genetic engineering

[relaxeus]

Hi,

This is a topic that Im very interested in and I want to know what position people of various faiths take and their reasons for it.

I'm all for genetic engineering. If I have children (and I hope to, some day ) and the option is there to have them genetically engineered I would try hard to convince my wife to have our childs genes modified. I would modify the genes responsible for an optimal immune system so the child would rarely, if ever, get sick. I would modify the genes responsible for increased intelligence. I would modify the genes responsible for height, and make my boy 6'0"-6'2", my girl for about 5'9"-5'10". Blue eyes, dark hair. Athletic build. Basically every gene that will improve my childs life I would want to change. For me, I have no reasons not to do it, neither moral or whatever. It's something that I think is positive in every sense.

So, what do you all think about genetic engineering. Would you have your children's genes modified? Why or why not?

 

[Spherical Time]

Hi,

This is a topic that Im very interested in and I want to know what position people of various faiths take and their reasons for it.

I'm all for genetic engineering. If I have children (and I hope to, some day ) and the option is there to have them genetically engineered I would try hard to convince my wife to have our childs genes modified. I would modify the genes responsible for an optimal immune system so the child would rarely, if ever, get sick. I would modify the genes responsible for increased intelligence. I would modify the genes responsible for height, and make my boy 6'0"-6'2", my girl for about 5'9"-5'10". Blue eyes, dark hair. Athletic build. Basically every gene that will improve my childs life I would want to change. For me, I have no reasons not to do it, neither moral or whatever. It's something that I think is positive in every sense.

So, what do you all think about genetic engineering. Would you have your children's genes modified? Why or why not?

If I was to ever have biological children, I wouldn't necessarily want the genes modified, but would rather have the choice of eliminating specific genetic tendencies that run in my family line. As it stands now, I am not planning on having biological children because of that reason.

However, I do worry about a sitaution like that envisioned in Gattaca or Twilight of the Golds. I don't know how to combat such a situation, but I think morally there has to be a reasonable amount of restriction on such technology to prevent such situations from arising.

 

[relaxeus]

Hi Spherical time,

I dont know what gattaca or twilight of the golds is. What happens?

As for your choice of not having kids because they may have serious health problems, thats very noble. My friend is in biotechnology and he told me that in less than 20 years we will be able to modify such health problems to have healthy children. By that time youll be under 43, a good time for males to have children.

Now, your saying you wouldnt necessarily modify any genes other than specific ones relating to health problems. How far would this go? I can see how modifying eye color and hair color may not be desirable and to let those traits sort themselves out naturally, but what would prevent you from modifying genes so that your child could have an optimal immune system as well?

 

[Spherical Time]

Hi Spherical time,

I dont know what gattaca or twilight of the golds is. What happens?

Both are movies. Gattaca is a very, very good Sci-Fi movie. In Gattaca, genetic engineering is common, but those that have not been genetically engineered are discriminated against and relagated to second hand status.

In Twilight of the Golds, a "gay gene" is found, and now a family is faced with the decision of whether or not to have their pre-natal children tested for it . . . and if the test is positive they have to make the choice of whether to carry the child to term or terminate the pregnancy.

As for your choice of not having kids because they may have serious health problems, thats very noble. My friend is in biotechnology and he told me that in less than 20 years we will be able to modify such health problems to have healthy children. By that time youll be under 43, a good time for males to have children.

I'd rather have children in the next ten years, if at all, but that's irrelavent. Unless they could guarentee success, I wouldn't opt for it. I'm not willing to take that chance.

Now, your saying you wouldnt necessarily modify any genes other than specific ones relating to health problems. How far would this go? I can see how modifying eye color and hair color may not be desirable and to let those traits sort themselves out naturally, but what would prevent you from modifying genes so that your child could have an optimal immune system as well?

Well, the question is, do I have the genes for an optimal immune system that I can pass on? If they already exist in me, then I have few qualms about selecting for them, but if they have to actually create them or modify an existing gene to create them, I probably would have a problem with that.

 

[Ave Maria]

Basically it is okay to manipulate the genes of an unborn child if the procedure respects the life and integrity of the embryo and does not involve disproportionate risks for it and the attempts are directed toward healing it, improving its condition of health, or its individual survival.

It is wrong if used for things like changing the sex of the child.

2275 "One must hold as licit procedures carried out on the human embryo which respect the life and integrity of the embryo and do not involve disproportionate risks for it, but are directed toward its healing the improvement of its condition of health, or its individual survival."

"It is immoral to produce human embryos intended for exploitation as disposable biological material."

"Certain attempts to influence chromosomic or genetic inheritance are not therapeutic but are aimed at producing human beings selected according to sex or other predetermined qualities. Such manipulations are contrary to the personal dignity of the human being and his integrity and identity" which are unique and unrepeatable.

 

[relaxeus]

Both are movies. Gattaca is a very, very good Sci-Fi movie. In Gattaca, genetic engineering is common, but those that have not been genetically engineered are discriminated against and relagated to second hand status.

I suppose there would be some people that would discriminate, but the majority I think would have no problems with un-engineered people.

In Twilight of the Golds, a "gay gene" is found, and now a family is faced with the decision of whether or not to have their pre-natal children tested for it . . . and if the test is positive they have to make the choice of whether to carry the child to term or terminate the pregnancy.

Choice is good. The parents can decide to do whatever they choose, I like that. They are the ones creating life, I think its up to them to decide.

but if they have to actually create them or modify an existing gene to create them, I probably would have a problem with that.

why?

 

[Mr. QWERTY]

Engineer away. It makes a lot of sense to me.

 

[relaxeus]

Basically it is okay to manipulate the genes of an unborn child if the procedure respects the life and integrity of the embryo and does not involve disproportionate risks for it and the attempts are directed toward healing it, improving its condition of health, or its individual survival.

Glad to see that the Catholic Church holds this position.

It is wrong if used for things like changing the sex of the child.

I can see how changing traits such as the sex of the child may be a problem for some people. Pesonally, I wouldnt have a problem with this. I think its up to us what kind of life we want to create. According to creationist theory, thats exactly what God did - created us to his specifications. How is what God did different than us choosing specifications for our children?

 

[Athene]

I can see that it would be beneficial to get rid of genes that are responsible for genetic illness, but I don't like the idea of modifying the genes for intelligence, athletic ability, or any other attribute. I'm thinking Gattaca as well - it would probably be only the wealthy who could afford to tinker with their childs genes as such a procedure is bound to be expensive and I can't see the NHS coughing up the funds or insurance companies.

Relaxeus, lets pretend that you are dirt poor and we live in a society where genetic alteration is possible . . . and you have two children, a boy and a girl but you couldn't afford to have them genetically altered. what kind of a future do you think your children would have then?

 

[faster_jackrabbit]

Hi,
I would modify the genes responsible for height, and make my boy 6'0"-6'2", my girl for about 5'9"-5'10". Blue eyes, dark hair. Athletic build. Basically every gene that will improve my childs life I would want to change.

How would height and build be an advantage if every other child in the world was like that? Would it be "tall" any more? Wouldn't it just be "typical"?

 

[Mr. QWERTY]

Relaxeus, lets pretend that you are dirt poor and we live in a society where genetic alteration is possible . . . and you have two children, a boy and a girl but you couldn't afford to have them genetically altered. what kind of a future do you think your children would have then?

About the same as they do now?

There is currently a huge gulf between rich and poor. Rich people live longer, have better health, go to better schools, have higher paying jobs (in addition to starting life with money), better health care, etc.

Given the fact that rich people currently have huge advantages, and the fact that I do not see any moral issue with genetic engineering, I do not see any reason to restrict it.

 

[relaxeus]

I can see that it would be beneficial to get rid of genes that are responsible for genetic illness, but I don't like the idea of modifying the genes for intelligence, athletic ability, or any other attribute. I'm thinking Gattaca as well - it would probably be only the wealthy who could afford to tinker with their childs genes as such a procedure is bound to be expensive and I can't see the NHS coughing up the funds or insurance companies.

Relaxeus, lets pretend that you are dirt poor and we live in a society where genetic alteration is possible . . . and you have two children, a boy and a girl but you couldn't afford to have them genetically altered. what kind of a future do you think your children would have then?

Im sure oppurtunities wouldnt change that much for genetically modified or unmodified people. Even poor people now can get government support to go to university and be able to land a good job after. Generally, more intelligent people have a higher chance of benefitting our society more. The more smart people we have the better our society will be.

It would be expensive at first, sure, like any new technology. As more and more people would use it the price would go down after the initially incredible prices, plus Im sure there would be a lot of competition to aquire as much of the market as possible and that would lower the prices significantly. I wouldnt be surprised if the procedure wouldnt cost more than 5,000 after a while, and decrease further with time.

 

[relaxeus]

How would height and build be an advantage if every other child in the world was like that? Would it be "tall" any more? Wouldn't it just be "typical"?

Generally the taller you are the stronger you are. I'd rather see the whole human population be 6 feet tall rather than them all being 5 feet tall. I'm sure not everyone would choose to influence height, plus different people would want differing heights for their children.

 

[Moros]

If it can be done, there's no reason not to do it. There's no need for man to limit himself.

 

[Moros]

On the other hand, the problem with "popular eugenics" (as I call it) is that the average person has no sense of priority, especially in America.

For example, a kid who would have a genius level IQ, but a predisposition for, say, a stocky frame would be passed over in favor of a tall but stupid kid who would be good at football.

Good friend of mine is a geneticist.

 

[Spherical Time]

I suppose there would be some people that would discriminate, but the majority I think would have no problems with un-engineered people.

I'm not so optimistic. It would slam the class restrictions home, and probably exaggerate them severely.

Were this to happen, I could foresee a day when the upper class and the lower could no longer breed and create viable offspring.

why?

Because then it wouldn't be me anymore.