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.
I beg to differ. You are intervening in a situation where a person would naturally die. I'm not suggesting this is what we should aspire to but every act done to stop death, cure illness, etc is playing God.
For those who feel the need to believe in a sky daddy, perhaps. For others it's simply applied science being used either productively or not.
I don't know. That's my honest answer. I do not know. When we are extending the length of lives without improving the quality of them, what is the point of it all? Just to prove we can? Add that to the very real possibility of misuse of technology and there you have it. I don't know that technological advances are always a good thing. A lot of technological advances have caused just as much as bad as they've caused good.
Apparently you don't have an otherwise incurable genetic disease.
But the issue is that people misuse and exploit technology all the time. Why would gene editing be any different?
Who determines what constitutes misuse? You? The government? The Bible-thumpers?
Quote:
Originally Posted by alpha_1976
We shouldn't have developed cure for any disease in that case. Let just go according to God's plan, right?
Exactly. Saying "but that's playing God" is just a silly, hypocritical argument. Without "playing God" infant mortality rates would still be sky high and cancer would have a near-100% mortality rate.
Who determines what constitutes misuse? You? The government? The Bible-thumpers?
Exactly. Saying "but that's playing God" is just a silly, hypocritical argument. Without "playing God" infant mortality rates would still be sky high and cancer would have a near-100% mortality rate.
IMO there is a difference between finding a cure for a simple infection that used to commonly kill people (strep or staph for example) and screwing with one's genes. Not in any way comparable to me.
Cancer is sometimes genetic, sometimes not. Scientists are working on identifying "cancer genes" to help better determine who is at risk and take precautions early. My mom's friend died of ovarian cancer and some of her family has the gene that is believed to have helped cause hers. So they will all be monitored regularly and if ever necessary, get hysterectomies before anything can get too deadly if they do get cancer. It would be nice if they could erase that gene altogether so it never appears again but IMHO this is taking it too far. It's strange to mess with genetics like that. And I wonder if any lasting implications could come from screwing with genes.
Scientists can now also make a baby with 3 genetic parents. This type of playing with nature just seems wrong to me. I think there is a limit and some things surpass it. Again - you never know what may happen generations down the road due to messing with genetics in these ways. https://www.theguardian.com/science/...bies-explained
Hmm...I think with this point, long-term human testing is required but that's problematic. For one, would the study model be possible? There isn't long-term research on the effects of GMO foods on humans for various issues. If the food won't be tested for future generations, how could it happen for human genetic modification?
Genetic engineering is an inevitable consequence of scientific progression. It may very well be that our species is either saved or undone at some future point in time through such a paradigm being accepted. I'd rather our scientists get ahead of the issue in either case.
IMO there is a difference between finding a cure for a simple infection that used to commonly kill people (strep or staph for example) and screwing with one's genes. Not in any way comparable to me.
Cancer is sometimes genetic, sometimes not. Scientists are working on identifying "cancer genes" to help better determine who is at risk and take precautions early. My mom's friend died of ovarian cancer and some of her family has the gene that is believed to have helped cause hers. So they will all be monitored regularly and if ever necessary, get hysterectomies before anything can get too deadly if they do get cancer. It would be nice if they could erase that gene altogether so it never appears again but IMHO this is taking it too far. It's strange to mess with genetics like that. And I wonder if any lasting implications could come from screwing with genes.
Scientists can now also make a baby with 3 genetic parents. This type of playing with nature just seems wrong to me. I think there is a limit and some things surpass it. Again - you never know what may happen generations down the road due to messing with genetics in these ways. https://www.theguardian.com/science/...bies-explained
What do you think people 100 years ago were saying about all of the medical breakthroughs that happened after they were already set in their ways? "It seems wrong" is not a reason to abstain from life-saving medical procedures. People said the same thing about organ transplants when they were a new breakthrough and now no one would say organ transplants "seem wrong" except for the nutty people.
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.
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.
