Hello Christians:
Let's get to it. Pretty soon, we'll be able to design our children. I know you Christians think we shouldn't do that. But we ARE going to do that, and I want to know how you're going to stop it.
excon
|
Hello Christians:
Let's get to it. Pretty soon, we'll be able to design our children. I know you Christians think we shouldn't do that. But we ARE going to do that, and I want to know how you're going to stop it.
excon
Just as a related note: I'm currently reading Michael Crichton's "Next" which is all about genetic modification. Good read.
I am not going to stop it - people want to play God, I am not stopping them. Since I am not as intelligent as God, I could only mess it up worse, not make it better. I think gene modification has been done in the past, is done in the present, and will continue.
But what gene modifiers are going to be looked at? Genes that identify Trisomy 21? ADHD? Fetal Alcohol Syndrome? Epilepsy? Homosexuality? Where will it stop? So build the Uber Race.
Hello again, shy:Quote:
Originally Posted by shygrneyzs
Or will it stop at all? It could be the end of us. Actually, I think it WILL be the end of us. Trouble is, I don't know what's going to be starting.
excon
You got something there with that idea, excon - it may never stop and who is going to be in charge of all that? The New World Order? Which brings up a totally different kettle of fish.
Hello again, shy:Quote:
Originally Posted by shygrneyzs
Well, I hope it's me, because I know exactly how to design a perfect human. The problem is, we ALL think we know what a perfect human is.
How are we going to control who does that? How are we going to control it at all? Should it BE controlled? Cause once we create the perfect race, THEY'LL be the ones in control.
It's actually, kind of scary. I think I'll read what Crichton has to say.
excon
NK - Next is great loved that book! Some of the sidenotes like the GFP glowing bunny are real!
I always wonder if genetic modification 'designer babies' actually did become feasible would people eventually separate off into the modified and the non modified. Would non modified humans become a sub race along the lines of Huxley's Brave New world?
I am against the idea of changing people to be 'enhanced' but is there as much of a moral dilemma in preventing carriers of horrendous genetic diseases form passing them on? My bet is this will most probably be the first steps into this territory. Suppose you just 'fixed' a genetic coding error in an egg or sperm before implantation and prevented a lifetime of suffering for that child?
I know some religious scientists who argue that God has allowed us to discover these techniques in order to use them.
I don't know how religious people/ anyone opposed to these techniques can stop it. They can drive it underground into dodgy countries and institutions but they cannot prevent everyone from trying it. This already happens with some types of embryo and stem cell research.
Hi Excon,
Firstly, in most countries genetic modification of humans is still illegal.
Secondly, even if it weren't it wouldn't be something that would be used to make a super race, it would be used to remove certain mutations in DNA that cause lifelong afflictions.
Third, even IF it became possible to make designer babies, these would only be available to the extraordinarily rich, and couldn't feasibly become a mainstream practice.
Fourth, and here's the clincher... if you're against genetic modification and believe it to be immoral and a sin against God, don't have it done to your kid. As a Christian, you shouldn't be trying to prevent people from doing this. If you believe it's a sin, let God do the punishing. By removing people's choice, you're not going to make them all righteous and good, they will simply be being obedient... and not necessarily to God.
That being said, I'm not a huge fan of GM.
Hello Kal:
1) That never stopped anybody.
2) Ohhhh, yes it will.
3) That's a problem too.
4) I'm not against it for good. It's just that I don't know how to decide what's "good".
5) Christians are going to stand by while the rest of the world is making a superior race?? I don't think they will. You might, and good for you with your hands off policy. But, your church ain't going to stand for it. And, I don't know that your church would be wrong for trying to stop it, either.
excon
Hi excon,
1) If it being illegal isn't enough to stop people, I don't know how you possibly plan to prevent it in other ways
2) You need to have more faith in people. :P
3) Maybe still a problem, but it won't be quite like it is in Brave New World or Gattaca where the majority of humanity is flawless and the natural born children are regarded as an inferior species. Whatever modifications are made won't stop people from being people.
4) Nobody can really say what's "good". Do what you believe to be right and express your opinion to others if you wish, but other people will still make their own choices and have to live with the consequences.
5) I just don't see this as an immediate concern. Get back to me in 20 years if this fear becomes a reality, but personally I don't believe a superhuman race is about to be created.
Kal
Genetic modification, like pharmaceuticals is linked to power and money. When those who have the money start seriously getting involved in genetics, there will be more societal problems/complexities that the Christians will attempt to control, with money, and scare tactics. In other words the same old stuff will simply continue. If it is ever to get better, some of us will have to break away from old dogma and address the real issue. Human's repeatedly treat each other like God or like $hit based on power and money.
excon,
Are you sure the gene modification techniques are not creating more problems than solutions?
You have a very valid question, FB - personally I cannot see how gene modification would make the world a better place. Too many variables and who gets to decide what genes are going to be modified and how? In utero?
Exactly Shy,
What does an elimination of a certain gene in a human mean to the other existing genes,will it not confuse the whole system and maybe short circuit ?
My thoughts too, FB.
Hello again:
I'm not saying it's a good thing. I'm just saying we're going to do it. I'm also not saying it's a bad thing.
excon
Do you have a test group ready, excon? Or is this a volunteer project? Any money involved in this? A sign-up sheet? Lol
Hello again, shy:
Nahhh. They don't have a gene for what I got, and nobody wants the genes I have. I'm just asking to see if I can stir up some stuff.
excon
Since you are looking to stir stuff up Excon, I will oblige. Even though I am not a Christian we can still have a good verbal spat if you want, or just wreak havoc on this thread together.
I am eagerly looking forward to the day that gene modification is available to everyone (as templelane pointed out) as Aldous Huxley expected would happen in his Brave New World. That idea has stuck with me since I read that book as a teen.
I have always wanted me a baby I can design meeself. I would make it the ugliest thing known to the human race. Boy, I could make lotsa money off it without lifting a finger. Hollywood would be calling to cast it in movies. I can rent it out to circuses as a side show phenom. We will write a bestselling book about life as the ugliest human that ever existed. When the novelty finally wears off and no one is a callin' anymore, I will have a child that won't ever leave me because it would be too ugly for anyone to give a job to, therefore it would be destined to take care of me in my old age. Now, if I only had some viable eggs lying around, we'd be cookin' I tell you. Can I get in as a test subject now? My bio clock is a tickin' and the eggs are already close to be being not just hard boiled, but rubbery.
Oh Ruby - you are priceless! I want to sign up too as a test subject, but only for the money. As if any of my genes are viable. Lol.
Who said anything about a church? I'm just trying to get some ideas out here.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Ruby about your ugly GM child. I read a phlosophy once that is everyon ewas perfect then ugly would become beautiful. This would be because they would be the most unusual.
Hi Firm long time no see! You saud that genetically modifying people might not work because it would upset the flow of everything- you are right about a lot of situations however it can be done. Mice are genetially modified all the time. Check out Super Mouse!
Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Go right ahead - this christian is not stopping anyone.
But remember this, when you modify your baby to have say blond hair and blue eyes and it is inserted into its genome - how do you know what side effects go along with that ?
Are you going to sue when that gene is linked or associated with say low IQ or muscle weakness.
Besides there is already gene manipulation that benefits humans:
Recombinant insulin
Thrombolytics
To name a few.
The ethical question is :does the baby have a choice or say in the matter? They already do not have the choice whether to live or die.
For example, say that same child grew up and wanted red hair and green eyes - can they sue their parents?
We already try to modify ourselves
- atheletes on steroids
- fake breasts
- dyed hair
- piercings
- gastric bypass
etc...
Unfortunantly we all know of the potential complications, and does that that really change who you are or what matters like character or integrity?
So go ahead, play god,. but remember that God created each one of us uniquely for Him , He sees what we truly are, and loves us despite that.
Grace and Peace
This argument can also be used for baptism. Jus' saying.Quote:
Originally Posted by inthebox
I was not referring to baptism but about abortion.
I know but don't forget to apply that argument everywhere - a 2 month old should never be baptised because he has no say in the matter.
NK
You view water on a baby [ Baptism to believers ] the same as a baby in the womb being killed/ electively terminated / not being allowed to live?
I have also read NeXt. It was a fascinating book. Personally, I would never try to genetically modify my kid. But, with technology advancing all the time, I wouldn't be surprised if that is an option someday.
I read that there is a sperm bank in Europe which only takes donations from blond-haired, blue-eyed men in order for women to have a baby with those characteristics. I can't remember where it was located. So, I wouldn't be surprised if someday there are some people who would be willing to genetically modify their kids to look a certain way. Personally, I think I'm against it, unless it was to get rid of a certain bad gene, like the breast cancer gene or something.
I'm not making judgements on anything, I'm just showing you how you're a typical pick-and-choose religious type who applies an argument to stuff you don't like and ignores it for stuff you like.Quote:
Originally Posted by inthebox
Germany? LOL! Genetic control was Hitler's dream. When I first saw excon's post, that was what went through my mind. I wondered what would prevent another nutjob from exploiting the capability and using it for his own nefarious purposes.Quote:
Originally Posted by peggyhill
You da bomb, Ruby!Quote:
Originally Posted by RubyPitbull
But seriously folks.
It would be hard to argue that for a single-gene (I think?) disease like Huntington's, we shouldn't fix it if we have the ability to do so, but even there, how would it actually be done? Would the carrier parent's egg or sperm have to be "fixed" before fertilization, or could a partially developed fetus or a newborn baby or a pre-pubescent child or a fully mature adult be fixed? Or would a "fix" be accomplished, not by replacing or repairing the defective gene, but by somehow ensuring that it wouldn't be "expressed" even though it's present?Quote:
Originally Posted by templelane
For those of you who are interested in a non-religious and practical level discussion of current genetic research and its implications for evolutionary theory and animal breeding, check out this thread.
I think that for the time being, Hitler and his memory will be what prevents that sort of thing from happening. Since we still have people who lived through WWII, fought in it, grew up during it, grew up in it's aftermath, I sort of think those memories will prevent the designing of a child (at least with respect to hair color and eye color).Quote:
Originally Posted by RubyPitbull
I can see genes being modified to eliminate disease, but I think using it for hair/eye color is further off. Not that I don't think there are people who would do it, but I think the ethical aspects of it are more questionable. I mean, there's a direct benefit to not having the genes for some debilitating disease; what's the benefit to being a redhead? Ability to rapidly sunburn??
Jillian, I wish I could believe that the scientific community that is working on this will forever use the technology only for altruistic purposes. Right now, that may be the purpose. But, as time goes on, when the practical use becomes more prevalent and common place, more people become involved in this field, we all know that there are always some people who either cannot help themselves if enough money is thrown in their direction or feel that there is a need for a different application. As long as there are people like Hitler that are born into this world, there will always be people who can and will be manipulated by them, or simply agree with their less than ethical ideologies.
I agree, Ruby, I think the technology will be developed I'm just not so sure it will be used. Gene modification is a big ethical debate to begin with, and scientists have a better chance at getting it accepted if they are modifying the "bad" genes. In the quest to take knowledge further they will figure out ways to keep going and do more, but I think the ethics of society will step in and prevent it from going too far.
Or maybe I'm in an oddly optimistic mood! :)
Hello jillian:Quote:
Originally Posted by jillianleab
I'll opt for maybe. I'm not so optimistic. You could even call me a pessimist.
What's the difference between removing a gene that prevents a particular disease, from inserting one that makes you resistant to all disease? What's the difference between removing a gene that causes downs syndrome, from inserting a gene that makes you smarter?
If I had the money, I'd want the best for my child.. Wouldn't you? What IS the best?
I don't have the answers to these questions - only more questions.
excon
I don't have the answers either, only speculation, really.
I think the problem will be a rich man/poor man; I would want the best for my kid too, and if I could afford it, I would want my kid to have the "smart gene" inserted (provided it doesn't cause toes to grow on his head or whatever). But what of the people who can't afford it? It brings on a bigger class division, and I think that is where the ethics come in. Does that mean it will never happen? Well, never is a long time...
But you also get the rich man/poor man problem with disease gene modification, unless it's affordable or free to all. It's not "fair" only the rich get to protect their kids from down's while the poor have to chance it out. Again, it brings on a bigger class division.
I don't have the answers either, I don't think anyone does.
But on to your original question, I think a lot of religious groups, not just Christians will rally against gene modification, as they might equate it to "playing god". And we all know how much influence religious groups have on politics. So the technology might be possible, but it probably won't get federal funding, and if it's developed in another country, it would be outlawed here. Look at stem cell research... but that's another thread. :)
Just for accuracy Down's syndrome is trisomy 21 i.e. there are three chromosome 21s. It is caused by the egg not dividing properly. So you couldn't remove the gene. I get what you were saying though :)Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
I'm going to have a nose at the posts I've missed before I add anymore comments!
You ask the best questions!Quote:
Originally Posted by ordinaryguy
This is the whole debate on manipulating soma - body cells like in gene therapy of gamete cells- egg and sperm cells. You could alter the whole person when they are an egg and this would be passed down forevermore or you could just 'fix' something wrong in an adult with their consent. I think many people woud find the latter more ethically acceptable.
It would be much easier to manipulate a fertilised egg than an entire person. In mouse genetics it is usually the early fertilised egg that is manipulated (the blastocyst) by a process known as homologous recombination- swapping similar pieces of DNA. Here is a great site I used when revising this stuff last year which explains how this is done. Gene Knockout by Targeted Disruption
Mice are used because they have a short breeding and life cycle, their genome is known and they are easy and cheap to keep. However there is no reason why the techniques described could not be extended to humans.
This situation is closer than we think. I think the main things that will delay 'designer babies' is not politics or objectors but the rate we breed- it'll take ages to know if it works/ which genes are important for what. Yes we have animal models but would you change a gene in your child that made a mouse smarter? Who would want their kids to be the guinea pigs for an untested technology?
I don't think embryo modification will happen. I think they will figure out how to modify the genes in adults before embryo modification is wide spread. Once adults can be modified embryo modification will be a non issue, since they will get the better genes from their parents. Of course the there might be some patent problems from the company that gave you the gene in the first place and your illegal copy of it.
Troublesome genetic abnormalities occur as a result of a mutation. Although the mutation is generally able to be passed to the next generation, the previous generation doesn't have to have had it. So while the number of people with a certain targeted genetic abnormality would be decreased, screening and genetic enhancement would have to continue indefinitely in order to prevent it from reoccurring. Perfect people couldn't possibly have their genes passed down forevermore. Evolution would take over, and mutations would continue to make people with both stronger and weaker traits.Quote:
Originally Posted by templelane
Also, as mentioned above, things like downs syndrome (which has nothing to do with the parents genetic coding) would still be just as prevalent as before.
Kal
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:46 PM. |