Originally posted by ivanhoeGiven that nurture is a far greater indicator of a child's future, why is puttering with nature such a
It is quite surprising to me .... oh well, not thát surprising ..... that people who claim to investigate everything, who claim to think "independently" and who claim to not "follow the leader", choose to defend and advocate the ideas of people, fashionable gurus, who clearly have no idea of what they are talking about.
great offense, anyway?
How does removing the gene for, say, a cleft palate differ morally than repairing it after birth?
Is a parent who provides a healthy, but rigorous education for his/her child doing something intrinsically
immoral? How does this behavior differ morally from a person who has the 'smart gene' installed
in their child's egg (pretending for a moment that we've discovered one gene that controls
intelligence, just for argument's sake)?
I know, I know...slippery slope. If we permit this, we will be forcing people to have abortions when
their child is under 5'6". But that's not actually an argument; just paranoia.
Nemesio
I may have missed some posts but I don't think I have seen any argument yet which is against 'designer babies' in general.
There are two key parts of the whole Eugenics discussion:
1. The ability to choose particular characteristics you want in a baby.
2. The person or group of people who makes the decision as to what those characteristics would be.
I have no objections to 1. on condition that 2. is the parents with some possible lawful restrictions, such as a law which bans the intentional choice of characteristics which are thought to be detrimental. It may be the case that certain characteristics such as athletic ability result in a shorter lifespan. The parent may want the athletic ability in their child for the sake of money or fame at the cost of a shorter lifespan for their child.
Where 2. is government or some body not including the parents then we start to run into problems which are actually little different from other forms of state control such as forced education / indoctrination found in some communist states.
4 edits
Originally posted by NemesioI do not consider fighting disease or curing people from disease or disabilities an instance of implementing a eugenics policy .... as long, of course, this "disease fighting" or "curing people" does not involve killing the disabled or ill human beings in question, as it is the case when an abortion or euthanasia is being performed on the disabled or ill person. This is clearly an instance of selection by killing and thus some form of eugenics policy.
Given that nurture is a far greater indicator of a child's future, why is puttering with nature such a
great offense, anyway?
How does removing the gene for, say, a cleft palate differ morally than repairing it after birth?
Is a parent who provides a healthy, but rigorous education for his/her child doing something intrinsically
immoral? How does th ir child is under 5'6". But that's not actually an argument; just paranoia.
Nemesio
Originally posted by ivanhoeSo, as long as no killing of human beings is entailed including abortions, you are in favor of genetic
I do not consider fighting disease or curing people from disease or disabilities an instance of implementing a eugenics policy .... as long, of course, this "disease fighting" or "curing people" does not involve killing the disabled or ill human beings in question, as it is the case when an abortion or euthanasia is being performed on the disabled or ill per ...[text shortened]... . This is clearly an instance of selection by killing and thus some form of eugenics policy.
manipulation for the purposes of fighting, curing, or preventing disease?
To be clear: let's say a fertilized zygote comprising only a few dozen cells is floating around in a
womb and, because of advances in testing, we can suck out a cell and determine that it is a Down's
Syndrome baby-to-be. If said advances could manipulate the genetic material on the cell (say
by adding some sort of genetic enzyme or something) which would 'eat' the things that cause Down's
and replace it with whatever is there in non-Down's people, you would be totally okay with this?
If your answer is yes, I would be greatly surprised.
Nemesio
1 edit
Originally posted by NemesioYes. As I said I do not mind curing human beings, born or unborn. On the contrary, I'm all for it.
So, as long as no killing of human beings is entailed including abortions, you are in favor of genetic
manipulation for the purposes of fighting, curing, or preventing disease?
To be clear: let's say a fertilized zygote comprising only a few dozen cells is floating around in a
womb and, because of advances in testing, we can suck out a cell and determin totally okay with this?
If your answer is yes, I would be greatly surprised.
Nemesio
Originally posted by ivanhoeIvanhoe: This is clearly an instance of selection by killing and thus some form of eugenics policy.
I do not consider fighting disease or curing people from disease or disabilities an instance of implementing a eugenics policy .... as long, of course, this "disease fighting" or "curing people" does not involve killing the disabled or ill human beings in question, as it is the case when an abortion or euthanasia is being performed on the disabled or ill per ...[text shortened]... . This is clearly an instance of selection by killing and thus some form of eugenics policy.
It's just as clearly not what Dawkins was talking about and is thus a red herring in this thread.
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderThen what do you think Dawkins is talking about ? ... and what are we talking about ?
Ivanhoe: This is clearly an instance of selection by killing and thus some form of eugenics policy.
It's just as clearly not what Dawkins was talking about and is thus a red herring in this thread.
Originally posted by ivanhoeI have no idea what you're talking about. What the thread is about is in Hal's first post, the salient part being the following:
Then what do you think Dawkins is talking about ? ... and what are we talking about ?
But if you can breed cattle for milk yield, horses for running speed, and dogs for herding skill, why on Earth should it be impossible to breed humans for mathematical, musical or athletic ability? Objections such as 'these are not one-dimensional abilities' apply equally to cows, horses and dogs and never stopped anybody in practice.
"I wonder whether, some 60 years after Hitler's death, we might at least venture to ask what the moral difference is between breeding for musical ability and forcing a child to take music lessons. Or why it is acceptable to train fast runners and high jumpers but not to breed them.
Got it?
4 edits
Originally posted by no1marauder.... and who brought up the issue of healing people through means of modern DNA techniques ?
I have no idea what you're talking about. What the thread is about is in Hal's first post, the salient part being the following:
But if you can breed cattle for milk yield, horses for running speed, and dogs for herding skill, why on Earth should it be impossible to breed humans for mathematical, musical or athletic ability? Objections such as 'these acceptable to train fast runners and high jumpers but not to breed them.
Got it?
.... and do you support the idea of breeding people for the abilities of being obedient house servants, or factory workers, math geniuses or master piano players ?
.... and you still haven't answered the question what must happen to those people who do not meet the demands of the eugenic project they are in. Suppose they "treat" a child for becoming a great piano player. The child has all the necessary qualities and abilities ... but alas, his hands are deformed and they discover that during pregnancy. What should happen to that child ? Other question and even more important: What do you think will happen to that child ?
Originally posted by ivanhoeI answered that question three times so far. Since I have no moral objection to abortion, it wouldn't matter to me what would happen to a "deformed" non-viable fetus. And parents would be the ones deciding what "qualities" they wanted in their kids, something that is certainly morally unobjectionable post-birth and I haven't heard a reason yet why it is objectionable pre-birth.
.... and who brought up the issue of healing people through means of modern DNA techniques ?
.... and do you support the idea of breeding people for the abilities of being obedient house servants, or factory workers, math geniuses or master piano players ?
.... and you still haven't answered the question what must happen to those people who do not meet ...[text shortened]... Other question and even more important: What do you think will happen to that child ?
Originally posted by ivanhoeBecause you're a slippery slope nut.
Indeed, why would my "yes" surprise you ?
Keeping your premise that no person (as you define it, from conception on) be killed, if you think
it is okay to genetically manipulate DNA as to prevent Down's Syndrome from manifesting, would
you be opposed to genetically manipulating the same DNA to make the person smarter, taller, or
have green eyes?
Nemesio
Originally posted by no1marauderI don't know that there is a moral difference (or at least one that I can distinguish).
"I wonder whether, some 60 years after Hitler's death, we might at least venture to ask what the moral difference is between breeding for musical ability and forcing a child to take music lessons. Or why it is acceptable to train fast runners and high jumpers but not to breed them.
Nemesio
3 edits
Originally posted by NemesioWhat a lousy and arrogant answer to LH's and my question.
Because you're a slippery slope nut.
Keeping your premise that no person (as you define it, from conception on) be killed, if you think
it is okay to genetically manipulate DNA as to prevent Down's Syndrome from manifesting, would
you be opposed to genetically manipulating the same DNA to make the person smarter, taller, or
have green eyes?
Nemesio
Go and eat your carrots, Mr. Nemesis.