CRISPR Babies

[expos4ever]

What about this?

Is that a baby?

I suggest you are perhaps, but certainly less obviously so than "interpreter", effectively begging the question at issue with this image.

Of course, this does not look like a baby. And, of course and as already conceded, this clump of stuff cannot feel pain, think, have awareness etc. But I think it is premature to thereby conclude that the destruction of this entity is not an immoral act. For example, while it is not a baby, it will very likely become a baby if nature is allowed to take its course.

Now please do not misrepresent me: I am not saying that this (what I just pointed out) means that we can conclude it's immoral to destroy this clump. I just think things are more complicated than your post could be read as implying.

 

[pgp_protector]

I see your point and will assume that it is indeed correct to say that, from an information perspective, the cells in the hair brush are indeed equivalent to a fertilized egg. It would be nice, though, to be assured by a qualified expert that this is indeed the case.

However, there is indeed another dimension of the "information" argument that I should have addressed. A fertilized egg is a "blueprint" that is embedded in a physical setting where nutrients are delivered to it and it will indeed very likely develop into a person as long as the mother stays alive and eats and drinks. Obviously not the case for the cells in the hair brush.

So I will think about this for a while - perhaps there is a way to tweak my argument to legitimately differentiate the cell in the hair brush from the cell in the womb. I suggest it is not a priori obvious either way whether a thusly modified argument can be made to work.

The cells in the petri dish also don't have the nutrients, or environment to develop into a person.

 

[interpreter]

You are obviously begging the question - you need to make an actual argument as to why such a cluster of cells constitutes a human being - you cannot simply declare this to be true.

I only declare what the scientists declare. It has been declared by most US scientists to be life, and embryo research on viable fetuses is strictly forbidden. It is still being debated in the UK. .

 

[Loudmouth]

Of course, this does not look like a baby. And, of course and as already conceded, this clump of stuff cannot feel pain, think, have awareness etc. But I think it is premature to thereby conclude that the destruction of this entity is not an immoral act. For example, while it is not a baby, it will very likely become a baby if nature is allowed to take its course.

Now please do not misrepresent me: I am not saying that this (what I just pointed out) means that we can conclude it's immoral to destroy this clump. I just think things are more complicated than your post could be read as implying.

I don't think it is that complicated when we are talking about embryos at the 8 or 32 cell stage. If people are really worried about these embryos, then they should be FAR more worried about in vitro fertilization since that process produces many of these embryos that are later destroyed. If these scientists are using embryos that were slated to be destroyed, I would say that what they are doing is very moral.

 

[Loudmouth]

I only declare what the scientists declare. It has been declared by most US scientists to be life, and embryo research on viable fetuses is strictly forbidden. It is still being debated in the UK. .

Genetic modification in humans is what they are really afraid of.

 

[interpreter]

I don't think it is that complicated when we are talking about embryos at the 8 or 32 cell stage. If people are really worried about these embryos, then they should be FAR more worried about in vitro fertilization since that process produces many of these embryos that are later destroyed. If these scientists are using embryos that were slated to be destroyed, I would say that what they are doing is very moral.

The UK scientists are not going to use embryos "slated to be destroyed." They are going to use live, viable embyos.

 

[Loudmouth]

The UK scientists are not going to use embryos "slated to be destroyed." They are going to use live, viable embyos.

How were the embryos created?

My guess is that they were left over embryos from an in vitro fertilization procedure at a fertility clinic. When the couple finally gets pregnant, any left over embryos are destroyed.

 

[Mayzoo]

Is it right to destroy life?

Everything that lives does so by destroying life. Vegetarians destroy life to survive. Bacteria destroy life to survive.

 

[Nithavela]

 

[expos4ever]

There are other ways of looking at the issue of the morality of destroying embryos than focusing on the question of "when" the fetus becomes a human being. Consider this analogy. Is it immoral for me to saw through a steel bolt that I bought with my own money? Usually not, but if that bolt, for whatever reason, happens to attach a jet engine to a commercial jetliner full of people and ready for take-off, it is, course, profoundly immoral for me to saw through such a bolt.

So we can pose this perfectly legitimate question: Is it morally acceptable to destroy a fetus given that, unless actively interfered with, that fetus will very likely evolve into a human being? This way of framing the problem enlarges the set of relevant considerations to include more than simply the question of when the fetus becomes a person. I have no immediate argument to offer, and I am certain that minds greater than mine have approached this issue from this broader perspective. However, my gut tells me that to interfere with a process that is almost certainly destined to produce a life is probably unethical. Or, at the very least, such interference should only be undertaken for compelling reasons.

This is, I suggest, a much more complex issue than either of the two main camps would want you to believe. It is manifestly silly to suggest that this is simply a matter of a woman's right to choose - clearly there are other considerations than this (since, for example, no one would suggest that a woman has "the right to choose" to kill a week-old baby). And it is equally silly to simply declare that the fertilized egg is a human being and decry abortion on that basis alone.

 

[Oafman]

what will they do with the mutants?

I imagine they will be used to save the world from evil villains.

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

I only declare what the scientists declare. It has been declared by most US scientists to be life, and embryo research on viable fetuses is strictly forbidden. It is still being debated in the UK. .

Since woman can get pregnant by embryos. They wouldn't be able to if doctors, if they didn't do research on them in the beginning. Also aren't some places doing stem cell research on embryos.

 

[interpreter]

There are other ways of looking at the issue of the morality of destroying embryos than focusing on the question of "when" the fetus becomes a human being. Consider this analogy. Is it immoral for me to saw through a steel bolt that I bought with my own money? Usually not, but if that bolt, for whatever reason, happens to attach a jet engine to a commercial jetliner full of people and ready for take-off, it is, course, profoundly immoral for me to saw through such a bolt.

So we can pose this perfectly legitimate question: Is it morally acceptable to destroy a fetus given that, unless actively interfered with, that fetus will very likely evolve into a human being? This way of framing the problem enlarges the set of relevant considerations to include more than simply the question of when the fetus becomes a person. I have no immediate argument to offer, and I am certain that minds greater than mine have approached this issue from this broader perspective. However, my gut tells me that to interfere with a process that is almost certainly destined to produce a life is probably unethical. Or, at the very least, such interference should only be undertaken for compelling reasons.

This is, I suggest, a much more complex issue than either of the two main camps would want you to believe. It is manifestly silly to suggest that this is simply a matter of a woman's right to choose - clearly there are other considerations than this (since, for example, no one would suggest that a woman has "the right to choose" to kill a week-old baby). And it is equally silly to simply declare that the fertilized egg is a human being and decry abortion on that basis alone.

That's a pretty good argument I guess. But the question is, should the UK doctors be allowed to tinker with viable fetuses? And what should they do with the ones that don't turn out right? (the 95% failure rate, or 9.5 mutants for every one success)?

 

[expos4ever]

That's a pretty good argument I guess. But the question is, should the UK doctors be allowed to tinker with viable fetuses? And what should they do with the ones that don't turn out right? (the 95% failure rate, or 9.5 mutants for every one success)?

I don't know - I think we need more information. I have no objection with "tinkering" that is intended to heal. However, as I suspect you will agree, sometimes proposed therapies have wider implications.

 

[interpreter]

Since woman can get pregnant by embryos. They wouldn't be able to if doctors, if they didn't do research on them in the beginning. Also aren't some places doing stem cell research on embryos.

I understand that stem-cell research is only done on "non-viable" fetuses. I'm not sure what the difference between viable and non-viable is, maybe someone on the thread can tell me.

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

I understand that stem-cell research is only done on "non-viable" fetuses. I'm not sure what the difference between viable and non-viable is, maybe someone on the thread can tell me.

When they plan to get rid of embryos them. The embryos aren't used or adopted out get destroyed them. I think at that point they would be considered non-viable fetuses, since they are about to be destroyed. Also the embryos that don't grow would be non-viable.

 

[interpreter]

My question is, if they manage to create 4 super babies, while creating 82 mutants, what will they do with the mutants?

The answer is, God forbid, they're planning to kill them all within 7 to 14 days. Super babies, mutants and all. And it looks like God (and/or the UK) may very well forbid it.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/s...created-in-britain-within-weeks-a6810506.html

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

The answer is, God forbid, they're planning to kill them all within 7 to 14 days. Super babies, mutants and all. And it looks like God (and/or the UK) may very well forbid it.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/s...created-in-britain-within-weeks-a6810506.html

But that only because the law wont allow anything else. I wouldn't be surprised if they snuck and kept a few embryos growing longer.

 

[Loudmouth]

So we can pose this perfectly legitimate question: Is it morally acceptable to destroy a fetus given that, unless actively interfered with, that fetus will very likely evolve into a human being?

First, the correct term is "develop", not evolve. Evolution is what a population of organisms does over several generations. An individual does not evolve during their lifetime.

Second, if left on their own, these embryos (not fetuses) would have made it to about 200 cells and then died since they were not in a uterus.

 

[expos4ever]

First, the correct term is "develop", not evolve. Evolution is what a population of organisms does over several generations. An individual does not evolve during their lifetime.

The term "evolve" can be used as I have used it. And I am quite confident one can indeed say that a person "evolves" over their lifetime. Surely you don't think I mean "evolve" in the sense you refer to. The term "evolve" is not restricted in usage to refer to the multi-generational process of evolution a la Richard Dawkins. From the Cambridge dictionary:

evolve: to change or develop gradually

Does a fetus change or develop gradually into a human being. Obviously it does.

Second, if left on their own, these embryos (not fetuses) would have made it to about 200 cells and then died since they were not in a uterus.

Again, surely you must realize that my statement was not about fetuses outside the uterus.