7 ms·

> - it is not actually defensible to abort fetuses based on sex. If it's ethically defensible to abort fetuses for no particular reason (i.e. general legalized

> - it is not actually defensible to abort fetuses based on sex. If it's ethically defensible to abort fetuses for no particular reason (i.e. general legalized abortion) then it follows that abortion for any particular reason is ethically defensible. > - genetic engineering might make populations more susceptible to epidemics genetic engineering also might make populations less susceptible to epidemics > - it would increase pressure on others, or other nations, to follow suit so as not to fall behind in the “race race” of eugenics That's indeed a possibility. > - it would seem to devalue non-engineered life, directly threatening the universal dignity of all human beings First of all, there's no such thing as "universal dignity of all human beings", different societies have different conceptualizations of "dignity" and its consequences. Even then, why should being genetically engineered threaten your dignity or that of others? Engineered humans are still humans. Their DNA isn't necessarily any different than what some natural mutation could've come up with. > - your tired meme is tired I'm actually dead serious.

IfOnlyYouKnew 8y ago
> If it's ethically defensible to abort fetuses for no particular reason (i.e. general legalized abortion) then it follows that abortion for any particular reason is ethically defensible. It does not follow. Similar: even in "employment-at-will" jurisdictions, where you can fire anyone at any time without giving justifications, you are not allowed to fire someone for a slew of protected reasons, such as becoming a whistleblower, their sex/age/sexual orientation/race, or joining a union. > genetic engineering also might make populations less susceptible to epidemics It may make populations less susceptible to disease. It's extremely unlikely that homogenisation of genes would lead to increased resistance to epidemics. > I'm actually dead serious. That's what's most frightening.
- Nasrudith 8y ago
  It is possible that it could boost resistance - for instance I have a grandmother with a weird immune system flaw - for some reason she cannot retain immunity to chicken pox at all - she caught it every time someone in her large farm family got it as a child! While diversity ensures better coverage genetic engineering could "patch the holes" as it were.
  - IfOnlyYouKnew 8y ago
    You're still confusing disease and epidemics.
- zeroname 8y ago
  > It does not follow. Similar: even in "employment-at-will" jurisdictions, where you can fire anyone at any time without giving justifications, you are not allowed to fire someone for a slew of protected reasons, such as becoming a whistleblower, their sex/age/sexual orientation/race, or joining a union. ...which is a contradiction! Legislation like that arises through conflicting requirements coming from different directions. So, if you want to fire someone based on their race, you must not disclose it, but you can still do it. It obviously doesn't make sense, it just happens to be the law. I'm not talking about the law anyway, I'm talking about ethics. Really the argument I am making is that maybe abortion for any reason isn't ethically defensible, but if it is, then all kinds of other things become defensible on that platform.
- dkersten 8y ago
  > It does not follow. But in many places with legal abortions, you are allowed to abort because you don't want it.
dragonwriter 8y ago
> If it's ethically defensible to abort fetuses for no particular reason (i.e. general legalized abortion) The absence of a legal prohibition doesn't mean something is ethical; it can mean that the perceived incidental costs of policing it (remembering that this is always done by human institutions, which are both fallible and corruptible) outweighs the benefits. This is fairly clearly articulated as the justification of the broad free speech protections in the US, for instance (not all protected speech is also ethical speech), and the same can quite easily be the case with generalized legal abortion (it emphatically is in the US, where the right to abortion rests on Constitutional provisions which, just like the protection of free speech, deal with the costs allowing the government to regulate certain areas, even to address unethical conduct.)
- zeroname 8y ago
  > The absence of a legal prohibition doesn't mean something is ethical Nobody claimed otherwise. Legality is not the point. > ... it can mean that the perceived incidental costs of policing it outweighs the benefits. That's an ethical defense. We can disagree about the costs and benefits of abortion or genetic engineering, but purely based on principles I don't see how you can defend non-medically indicated abortion but not genetic engineering.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > > The absence of a legal prohibition doesn't mean something is ethical > Nobody claimed otherwise. Yes, you did, when you said: “If it's ethically defensible to abort fetuses for no particular reason (i.e. general legalized abortion)” That is an explicit statement that the legality of abortion necessarily implies the ethical acceptability of abortion. > > it can mean that the perceived incidental costs of policing it outweighs the benefits. > That's an ethical defense. It's an ethical defense of the legality of a thing that does not depend on the ethical acceptability of the thing itself. > We can disagree about the costs and benefits of abortion or genetic engineering, but purely based on principles I don't see how you can defend non-medically indicated abortion but not genetic engineering. One can defend the legality of non-medically indicates abortion but not designer babies theogh genetic engineering because one believes that permitting government inquiry into the justification of abortion (given the fallibility and corruptibility of government) poses an unacceptably high risk of intrusion into legitimate bodily autonomy that is not warranted by the benefits of the prohibition, whereas the same is not true with human genetic engineering (either because the latter does not as closely impact legitimate bodily autonomy issues or because the potential public impacts of each instance of gene editing warrant accepting greater costs to control it.)

IfOnlyYouKnew 8y ago

> If it's ethically defensible to abort fetuses for no particular reason (i.e. general legalized abortion) then it follows that abortion for any particular reason is ethically defensible. It does not follow. Similar: even in "employment-at-will" jurisdictions, where you can fire anyone at any time without giving justifications, you are not allowed to fire someone for a slew of protected reasons, such as becoming a whistleblower, their sex/age/sexual orientation/race, or joining a union. > genetic engineering also might make populations less susceptible to epidemics It may make populations less susceptible to disease. It's extremely unlikely that homogenisation of genes would lead to increased resistance to epidemics. > I'm actually dead serious. That's what's most frightening.

Nasrudith 8y ago
It is possible that it could boost resistance - for instance I have a grandmother with a weird immune system flaw - for some reason she cannot retain immunity to chicken pox at all - she caught it every time someone in her large farm family got it as a child! While diversity ensures better coverage genetic engineering could "patch the holes" as it were.
- IfOnlyYouKnew 8y ago
  You're still confusing disease and epidemics.
zeroname 8y ago
> It does not follow. Similar: even in "employment-at-will" jurisdictions, where you can fire anyone at any time without giving justifications, you are not allowed to fire someone for a slew of protected reasons, such as becoming a whistleblower, their sex/age/sexual orientation/race, or joining a union. ...which is a contradiction! Legislation like that arises through conflicting requirements coming from different directions. So, if you want to fire someone based on their race, you must not disclose it, but you can still do it. It obviously doesn't make sense, it just happens to be the law. I'm not talking about the law anyway, I'm talking about ethics. Really the argument I am making is that maybe abortion for any reason isn't ethically defensible, but if it is, then all kinds of other things become defensible on that platform.
dkersten 8y ago
> It does not follow. But in many places with legal abortions, you are allowed to abort because you don't want it.

dragonwriter 8y ago

> If it's ethically defensible to abort fetuses for no particular reason (i.e. general legalized abortion) The absence of a legal prohibition doesn't mean something is ethical; it can mean that the perceived incidental costs of policing it (remembering that this is always done by human institutions, which are both fallible and corruptible) outweighs the benefits. This is fairly clearly articulated as the justification of the broad free speech protections in the US, for instance (not all protected speech is also ethical speech), and the same can quite easily be the case with generalized legal abortion (it emphatically is in the US, where the right to abortion rests on Constitutional provisions which, just like the protection of free speech, deal with the costs allowing the government to regulate certain areas, even to address unethical conduct.)

zeroname 8y ago
> The absence of a legal prohibition doesn't mean something is ethical Nobody claimed otherwise. Legality is not the point. > ... it can mean that the perceived incidental costs of policing it outweighs the benefits. That's an ethical defense. We can disagree about the costs and benefits of abortion or genetic engineering, but purely based on principles I don't see how you can defend non-medically indicated abortion but not genetic engineering.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > > The absence of a legal prohibition doesn't mean something is ethical > Nobody claimed otherwise. Yes, you did, when you said: “If it's ethically defensible to abort fetuses for no particular reason (i.e. general legalized abortion)” That is an explicit statement that the legality of abortion necessarily implies the ethical acceptability of abortion. > > it can mean that the perceived incidental costs of policing it outweighs the benefits. > That's an ethical defense. It's an ethical defense of the legality of a thing that does not depend on the ethical acceptability of the thing itself. > We can disagree about the costs and benefits of abortion or genetic engineering, but purely based on principles I don't see how you can defend non-medically indicated abortion but not genetic engineering. One can defend the legality of non-medically indicates abortion but not designer babies theogh genetic engineering because one believes that permitting government inquiry into the justification of abortion (given the fallibility and corruptibility of government) poses an unacceptably high risk of intrusion into legitimate bodily autonomy that is not warranted by the benefits of the prohibition, whereas the same is not true with human genetic engineering (either because the latter does not as closely impact legitimate bodily autonomy issues or because the potential public impacts of each instance of gene editing warrant accepting greater costs to control it.)