Genetic Engineering

[Yewma]

I'm new to the critical thinking forum, but I've read all the rules, and I hope this is the right type of thread for this forum. I got into discussion with my biology teacher about genetic engineering that went on for quite some time, and got interested in it. More specifically, people's opinions on whether or not it should be allowed, and if so, with what restrictions?

There are reports of several clinics helping couples to engineer a child with a disability such as blindness or dwarfism, because one of the parents had it and wanted their child to. Should this be their right as the parent? I don't have a source for these reports, but my biology teacher discussed it with me and I see no reason for her to have been lying. On an even more basic level, should parents be allowed to alter their child's genetic makeup at all? If they didn't want their child to be born blind, epileptic, or with some other disability, should they be able to choose that?

This brought me to thinking about cloning, and the possibilities it represents. Do you think it is morally appropriate or not? Also, if it became a regular thing, would it diminish our value as human beings? Many people believe that things can be labeled with a price, but a human life is priceless. Once we know the price of cloning a human being, or any being at all, we can determine it's value, but would that be mistaken for it's worth?

Just the ramblings of a bored 15 year old.. I'd still like to hear everyone's opinions on this sort of thing. Also, I just realized I didn't check to see if there was already a thread about this around, but I've already typed all this, so I'm going to risk it and post this.

[THEbigE]

Well... It's the parents choice... It's really what they prefer do they think they can handle a disabled person or do they want the Perfect family...

For cloning i think the it isn't a human anymore just another man made object worthless. Only the orignal is priceless...

[Yewma]

If a clone isn't human anymore, should it still have the inalienable rights humans have, such as how their body is used? It's still a human by definition, and it's still separate from the genes of the person that were taken to make him/her. It's impossible to create an exact clone. No matter how you do it, there's no way to make sure they both experience the exact same thing and perform the exact same actions, so their personal development will be different and they'll be entirely different people.

[devonin]

Originally Posted by Yewma

I'm new to the critical thinking forum, but I've read all the rules, and I hope this is the right type of thread for this forum. I got into discussion with my biology teacher about genetic engineering that went on for quite some time, and got interested in it. More specifically, people's opinions on whether or not it should be allowed, and if so, with what restrictions?

Welcome to Critical Thinking This is indeed a perfectly good topic for discussion around here, and a very nice orignal post.

There are reports of several clinics helping couples to engineer a child with a disability such as blindness or dwarfism, because one of the parents had it and wanted their child to. Should this be their right as the parent? I don't have a source for these reports, but my biology teacher discussed it with me and I see no reason for her to have been lying.

Well, all due respect to your teacher, but I really can't buy this without some kind of evidence. I'll have a look into it if you will, and if one of us finds some corroboration, we can post it. I assume this is said to be happening in a country other than the United States? I can't think of any medical professional with remotely the skill, and access to equipment to carry out that kind of thing could possibly be willing to actively foster disabilities in children even if the parents seem to want them to be the same as them.

I'd report these parents as being desperately in need of some serious psychological help, or barring that, a kick in the face for being horrible horrible people. I don't care whether some parent wants to empathize with the plight of their kids, that just -reeks- of Munchausen's By Proxy and should be treated as such.

On an even more basic level, should parents be allowed to alter their child's genetic makeup at all? If they didn't want their child to be born blind, epileptic, or with some other disability, should they be able to choose that?

This is where we risk the science/religion paradigm coming into play, and I'm going to give fair warning to the forum collectively right now: "No genetic engineering because God made us in His image" arguments = deletion, unless you also happen to include a completely airtight and verifiable proof for the existance of God along with it.

As for me, I'm on the fence about pre-natal genetic manipulation. I mean, there are a number of conditions that could be eliminated from the population, and that would be a real boon for humanity. However, it is pretty much a given that such would be ridiculously expensive, leading to just the wealthy of the first-world countries being able to use these techniques to have stronger healthier babies, when in fact it is the poorest people in the world who would most benefit from the ability to weed out various negative qualities.

Plus, I really don't like the idea of purely cosmetic modification, which would almost certainly begin to occur instantly. We'd be seeing naturally purple hair and aquamarine eyes, and all sorts of idiotic nonsense in a matter of years, as parents take one more step into forcing their children to live out the things they always wanted.

This brought me to thinking about cloning, and the possibilities it represents. Do you think it is morally appropriate or not?

You seem to be assuming a cloning process like in really bad science fiction. You go into a booth, there's a flash of light, some smoke, and two of you come out. Not only is duplication not actually cloning, I can't think of any way for science to even start to think about actualy duplication of matter in that way. You'd basically have to find a way to convert random matter into a properly functioning human, and do so quickly enough that everything started working at once, or you'd just have a really gross pile of flesh and goo.

Cloning as a process wherein you simply create a person in the usual manner, but using specific genetic material to ensure that the new person has the same DNA sequences as the original is a whole other ballgame.

I'm 23. An infant born right now with the exact same DNA is automatically nothing like me, simply by being 23 years younger. Its pre-natal environment is different, the circumstances of its birth and infancy will be different. Every aspect of its life, childhood, etc etc will be completely differenet. The only way that clone will end up "being me" is if you want to argue that your environment and the way you are raised are completely irellevant to the person I become as I grow up.

The new person would bear even less resemblance to me than a fraternal twin would, and MUCH less resemblance to me than an identical twin would, so I really don't see how it is any different than just having a baby more traditionally.

As such, I don't think there's any question of morality to be asked at all. It can't be morally inappropriate to clone yourself unless in the same circumstances you think it would be morally inappropriate to simply reproduce.

Also, if it became a regular thing, would it diminish our value as human beings?

Making a reproduction of the original doesn't diminish the value of the original unless your reproduction is actually fully and objectively indistinguishable from the original in every possible respect. There's your duplication versus cloning issue again. Since I really dont' see many if any significant differences between cloning and natural reproduction, I again fail to see any way that it would diminish the value of humans.

Many people believe that things can be labeled with a price, but a human life is priceless. Once we know the price of cloning a human being, or any being at all, we can determine it's value, but would that be mistaken for it's worth?

The cost of production factors into the total value of items, but doesn't solely determine it. Supply and demand impact the perception of an item's worth, and people tend to value more highly things which are in limited supply but high demand. Humans, potentially unfortunately, are not in limited supply at all. From a purely objective standpoint, humans are almost completely worthless already. The slave trade functioned on that notion. You could work slaves to death, because more were always on the way.

I mean, if you're the kind of person to try and attach cash prices to everything, there are a few ways to value humans. One is the net worth of all the materials making up the physical body (which is something really low like 150 bucks) in which caes, clones don't devalue humans at all, except possibly by making the materials slightly more available.

Another is to gauge the total worth of what they could produce in their life (there are online tests that will tell you this, based on age, physical characteristics, education, history of medical conditions etc. Women are worth more than men because they can generate new people) in which case again, clones woudln't effect this any more than normal births do.

The only way cloning would devalue human life would be via pseudo-spiritual ideas of the intrinsic worth of humans compared to other forms of life etc. And even then, only the clone would be "worthless" and the original human wouldn't really be effected.

Originally Posted by THEbigE

Well... It's the parents choice... It's really what they prefer do they think they can handle a disabled person or do they want the Perfect family...

Should this be entirely the family's choice though? Doesn't this open the door to whole slews of morally ambiguous behavior? If parents insist on engineering their child to have blond hair and blue eyes, or black hair and brown skin, aren't we wandering into eugenics, where in addition to thinking of genetic issues as being "bad" (disabilities are bad, etc) we start to think of cosmetic qualities as being "good" as well?

For cloning i think the it isn't a human anymore just another man made object worthless. Only the orignal is priceless...

On what grounds are you declaring the clone to be non-human? It shares 100% of the genetic code of humans, and would presumably be completely indistinguishable from other humans to outside observation (ie. to people who didn't explicitly just know they were a clone because they'd been told so)

Or more succinctly: Why is the original priceless, and the clone non-human?

Originally Posted by yewma

If a clone isn't human anymore, should it still have the inalienable rights humans have, such as how their body is used? It's still a human by definition, and it's still separate from the genes of the person that were taken to make him/her. It's impossible to create an exact clone. No matter how you do it, there's no way to make sure they both experience the exact same thing and perform the exact same actions, so their personal development will be different and they'll be entirely different people.

Well, to this I just say "The clone -is- a human" which solves the rest of the questions quite neatly.

[N.T.M.]

Originally Posted by THEbigE

Well... It's the parents choice... It's really what they prefer do they think they can handle a disabled person or do they want the Perfect family...

I completely disagree. The child should have rights prohibiting anybody intentionally compromising their full health potential as a human being.

Imagine being a kid discovering that your own parents were responsible for your disability. How angry that must make him/her feel, as they, at the time, had no voice.

[devonin]

Originally Posted by N.T.M.

I completely disagree. The child should have rights prohibiting anybody intentionally compromising their full health potential as a human being.

Imagine being a kid discovering that your own parents were responsible for your disability. How angry that must make him/her feel, as they, at the time, had no voice.

That gets us into a ridiculously dangerous slippery slope zone. If an unborn child has certain rights reserved for humans, ought they not all be extended as well? Suddenly an abortion is murder, a miscarriage is involuntary manslaughter, and listening to britney spears music is caused mental anguish.

While I'm certainly not advocating that parents be permitted to genetically engineer an unborn child in any way they see fit, including the introduction of handicaps, I'm not sure the way to do it is to extend the rights of a human to a fetus.

I'm pretty positive that the hippocratic oath of the doctors and surgeons who would have to be involved is perfectly sufficient to prevent parents handicapping their unborn children, since while not necessarily a human, and subject to all human rights, they are nevertheless alive, and ought not to be harmed for no good reason.

[N.T.M.]

Originally Posted by devonin

That gets us into a ridiculously dangerous slippery slope zone. If an unborn child has certain rights reserved for humans, ought they not all be extended as well? Suddenly an abortion is murder, a miscarriage is involuntary manslaughter.

A miscarriage shouldn't be considered involuntary manslaughter since it obviously wouldn't be intentional (sorry that sounds contradictory. But my point should remain clear). Most likely unavoidable considering the knowledge the person had at the time and how it may have lead to the miscarriage. And abortion IS murder. Although not fully developed, the child is still a human being: they have a heart, other internal organs, etc. Ending its life before it's even born is murder, regardless of "what stage" it was at.

This topic is frequently considered very unclear when really what should be done is quite obvious in my opinion.

[devonin]

Ironically, I find the answer equally obvious, and draw the entirely opposite conclusion. Given the incredibly early stage of fetal development at which such engineering would have to take place (Assuming it wasn't done via engineering sperm and/or eggs (which are clearly not humans by any stretch of the imagination)) the thing you would be modifying is alive, if parasitically, but bears absolutely no resemblance to a human whatsoever.

It takes the entire first trimester (I historically just go for two months in my arguments just to be quite far into the safe side) before a fetus even has a nervous system to speak of. Before that point, it doesn't even have any of the necessary equipment to be self-aware of external stimuli acting upon it, even if you assume (which isn't the case) that it has developed a sufficient brain to have anything remotely resembling consciousness.

There is no argument that is not wholly religious in origin that can possibly say that an abortion in the first two months of a pregnancy is the same as murdering a human being, unless you are also willing to pay animal cruelty fines every time you eat an egg.

Regardless, this is not an abortion debate and I'd like it to not turn into one. If you want to continue that end of the discussion, I'm more than happy to do so via private message. it connects to my main point insofar as I feel abortion cannot at all reasonably be called murder during the time of development that genetic engineering of the fetus would take place.

Since that is my stance, I present the idea that genetic engineering as violation of the unborn fetus' human rights is a contradiction in terms, because by any reasonable standard, the thing being modified is not a human, and if it were to be granted the complete and full rights of a human, it would create -far- more problems than the poster who suggested it seems to realise.

[N.T.M.]

Originally Posted by devonin

Ironically, I find the answer equally obvious, and draw the entirely opposite conclusion. Given the incredibly early stage of fetal development at which such engineering would have to take place (Assuming it wasn't done via engineering sperm and/or eggs (which are clearly not humans by any stretch of the imagination)) the thing you would be modifying is alive, if parasitically, but bears absolutely no resemblance to a human whatsoever.

It takes the entire first trimester (I historically just go for two months in my arguments just to be quite far into the safe side) before a fetus even has a nervous system to speak of. Before that point, it doesn't even have any of the necessary equipment to be self-aware of external stimuli acting upon it, even if you assume (which isn't the case) that it has developed a sufficient brain to have anything remotely resembling consciousness.

There is no argument that is not wholly religious in origin that can possibly say that an abortion in the first two months of a pregnancy is the same as murdering a human being, unless you are also willing to pay animal cruelty fines every time you eat an egg.

Regardless, this is not an abortion debate and I'd like it to not turn into one. If you want to continue that end of the discussion, I'm more than happy to do so via private message. it connects to my main point insofar as I feel abortion cannot at all reasonably be called murder during the time of development that genetic engineering of the fetus would take place.

Since that is my stance, I present the idea that genetic engineering as violation of the unborn fetus' human rights is a contradiction in terms, because by any reasonable standard, the thing being modified is not a human, and if it were to be granted the complete and full rights of a human, it would create -far- more problems than the poster who suggested it seems to realise.

Alright, I'll drop the abortion topic (Although I still disagree. Which doesn't really matter).

But that doesn't make any sense (now referring to the genetic engineering topic). Even if the fetus isn't considered human, negatively altering it would result in compromising a child's (who is human obviously) full health potential. You may argue that "at the time" the modifications were not performed on a human, yet that was the intended outcome.

How can you support that?

[devonin]

Er...did you actually read what I said in the preceding arguement? I argued against the deliberate harming or disabling of a fetus through genetic engineering by appealing to the oath of the doctors and surgeons who would carry out such a procedure to do no harm.

That on its own seems perfectly reasonable and sufficient for me to say that purposefully engineering a fetus to acquire disabilities or other negative qualities would be bad, without going anywhere near the can of worms that trying to argue they are humans and protected by the human legal system would open.

There's just as much of an inherant flaw against arguing their rights as "potential future humans" because a fetus is just as much a potential human as sperm or eggs are, and it would seem to me that birth control or condoms, or masturbation or any of those things are harming the potential of those things to live and become human life.

[N.T.M.]

Originally Posted by devonin

Er...did you actually read what I said in the preceding arguement? I argued against the deliberate harming or disabling of a fetus through genetic engineering by appealing to the oath of the doctors and surgeons who would carry out such a procedure to do no harm.

That on its own seems perfectly reasonable and sufficient for me to say that purposefully engineering a fetus to acquire disabilities or other negative qualities would be bad, without going anywhere near the can of worms that trying to argue they are humans and protected by the human legal system would open.

There's just as much of an inherant flaw against arguing their rights as "potential future humans" because a fetus is just as much a potential human as sperm or eggs are, and it would seem to me that birth control or condoms, or masturbation or any of those things are harming the potential of those things to live and become human life.

Ooops, sorry. My mistake.

I think the line should be drawn from when an egg is fertilized. However, obviously this is in no way justifying altering gamets if they are intended to produce a child with a certain disability.

[devonin]

I think the line should be drawn from when an egg is fertilized

must...not...get...into...this...discussion

You really put me in a tight spot here. From what I'm gathering of what you've said, I begin to suspect some of the reasons for why you think what you think, but if we get into it, I'm going to end up having to lock a thread on myself for breaking some of my own rules.

Lets see if we can go more towards the moral philosophy end of things instead.

I argue that the point at which an unborn child becomes morally significant is the point at which it has developed a functioning nervous system. Specifically, I'm of the school of ethics that says "Sentience is the point at which things become morally significant" or, put perhaps a more clear way: "The point at which the suffering of something should be taken into account, is the point at which it is actually capable of suffering"

Thus, I'm actually at least halfway in agreement with you on the "future human" end of things, insofar as it is their explicit intention to continue to nurture the fetus until it becomes a human, and thus the hippocratic oath is sufficient to me to say that deliberately handicapping the fetus is wrong and shouldn't happen. But at the same time, since I don't think it is significant morally -yet- if your intention is to simply terminate the fetus (ie. abortion) I'm perfectly willing to accept ones right to do that.

[N.T.M.]

Originally Posted by devonin

must...not...get...into...this...discussion

You really put me in a tight spot here. From what I'm gathering of what you've said, I begin to suspect some of the reasons for why you think what you think, but if we get into it, I'm going to end up having to lock a thread on myself for breaking some of my own rules.

What rules would those be? Sorry for getting off topic. I'm just curious what they are and why you'd have them.

[devonin]

Because it is the general (though not universal) case that those who feel human protective rights ought to be extended to a fetus from the moment of conception onwards tend to do so based out of spiritual if not outright religious beliefs in something like a soul that is embodied in such life at conception, and consider what is living in there to be exactly the same thing as a human being.

Since the existance of such a soul, or the blessing of such a God is not provable or disprovable by the standards of this forum, such a discussion would break the rule forbidding the making of unfalsifiable claims.

[N.T.M.]

Originally Posted by devonin

Because it is the general (though not universal) case that those who feel human protective rights ought to be extended to a fetus from the moment of conception onwards tend to do so based out of spiritual if not outright religious beliefs in something like a soul that is embodied in such life at conception, and consider what is living in there to be exactly the same thing as a human being.

Since the existance of such a soul, or the blessing of such a God is not provable or disprovable by the standards of this forum, such a discussion would break the rule forbidding the making of unfalsifiable claims.

Alright then. Thanks for clarifying.

[Arch0wl_MMS]

Originally Posted by Yewma

Many people believe that things can be labeled with a price, but a human life is priceless.

It's not. I can assure you that there are quite a few people that would lend their own child's life for a lump sum of money, or a number of altruistic people that would sacrifice themselves to help others, among other examples that assist that point.

For example, the movie "Hostel" was based on a Thai organization that would allow Thai citizens to let themselves be shot in the head for $10,000 or so. The citizens were often dirt poor, so members of poor families would sacrifice themselves to improve their family's status.

[Corbin Wells]

If you want to alter the makeup of your child to fit your wants, go right ahead. It's not the baby to say, it's what you want. You're the parent, it's not officially born or old enough yet to make decisions, you mold it any way you desire. That is, if you're looking out for it's best interest. (As in don't get wierd :-p )

[devonin]

Originally Posted by Corbin Wells

If you want to alter the makeup of your child to fit your wants, go right ahead. It's not the baby to say, it's what you want. You're the parent, it's not officially born or old enough yet to make decisions, you mold it any way you desire. That is, if you're looking out for it's best interest. (As in don't get wierd :-p )

And what if you aren't? You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either the choice is completely yours, or it isn't completely yours. Saying "It is entirley up to you, unless you X, Y, Z" means that it isn't -always- entirely up to you, so you can have a lot more discussion about just what X, Y, Z entails than you seem to want to credit.

[Corbin Wells]

Originally Posted by devonin

And what if you aren't? You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either the choice is completely yours, or it isn't completely yours. Saying "It is entirley up to you, unless you X, Y, Z" means that it isn't -always- entirely up to you, so you can have a lot more discussion about just what X, Y, Z entails than you seem to want to credit.

Yeah there was a little flaw with that but I need more time to correct that.

[atalkingcow]

The only problem I have with genetic engeneering is on a purely, -omgthegovernmentisouttogetusholycrap- level. Hooray for me.

I shall elaborate!

Let's say we develope a practical, cost effecient way to genetically engineer human beings to our specifications. (closer than we might think, we already have glow-in-the-dark cats)

What's stopping the government from genetically engineering a bunch of children who are predisposed to following orders no matter what?
Or creating a "Brave New World" situation? (scary as hell, read it!)

And of course, the most horrendous thing that our "Christianity based country" would perform....

The mapping and removal of the homosexual gene. (assuming its entirely genetic.)

I say we should leave this technology where it is, since the potential to harm massively outweighs the potential for good. At least as far as I can see.


And putting it in the hands of parents....I'm not even going to go there, since anything I would say on that subject is completely unprovable, and Idunwannabebannedzorz!

Cow