3 ms·

> it was voluntary Do you think parents can consent to this sort of experiment on behalf of an unborn child?

by jlebar 8y ago

buboard 8y ago
should parents be liable for any kind of genetic defect they pass to their children?
- NamTaf 8y ago
  Intent and premeditation are strong in western law, hence differences between murder and manslaughter. Consenting to a genetic experiment which then has ramifications on offspring therefore stands apart from the natural inheritance of uncontrolled genetic issues, as well as from the obverse situation where a parent does not undertake medical treatment that could possibly result in preventing inherited genetic issues. In other words, taking action to make changes is a crucial difference when compared to inaction, even if the outcomes are similar.
  - buboard 8y ago
    of course it is not the same. but i think the argument was on the unborn baby 's rights being violated because of the genetic procedure. Also this is not a case of arbitrary experimentation, the parents ARE preventing an inherited genetic issue, which is something that so far has been ethically acceptable so far, for embryo selection.
    - onetimemanytime 8y ago
      >>the parents ARE preventing an inherited genetic issue The parents THINK they ARE preventing an inherited genetic issue. I would not dare mess with "god's creation" /evolution. Too many unknowns once you start mix and matching and there's no going back. We know very little...
      - buboard 8y ago
        then you should not have children, but you should clone yourself. because your children are certainly going to be a messed up version of god's creation
        onetimemanytime 8y ago
        >>because your children are certainly going to be a messed up version of god's creation Nope, whatever happens it's the natural way: mistakes, mix, match and all.
        buboard 8y ago
        it seems some mistakes are more privileged than others ;)
- Noos 8y ago
  This isn't a child though, in a sense. This is a designed good. So yes, they should be responsible for any condition they knowingly design into another person. If you believe in the possibility of trait selection in this manner to an advanced level, it is vital that this happens. A tyrannical father may demand his children may be atheists, and prevent them from going to church now. A tyrannical father in the future may have the ability to edit the God gene (assuming one exists for the sake of argument) right out before birth, never allowing the chance of it. And this is the best case, in which the effort to design doesn't saddle the child with a host of other conditions.

> it was voluntary Do you think parents can consent to this sort of experiment on behalf of an unborn child?

by jlebar 8y ago

> it was voluntary Do you think parents can consent to this sort of experiment on behalf of an unborn child?

buboard 8y ago

should parents be liable for any kind of genetic defect they pass to their children?

NamTaf 8y ago
Intent and premeditation are strong in western law, hence differences between murder and manslaughter. Consenting to a genetic experiment which then has ramifications on offspring therefore stands apart from the natural inheritance of uncontrolled genetic issues, as well as from the obverse situation where a parent does not undertake medical treatment that could possibly result in preventing inherited genetic issues. In other words, taking action to make changes is a crucial difference when compared to inaction, even if the outcomes are similar.
- buboard 8y ago
  of course it is not the same. but i think the argument was on the unborn baby 's rights being violated because of the genetic procedure. Also this is not a case of arbitrary experimentation, the parents ARE preventing an inherited genetic issue, which is something that so far has been ethically acceptable so far, for embryo selection.
  - onetimemanytime 8y ago
    >>the parents ARE preventing an inherited genetic issue The parents THINK they ARE preventing an inherited genetic issue. I would not dare mess with "god's creation" /evolution. Too many unknowns once you start mix and matching and there's no going back. We know very little...
    - buboard 8y ago
      then you should not have children, but you should clone yourself. because your children are certainly going to be a messed up version of god's creation
      - onetimemanytime 8y ago
        >>because your children are certainly going to be a messed up version of god's creation Nope, whatever happens it's the natural way: mistakes, mix, match and all.
        buboard 8y ago
        it seems some mistakes are more privileged than others ;)
Noos 8y ago
This isn't a child though, in a sense. This is a designed good. So yes, they should be responsible for any condition they knowingly design into another person. If you believe in the possibility of trait selection in this manner to an advanced level, it is vital that this happens. A tyrannical father may demand his children may be atheists, and prevent them from going to church now. A tyrannical father in the future may have the ability to edit the God gene (assuming one exists for the sake of argument) right out before birth, never allowing the chance of it. And this is the best case, in which the effort to design doesn't saddle the child with a host of other conditions.