Inyri Posted March 12, 2008 Share Posted March 12, 2008 Would you engineer out the sickle cell gene? If you said yes, you'd also be engineering out a protection against malaria for those who are sickle-cell carriers. Those who are sickle-cell carriers get malaria less often than those who don't have the gene. It's not so simple as you might think.You so get those 5 points back that I took away last night just for mentioning that. <3 It's a really good point, though. Anything you do has a domino effect; I'd rather not mess with nature, as you never know what you're screwing up by 'fixing' something else (whatever you idea of 'fixing' may be).- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PoiuyWired Posted March 12, 2008 Share Posted March 12, 2008 Talk about genetics being used to produce super-humans, who gonna out-rule normal humans. Ha ha ha. Funny, I have no problem with that. Plus, I do think a basic level of eugenics is good, like preventing the creation of a disabled child in this case. As for the creation of some super human, I do not complain or support about it. The only thing I worry about is genetic diversity. And no, having down syndrome and disabled and the like is not "genetic diversity" per se, but a birth defect humans would be better without. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arcesious Posted March 12, 2008 Share Posted March 12, 2008 What nature doesn't seem to fully agree with is our sentience. Humanity is like a wildcard among all other species... We mess with nature in ways that don't apply to the laws of anture, because we are sentient and more intelligent than the rest of nature, and our sentience tends to make us quite differential in many aspects, making our species very random, and not totally commune with nature... We do however apply to 'survival of the fittest'... (I think there's a better way to describe what I'm trying to say, I just can't think of the right word that applies to a species not working fully accordingly to the laws of nature...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted March 12, 2008 Share Posted March 12, 2008 Actually, I don't want the government telling me what kind of child I can have or not have. We have a genetic eye disease in our family, but it doesn't have a huge impact on the lives of those family members who have it. Yet this proposed legislation would force my family members to destroy any embryos that had this condition because they aren't 'perfect' genetically. QFT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommycat Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 Oh really? We know that much about genetics that we can determine that? We've only been able to do gene sequencing in the last 20 years or so. We are still woefully ignorant in genetics and how it affects humanity and medicine. Would you engineer out the sickle cell gene? If you said yes, you'd also be engineering out a protection against malaria for those who are sickle-cell carriers. Those who are sickle-cell carriers get malaria less often than those who don't have the gene. It's not so simple as you might think. The other side of this(which may be the case here) is, would you intentionally engineer in the gene that causes CP disease simply because the (soon to be) parents have CP. Intentionally cripling a child in this way bothers me. All parents should want MORE opportunities for their children rather then less opportunities. If the parents do this, then remove their protected status(specifically for them). Since obviously they feel that there is nothing wrong, they should not get special treatment when applying for a job. They should be required to do whatever job they can, to the same level as a person with hearing, without extra provisions for TDD/accessibility options. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arcesious Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 I can tell that the ethical standards of the European leaders are about to be challenged, as when other people who look at these thinhs like we do hear of all that's going on, it's going to be quite an interesting debate... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Jones Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 Funny, I have no problem with that. Plus, I do think a basic level of eugenics is good, like preventing the creation of a disabled child in this case. As for the creation of some super human, I do not complain or support about it. The only thing I worry about is genetic diversity. And no, having down syndrome and disabled and the like is not "genetic diversity" per se, but a birth defect humans would be better without. No, I mean "everybody" is concerned that someone might construct "super-humans" while these parents try to do the opposite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.