[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
A controversial title I guess. I was thinking about the current advances in fertility medicine, that allow you to choose sex, eye colour, hair colour and to screen for genetic diseases. It is not a great leap in thought to realise that we will soon have the technology that will allow us to select even more than this in our offspring, intelligence, attractiveness, muscle mass and the list goes on.
I am currently undecided as to my moral position on this. On the one hand, I think where is the harm in this? Things like eye and hair colour are trivial. With regard to sex, again on the one hand I think it is ok, but then I think this is largely culture specific. In other societies where male children are prized more than females, this is obviously going to be abused.
When it comes to diseases, regardless of whether I think it is right or wrong to alter our genetics in this way, I know that for a fact if a doctor said to me “concieve in this way, and we will guarantee your child is healthy and disease free” I would do it.
This is the tip of the iceberg though, since as our genetic technology level increases, there will come a point where we can give our offspring, almost superhuman abilities and characteristics. You only have to look at the physical charactistics of a belgian blue bull to imagine what will be possible. Where do we draw the line here? Again, if given the choice of being able to bestow on my offspring superhuman characteristics, I would say yes, I think?
Discuss, and please, lets keep religion and god out of it. We have to decide what is right and wrong for ourselves on this one since last time I checked, no major religous text has a chapter on genetic engineering.[/quote]
Wait…you want people to keep religion and God out of it? Why? Because this sounds like some fucking Nazi shit, “God doesn’t exist” and let’s build the Master Race. You sure you’re name is not Alffi?
Either way, I am against eugenics because even though it might produce a baby in “good” health, you subsequently kill innocent lives.
And, guess what eugenics was a big part of Hitler’s National Socialism, look at it what it got them…millions of people dead, no thanks.[/quote]
The nazis practiced negative eugenics, they actively wanted to exterminate other races not in line with their ideals. This is obviously abhorrent and is not what is being discussed. The type of eugenics being discussed is the positive kind. This already occurs to some degree in current infertility treatment practices. Embryos are often screened for genetic diseases before implantation.
Yes, and that is why I find both practices abhorrent and crimes against humanity. There is no such thing as “positive” eugenics, you are killing humans, sometimes multiple humans in order to screen for genetics not in line with your ideals and only allowing those with your supposed idea of “superior” genetics. You can rename it all you want, it is the same thing…killing innocent humans.
You are destroying embryos or tossing them out when they do not meet your genetic requirements, sounds like exactly what the Nazis did to the Jews and other Europeans.
The reason I asked that we keep religion out of it is the fact that all religious arguments boil down to the same premise, faith that your answer is correct one. This is not productive and will likely derail the thread. I am not wholly against people having religious reasons for being opposed to something, its just not good for debate.[/quote]
Well you can breath easy, my argument is based in reason and morals, specifically Natural Law. Natural Law, which, came from Aristotle and exemplified by Aquinas. See…two philosophers who are accepted by secular and nonsecular or theist and atheist people alike as having credible and rational philosophical arguments in the matters of morals.
I am not a fundamentalist, sir.
And, I would also like to point out that faith goes both ways, faith in reason and faith in dogma and doctrine are both reasonable; however, as a Catholic I have more faith in dogmas and doctrine more than man’s weak intellect. But, I digress. I will stick to reason and morals in this debate.