Ethical Problem? Why? Because We Would Be Playing God?

[Solitary]

[GurrenLagann]

Impressive. I didn't even realize that was possible.

In regard to the whole "designer babies" objection, get real. I never see people say why it would be inherently bad, it's usually just "it would creep me out". And besides, I think most parents would rather their children look like them.

[Poison Tree]

Using technology to prevent children from having incurable diseases? That is outrageous. Clearly god was punishing/testing these children and their parents, and interfering whit god's all knowing plan is blasphemy. That's why I don't live in a house; I simply accept the weather god sends my way  

Seriously, though, "science I don't understand; stop playing god" isn't even an argument. It is possible that there may be legitimate reasons to oppose this, but that ain't one.

[Solitary]

[Aroura33]

KHAAAAAAAN!!

That has to be one objection, right?

[Solitary]

[Mermaid]

People tend to demonize what they do not understand. If it involves fucking around with DNA, it goes against God and nature.

GMO foods are no different. That being said, I am still information-gathering on that particular topic, but I am not on the anti-GMO bandwagon.

[WitchSabrina]

People tend to demonize what they do not understand. If it involves fucking around with DNA, it goes against God and nature.

GMO foods are no different. That being said, I am still information-gathering on that particular topic, but I am not on the anti-GMO bandwagon.

this ^^^
thanks Mermaid.

[Solitary]

[Aletheia]

This would be better than playing god... since we could actually include the additional genetic diversity which comes in handy when you're wanting a species to continue on. These people whose genetic defects would eventually cause an end to their line (at some point the offspring will start to die before they can pass on their genes to the next generation) can have faulty genes replaced with healthy genetic material and therefore carry on their line. They don't have to settle for adoption - which in itself isn't bad, but let's be honest, most parents want at least one child to be biologically theirs. Furthermore, healthcare wouldn't need to cover the cost of treating the genetic disorders related to mitochondrial defects (and one day, nuclear DNA defects) once such techniques become mainstream and new generations are born having used such preventative measures.

I see nothing inherently wrong with repairing DNA, especially when you are simply returning it to a state which works best for our species. If people don't want us to play god, then whey have healthcare at all? Why pray for cures for horrible diseases? You can't have your cake and eat it too.

[Johan]

This isn't playing God anymore than using medicine to combat illness is playing God. So I see no moral issue as far as that goes. The moral issue for me is that there really isn't a viable way to test this over the long term safely before its used on actual people.

Hey look, we took out the bad genes so no muscular dystrophy for all these treated babys. Great. Until you find out that 80% of them are prone to severe depression and no one knows why. Or until you find out that they tend to age faster for some unknown reason and therefore tend to die from strokes or heart attacks by the time they're 35. There is no way to test for that kind of thing until you do it on real live people.  And in this case, you're doing it on real live people who don't exist yet and therefore have zero say in whether or not they'd like this done to them. That is a moral issue IMO.

[Solitary]

[Johan]

Well because they have genetic bases, they could potentially be taken care of in the same process. But only potentially. It could be decades before we could reliably isolate and eliminate the genetic side effects. And we can't work on eliminating the genetic side effects until we know what they are. That doesn't happen without data. And there is no way to get that data without bringing a few thousand human guinea pigs into the world who have no say in becoming human guinea pigs.

We can now successfully clone animals. But the clones age and die faster than the donors. We know this and I believe we understand why it happens. But so far to my knowledge we have found no way around it. The point is the potential side effects from doing this sort of thing are unknowable until we actually do it a few thousand times and see what happens to the resulting people over the course of their entire lives and to a lessor extent over the course of the lives of their offspring.

Is it moral and ethical to bring 5000 people into the world who won't have muscular dystrophy but who stand a 1 in 3 chance of having offspring that are born blind? We might be able to fix that eventually, but there is no way to predict it and therefore no way to stop it from happening in the first place.

[Raynot]

"It's only right that we look to introduce this life-saving treatment as soon as we can."

I think it's a good idea. But it's a stretch to call it "life-saving treatment." Whose life is it saving?

[BlackL1ght]

Wow, that's just awesome.