Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

I've heard one day of people being able to splice genes to have whatever kind of child they want. I decided to look into this, and this is what Wikipedia told me:



I think that this is an awful idea, changing what God wanted that child to be. Share your thoughts.


Also, if anyone's played Bioshock, they would know that Genetic Engineering is pretty bad.

I think it'd be pretty psychologically damaging to the kid if they found that out, and it'd be pretty hard to keep that a secret.

However, I can see this being a positive thing if the kid has some sort of genetic disorder.

_________________

Why would it be damaging?

parents: Jimmy we made you perfect

jimmy: 'k thanks

_________________

the whole I coulda been someone else thing? That would freak me out.

_________________

Genetic engineering to help cure disease and cancer and things? Yes.
Genetic engineering to create a race of perfect humans? No.

_________________

Science fiction in general has taught me this is a bad idea.
However, it could have some useful implementations in preventing birth defects, diseases, etc.

_________________

You really think genetic engineering to prevent birth defects and cancer is a good thing?
Do you know how they prevent those diseases from occurring in the baby?

This proccess is already under development: They take a bunch of eggs from, the woman and fertilise them, just like in IVF procedures. Then they look at the genetics of each one and destroy any that have "bad" genes.

It's that simple. And it's horrible. The doctors have effectively killed a bunch of children because their genes weren't good enough.

There is an even more inhumane development coming where parents may be able to choose from a list the baby they will have, because the doctors can find out what it will probably look like, it's eye and hair colour, and whether it is a boy or a girl from it's genes.
Again, when the parents choose, all the other embryos are killed.


Now I think genetic engineering on the whole is great. It can be used to make better crops, that can also be made disease and pest resistant or even animals that produce better meat and milk.
But doing it to humans is just wrong, espescially since so many have to die for the benefit of so few.

_________________
SIBHoD.

Food? Yes.
Diseases? Yes.
Race of powerful and perfect superhumans? NO.

_________________

...So, wait.

You're okay with killing fully-grown, sentient animals that have been genetically engineered...

but not fertilized, non-developed human cells that have never even been conscious?

_________________

I too get my ethical opinions from video games.



Here's why it would be damaging:

parents: Jimmy we made you perfect, so you're damn well going to be a doctor/star athlete/piano genius when you grow up!
jimmy: but, I don't want to?
It's bad enough some parents already pressure their kids to follow this perfect little life plan they set out for them, instead of, y'know, letting them follow their own dreams.

_________________

This raises an interesting (and philisophical, ooh boy) point: what is sentience? Humans have it. Some define it as the ability to suffer, but what is suffering? An animal can get a horrible wound but eventually recover and act as if it never happened. Same for humans. I think, though, that suffering lies within not only the physical but mental aspects of pain being afflicted.
Food for thought: How could you emotionally scar an animal?

_________________

That side of it isn't so much of a problem if you don't believe in God...



An unfertilized egg is not a child. By your argument, contraception is murder.

- Kef

_________________
404 sig not found

Not only that, but by that same token of the "potential for life" argument, every time we could possibly engage in sexual intercourse for procreation and don't, (even when resisting rape!) would be considered "murder".

Rethink your definition of "killed" please.

_________________

By sentient, I mean that it thinks. No matter how simple the thoughts are.

If a living thing can't think, ending its life is no worse than ending the life of a piece of broccoli.

_________________

Still, how can you gauge if something thinks? I have no way of knowing if a hospital patient in a coma is thinking or if they are a vegetable. Or anyone on the street, for that matter: the only way I know that they are thinking is by their actions and reactions.
Basically, the point I'm trying to make is that we have no sure way of knowing what can and can't think without tapping into a person's (or animal's) thought stream, which I still haven't seen yet.
Thats how I view it, anyway.

_________________

I have moved fhqwgad's spam to the Spam Vault.

_________________
404 sig not found

No, an unfertilised egg is definitely not a child, but when it's an embryo a few hundred cells big, the line is blurred.

Doctors have to fertilise an egg and stimulate it to grow a little before they can remove a couple of cells to test the DNA.
They couldn't test an unfertilised egg because it is only a single cell, and a DNA test requires removal of the chromosomes from the cell, and they can't exactly be put back in.


As far as I am aware, murder is illegal, while killing animals is not.

Which leads me to my next point: no, obviously contraception is not murder. But I think as soon as the egg is fertilised it is human.
Killing it for any reason after this; abortion, destroying unwanted lab embryos, even stoping a pregnancy because the child will have physical or mental problems, I believe those are all murder.

_________________
SIBHoD.

If this turns out like Bioshock, I'm totally giving my kids Electro Bolt.

_________________

I dunno, you better keep yourself prepared in case it backfires.
*Buh dum tsch*

Srsly though, this thread is about humans being categorized as animals, not what life is (and possibly spinning off to other issues) or BioShock.
Paint your toast.

_________________

Even then it is a problem. There is no doubt that DNA determines traits. It seems more likely to me that God determines your moral traits. Pardon my potential ignorance, but isn't it a Christian teaching that people should be more judged by their morals rather than their physical traits?

I don't really see much of a problem with genetic engineering. Think of glasses, cochlear implant, pacemakers, prostheses, plastic surgery, etc. By simply wearing clothes, you're adding benefits to your body you weren't born with. If we can improve ourselves with technology, I can't see why we mustn't do so with biology. And about creating people with greater brain capacity; well, we already use computers, telephones, books, etc, which allows us to extend our memory, to communicate over great distances, etc. And there are some people who are born naturally with some sort of neurological benefit, like having near-perfect memory, or being able to instantly calculate very complicated math, or such.

Besides, I don't think outlawing genetic engineering would help; people are going to do it anyway.

I am completely in support of genetic engineering.

My philosophy is that if you can do something to help people that doesn't hurt other people, you are morally obligated to do it. Genetic engineering, stem-cell research, all those kinds of things fall under that category.

Which means that I don't consider embryos to be human beings. I consider you to be a human being when you can survive and grow on your own outside of the womb, but that's a whole other ball of wax, I think.

_________________
beep beep I'm a Jeep

Guns don't kill people;
Condoms kill people.

On a more serious note, I think destroying things that were never alive anyway to save already alive things is okay.

Also, I don't understand all of you being against the super humans. It's like Hitler's Aryan idea except nobody has to die and it affects personality. Why shouldn't everyone be flawless? Maybe if it was just one kid they would end up an outcast and all messed up, but if everyone was forced to have perfect everything there'd be no problems.

Still doesn't matter if you don't believe in God. Try again.

_________________
So, so you think you can tell Heaven from Hell, blue skies from pain. Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail? A smile from a veil? Do you think you can tell?

For one thing, the world will never agree on what "flawless" is.

_________________
404 sig not found

But if we're all flawless we'll all be right anyways!

_________________

Yes, but the problem would be in arriving at that point.

_________________
404 sig not found

While we can't decide what's "flawless", we can definitely decide different genes' desirability, can't we? I mean, certain genes can already be identified as being prone to creating more likelihood for cancer. I don't see the argument over those kinds of matters, so to a great extent, yes, what is better could be more objectively identified.

_________________

So, uh, something is automatically morally sound as long as it's legal?

And furthermore, it is illegal to kill a dog or cat or anything. They just make exceptions for cows and chickens because the majority of Americans like the way they taste. Not to say that Americans wouldn't like the taste of dog or cat if they tried it, but hey, nobody loves cows. They sure ain't man's best friend.

Of course, that's another debate entirely, but it is illegal to kill some animals.

_________________

Oh, I love cows. They're adorable.


I also enjoy eating them.