buy you a new home
Hmmm. I should think there should be some caution and wariness toward genetic engineering from just about any perspective.
From a religious standpoint, the objections problem focus more on the idea of messing with what would be considered "perfect" creations of God and corrupting them.
From a scientific standpoint, we should be cautious because we can never be quite sure that our expectations will be achieved.
I remember reading a study in which an experimenter attempted to make a purple petunia (could have been a different flower) more purple by giving it two purple genes only to learn that there is a failsafe mechanism in the genetics of the flower which cause it to revert to white when there are duplicate color genes present.
Thus, there is always the possibility, no matter how remote, that we could engineer something that is dangerous to other life forms.
When it comes to genetic engineering of food, there is, again, always the possibility that some genetically altered food source will end up being less than useful as food in that it cannot be properly processed.
I would not say this is justification to suggest a halt to genetic experimentation, but I think the remote possibility of very drastic negative results demands extreme caution.
well, would it be religiously incorrect if we made a whole new species with its own genetic code? this technaclly wouldnt be messing with god's creations, but would it be just a major form of "playing god" by making our own species?
Also seeing them get rich to buy you a new homeHahaha, yea right... I love parents and all, but buying them a house...
I think some of us our religious. Looking at the poll, I think it is only a small percentage of religious people who are against it. That, or none of us are really religious...
ya i guess religious people have gotten to much crap about genetic engineering to care :wink:
Serious/non-serious. They are irrelevant. You are either capable or incapable of addressing the issues I present.Sound like the words of a serial killer. You can get off on it if you want but gifting it to others is immoral. Not that i think you are completely serious after that last comment.
Life is indifferent. Nature is indifferent. There is no meaning, help or anything of that kind going on. Nature is indifferent to our presence, and to our moral code. So too, any morality will act outside of nature and is, as long as it conflict with natural law in fact IMMORAL. The absurdity of the great arrogance of man as to not only project his petty morals on others, but also nature is astounding.Yeah I agree that suffering is a good thing most of the time. But when I said that suffering was a good thing in another forum, someone insisted that there was a lot of un-neccessary suffering in the world. I pointed out that a lot of un-neccessary suffering was self inflicted, and concluded that where there was life, there would be some un-neccessary, meaningless, non-helpful suffering going. So I still stand by my original statement. You can modify if you like to, "creating life without love is immoral, the measure of immorality and the love required being commensurate with level of life involved.
Government is an absolute necessity and is dealing with a situation that already exists.[/quote]
Such is your opinion. Do not confuse it with a fact, please.
What I said was that you, with projecting your morality on others, are practicing the ultimate arrogance.It is true that it shares a lot in common with parenthood and is an even more humiliating experience that parenthood. Your second statement is unintelligable.
Right. For yourself. In the constructs you provide. Congratulations!Look I have 3 sons and I hope they don't feel this way about my contributions to their life, but then I do try to minimize how much I force on them. I have been able to get a few points of morality accross but most things have to be learned for yourself.
Mr U
I did address your issue. No matter how wonderful you think suffering is, making others endure suffering is in point of fact as immoral as you can get if not just plain evil.
The comment on your seriousness was simply to say that I did not really think that you are a serial killer.
Projecting my morality on others? How am I doing that? By speaking (no writing) what is on my mind? If other people's morality bothers you so much then I would hint that you should stop reading posts under the religion topic.
No one has to listen or read what I say. But in the conception of a child, the child has no choice and no say in something which very much a personal concern. You not only thrust life upon the poor thing wanted or not, but you dictate name, who must live with and where.
I just cannot imagine how you can compare the arrogance of speaking your mind with having a baby even if you try your very best not to shove your idea of morality down the poor child's throat.
| « Reincarnation is deception! | Questions for which we all seek answers » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
