genetic engineering (moral crime?)

Falstaff · Nov 15, 2007, 03:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kris23

funny but true man

what is true?

Sandok · Nov 18, 2007, 03:58 PM

I don't see what's so bad with it... We are against it nowadays because morally and ethically its wrong, but once people get past the stigma, it only has benefits.

Genetic diseases, help the humane race in simple aspects (anti-poison and anti-infection like Komodo Dragons) that don't "change" the spieces in anyway.

Anyways, if one day we WANT to survive and get off this planet, we'll have to go through genetic engineering anyways, given that our bodies aren't made for space travel unlike what Star Trek and such want us to believe

Falstaff · Nov 23, 2007, 06:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sandok

I don't see what's so bad with it... We are against it nowadays because morally and ethically its wrong, but once people get past the stigma, it only has benefits.

Genetic diseases, help the humane race in simple aspects (anti-poison and anti-infection like Komodo Dragons) that don't "change" the spieces in anyway.

Anyways, if one day we WANT to survive and get off this planet, we'll have to go through genetic engineering anyways, given that our bodies aren't made for space travel unlike what Star Trek and such want us to believe

Truly there are benefits, however given what human beings have done in the past with new technology it wouldnt surprise me if the eventual rise of the human hypertype or superhuman will happen.

fobis · Dec 4, 2007, 07:45 AM

While genetic engineering (and gene therapy) can certainly abused in a way to create "super-humans", the potential benefits are certainly good reasons to continue pursuing gene therapy.

The only way to truly prevent gene therapy from being abused is to make sure that anyone who can perform gene therapy (obviously doctors) are rigorously trained in some sort of ethics class or are required to not allow gene therapy for anything but particular genetic ailments.

Certainly germ-line gene therapy can be immeasurably valuable, especially to those who know that their unborn child will likely have a particular genetic disease or the like. If a baby could be prevented from having Downs Syndrome from day 1, I see no reason to stop that.

And obviously, somatic gene therapy would be useful for those already with certain diseases such as SCID (Severe Combined Immunodeficiency Disorder => bubble boy) and many others.

Gene therapy does venture very far into the territory of where to draw the line before you're playing god. And while I am Christian, I still feel that if gene therapy can be used to improve the quality of life of any human, let it be used.

BlueMak · Dec 4, 2007, 08:27 AM

I don't have any children, but I know that if through genetic engineering I would know my kids would grow without the risk for cancer for example, there is nothing that would stop me from doing it.

Dec 4, 2007, 07:45 AM	#34
fobis DriverHeaven Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 716 Rep Power: 51	While genetic engineering (and gene therapy) can certainly abused in a way to create "super-humans", the potential benefits are certainly good reasons to continue pursuing gene therapy. The only way to truly prevent gene therapy from being abused is to make sure that anyone who can perform gene therapy (obviously doctors) are rigorously trained in some sort of ethics class or are required to not allow gene therapy for anything but particular genetic ailments. Certainly germ-line gene therapy can be immeasurably valuable, especially to those who know that their unborn child will likely have a particular genetic disease or the like. If a baby could be prevented from having Downs Syndrome from day 1, I see no reason to stop that. And obviously, somatic gene therapy would be useful for those already with certain diseases such as SCID (Severe Combined Immunodeficiency Disorder => bubble boy) and many others. Gene therapy does venture very far into the territory of where to draw the line before you're playing god. And while I am Christian, I still feel that if gene therapy can be used to improve the quality of life of any human, let it be used. __________________ MacBook Pro Mac OS X Leopard 10.5.4 Intel Core 2 Duo 2.33GHz 2GB DDR2-677 ATi Mobility Radeon X1600 256MB 120GB 7200RPM SATA HDD

Dec 4, 2007, 08:27 AM	#35
BlueMak HH's Asteroids' Dominator Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Hellas->Macedonia->Thessaloniki Posts: 13,483 Rep Power: 349 System Specs	I don't have any children, but I know that if through genetic engineering I would know my kids would grow without the risk for cancer for example, there is nothing that would stop me from doing it. __________________ The people who are regarded as moral luminaries are those who forego ordinary pleasures themselves and find compensation in interfering with the pleasures of others(Bertrand Russell)"You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for five years because they didn't wear a veil,You know, guys like that ain't got no manhood left anyway. So it's a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them." - Lt. Gen. James N. Mattis This is slavery, not to speak one's thought. [Euripides-The Phoenician Women (c.411-409 B.C.)] http://www.macedonia.info/FALLACIESANDFACTS.htm *Sic semper tyrannis.*

Nov 18, 2007, 03:58 PM	#32
Sandok DriverHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 9,472 Rep Power: 0	I don't see what's so bad with it... We are against it nowadays because morally and ethically its wrong, but once people get past the stigma, it only has benefits. Genetic diseases, help the humane race in simple aspects (anti-poison and anti-infection like Komodo Dragons) that don't "change" the spieces in anyway. Anyways, if one day we WANT to survive and get off this planet, we'll have to go through genetic engineering anyways, given that our bodies aren't made for space travel unlike what Star Trek and such want us to believe