Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 10-19-2014, 09:34 AM
 
2,372 posts, read 1,424,171 times
Reputation: 464

Advertisements

I wouldn't be against it. I'm a creationist, and I believe in the beginning, our bodies were flawless. We had no disease nor inherited diseases, we never got exhausted or tired, and our bodies were designed to last forever. Of course we lost those qualities since then, and of course our bodies break down today. No amount of genetic engineering we could do would make us how we were before, and we shouldn't even attempt to make our bodies quote unquote perfect. From a creationist/christian standpoint, we will receive a new body after everything is said and done. One after Jesus' own resurrected body. One that is even better, and having more glory than what Adam and Eve had. Yet if we had the information and understanding, I'm not at all against genetic engineering and designer babies. What of the rest of you?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-19-2014, 09:40 AM
 
6,324 posts, read 4,307,929 times
Reputation: 4333
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavenese View Post
I wouldn't be against it. I'm a creationist, and I believe in the beginning, our bodies were flawless. We had no disease nor inherited diseases, we never got exhausted or tired, and our bodies were designed to last forever. Of course we lost those qualities since then, and of course our bodies break down today. No amount of genetic engineering we could do would make us how we were before, and we shouldn't even attempt to make our bodies quote unquote perfect. From a creationist/christian standpoint, we will receive a new body after everything is said and done. One after Jesus' own resurrected body. One that is even better, and having more glory than what Adam and Eve had. Yet if we had the information and understanding, I'm not at all against genetic engineering and designer babies. What of the rest of you?
Well, you're free to refuse genetic modification or a new body if you want to put your stock in some ancient myth.

Not me.

However, I'm not so sure I would be for the idea of genetic modification to the human body. The reason is as old as the hills. Like every other damn thing, the modification process will come with a price tag. A really big price tag. Most people will not be able to afford it and insurance most likely won't cover it under the guise of "elective" surgery and thus not needed.

The result will be socially devastating - with the "haves" literally becoming a superior race, and I think we all know what will happen to the rest of us.

I would only be for such modifications if it was done absolutely freely with no strings attached. If something like this ever became another plaything of the rich, the world as we know it would cease to exist.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-19-2014, 09:42 AM
 
Location: Ontario, Canada
31,374 posts, read 20,091,717 times
Reputation: 14069
Genetic tweaking to side-step inherited predispositions to disease seems a worthwhile endeavour.

But I'd frown on someone wishing to custom-order a blue-eyed boy with red hair who will grow to be 6'8" and have a 60" vertical leap by the time he is 18.

But I'm not a Christian so my opinion don't make no nevermind.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-19-2014, 10:13 AM
 
2,372 posts, read 1,424,171 times
Reputation: 464
All opinions are desired, but I wonder what my brethren would say concerning it. I feel genetic engineering, whether we like it or not, will be needed if we want to take steps forward concerning discovering more about the world. What do I mean by that? Well if we want to solve complex problems concerning our livelihood, discovering options that will make life better for everyone, I think we could do that by making our offspring capable of finding those difficult solutions. Have their brains better equipped to solve complex problems.

As for the rich problem, that is the rich being the only ones having access to this information, I agree if the technology was available, it would be in large available to everyone. At one time people thought computers and cell phones would be too expensive. I believe the rich would have access to more in terms of what they could do, just like they have better everything material wise compared to others. Yet most of us have computers, homes, etc. The rich have better homes and better computers, but that hasn't devastated society.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-19-2014, 10:33 AM
 
1,292 posts, read 3,465,620 times
Reputation: 1430
What kind of genetic modification?

If by genetic mod you mean intervention while in utero, or during the period before or during conception in a lab, others are making choices without the choice of the person to be born. To some extent, that happens already in a natural way when choosing which person to have sex with and produce a child - whether one is making a drunken Saturday night hookup at a cocktail bar, or choosing a fiancee with whom one wants to begin a family, we tend to choose markers of genetic health (clear skin, a decent BMI, nice teeth, lack of a hunchback). But if parents want to create a child who has the genetic potential to be an Olympic track star - a predominance of fast-twitch muscle fibers, lack of Morton's foot or pronation, etc., and the science exists to tweak the genome - the child isn't really a party to that decision. I don't agree with the idea of "designer babies" as ethical or moral, but I suppose I would agree in principle with the idea of genetic modification to repair a potential birth defect (with the caveat that the Law of Unintended Consequences and Murphy's Law are always in play - I went to school with one of the Thalidomide babies.)

(Plus, you're at the mercy of the competence of the employees of the genetic lab. The two lesbians who wanted a white baby from the same donor who was the biological father to the mother's first child, received a black girl due to a lab screw-up (presumably). Instead of giving thanks for a beautiful, healthy girl, they apparently see her as a money-making opportunity.)

Genetic modification as a form of negative selection also currently exists in the form of abortion. Society has essentially decided that people with Downs Syndrome are undesirable as a class and should be gradually eliminated, and through a system of prenatal testing and abortion, has reduced the number of such people to unprecedented levels. If one were to make the same decision about deaf people, for instance, there would be violent pushback from the deaf community, which does not see itself as undesirable, but other than pro-choice groups, there really isn't an organized movement to speak against the genocide of people with Down's Syndrome.

If the propensity for homosexuality were found to be genetic, and a test for its genetic marker could be administered during pregnancy, it is likely that the number of gay people in society would similarly drop dramatically due to abortion, given the desire for grandchildren that exists in most parents. Societies and cultures that practice sex-selective abortion have seen a huge drop in female births, to their demographic detriment, so there is no reason to presume it wouldn't happen with homosexuals if genetic science advances. Certainly, the proponents of abortion on demand would be placed in an interesting philosophical quandary.

So, if you're talking about some sort of GenMod in your own genotype, if that were possible, it would be one issue. I think one should be very cautious in making decisions for another person, who will have to live the rest of their lives with the (perhaps ill-considered) consequences of your decisions, or your desire to have a "better" child through science.

The argument could also be made that it would seem to circumvent the process of human evolution, which has served us pretty well already. If we were to start cloning ourselves (which has been demanded by some gay couples as a means of "parenthood" without the involvement of a gender outside their own), or any other form of genetic engineering that circumvents natural selection, we begin a gradual loss of natural genetic diversity that would act to the potential detriment of our species, and reduce our ability to adapt to changes in the genomic environment and develop immunities to new diseases that may arise. It would, perhaps, be the genetic version of a the socialist planned economies, which historically have underperformed against free market economies.

Another argument could be made that any scientific development, however altruistic it may be in intention, carries the risk for misuse by individuals and states, and genetic manipulation bears a higher potential cost than most other technologies. While I doubt a government will create an army of Noonan Singh super-soldiers any time soon, some scientists have already begun creating genetic Chimeras (human/animal hybrids) in the lab for research purposes, and the potential for research advancement may be too great to ignore. Scientists have certainly shown tendencies to override human dignity in the pursuit of research goals in the past , as the Tuskegee Syphilis experiments on black Americans has shown (or some really vile experiments conducted on kids: The 6 Cruelest Science Experiments Ever (Were Done on Kids) | Cracked.com).

Arguing from strictly ethical standards rather than religious ones Dr. Bernard Dixon, a HealthWatch Award recipient, has argued that creating a human-animal chimera would be akin to creating an evolutionary intermediate between humans and animals that never existed, and would be acting against an organism's "natural evolutionary will”. Many bioethicists oppose chimeric research based on this idea of backwards evolution and breaching the evolution lineage, which said arguments could also apply against cloning and other forms of genetic manipulation. The United Kingdom is the only country that currently allows human-animal chimera experimentation. (Rethinking Humanity: the Chimera Debate » Writing Program » Boston University)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-20-2014, 02:05 PM
 
2,372 posts, read 1,424,171 times
Reputation: 464
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arizona Mike View Post
What kind of genetic modification?

If by genetic mod you mean intervention while in utero, or during the period before or during conception in a lab, others are making choices without the choice of the person to be born. To some extent, that happens already in a natural way when choosing which person to have sex with and produce a child - whether one is making a drunken Saturday night hookup at a cocktail bar, or choosing a fiancee with whom one wants to begin a family, we tend to choose markers of genetic health (clear skin, a decent BMI, nice teeth, lack of a hunchback). But if parents want to create a child who has the genetic potential to be an Olympic track star - a predominance of fast-twitch muscle fibers, lack of Morton's foot or pronation, etc., and the science exists to tweak the genome - the child isn't really a party to that decision. I don't agree with the idea of "designer babies" as ethical or moral, but I suppose I would agree in principle with the idea of genetic modification to repair a potential birth defect (with the caveat that the Law of Unintended Consequences and Murphy's Law are always in play - I went to school with one of the Thalidomide babies.)

(Plus, you're at the mercy of the competence of the employees of the genetic lab. The two lesbians who wanted a white baby from the same donor who was the biological father to the mother's first child, received a black girl due to a lab screw-up (presumably). Instead of giving thanks for a beautiful, healthy girl, they apparently see her as a money-making opportunity.)

Genetic modification as a form of negative selection also currently exists in the form of abortion. Society has essentially decided that people with Downs Syndrome are undesirable as a class and should be gradually eliminated, and through a system of prenatal testing and abortion, has reduced the number of such people to unprecedented levels. If one were to make the same decision about deaf people, for instance, there would be violent pushback from the deaf community, which does not see itself as undesirable, but other than pro-choice groups, there really isn't an organized movement to speak against the genocide of people with Down's Syndrome.

If the propensity for homosexuality were found to be genetic, and a test for its genetic marker could be administered during pregnancy, it is likely that the number of gay people in society would similarly drop dramatically due to abortion, given the desire for grandchildren that exists in most parents. Societies and cultures that practice sex-selective abortion have seen a huge drop in female births, to their demographic detriment, so there is no reason to presume it wouldn't happen with homosexuals if genetic science advances. Certainly, the proponents of abortion on demand would be placed in an interesting philosophical quandary.

So, if you're talking about some sort of GenMod in your own genotype, if that were possible, it would be one issue. I think one should be very cautious in making decisions for another person, who will have to live the rest of their lives with the (perhaps ill-considered) consequences of your decisions, or your desire to have a "better" child through science.

The argument could also be made that it would seem to circumvent the process of human evolution, which has served us pretty well already. If we were to start cloning ourselves (which has been demanded by some gay couples as a means of "parenthood" without the involvement of a gender outside their own), or any other form of genetic engineering that circumvents natural selection, we begin a gradual loss of natural genetic diversity that would act to the potential detriment of our species, and reduce our ability to adapt to changes in the genomic environment and develop immunities to new diseases that may arise. It would, perhaps, be the genetic version of a the socialist planned economies, which historically have underperformed against free market economies.

Another argument could be made that any scientific development, however altruistic it may be in intention, carries the risk for misuse by individuals and states, and genetic manipulation bears a higher potential cost than most other technologies. While I doubt a government will create an army of Noonan Singh super-soldiers any time soon, some scientists have already begun creating genetic Chimeras (human/animal hybrids) in the lab for research purposes, and the potential for research advancement may be too great to ignore. Scientists have certainly shown tendencies to override human dignity in the pursuit of research goals in the past , as the Tuskegee Syphilis experiments on black Americans has shown (or some really vile experiments conducted on kids: The 6 Cruelest Science Experiments Ever (Were Done on Kids) | Cracked.com).

Arguing from strictly ethical standards rather than religious ones Dr. Bernard Dixon, a HealthWatch Award recipient, has argued that creating a human-animal chimera would be akin to creating an evolutionary intermediate between humans and animals that never existed, and would be acting against an organism's "natural evolutionary will”. Many bioethicists oppose chimeric research based on this idea of backwards evolution and breaching the evolution lineage, which said arguments could also apply against cloning and other forms of genetic manipulation. The United Kingdom is the only country that currently allows human-animal chimera experimentation. (Rethinking Humanity: the Chimera Debate » Writing Program » Boston University)
I didn't know they were testing animal genes and human genes together. Most would probably be against that. There are a lot of issues that could pop up over modification with just the human cells. The more we know how to use the technology, the safer it would become.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:15 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top