3 ms·

> Avoiding genetic risks is easily doable with technology that (for that very reason) is generally accepted, such as in-vitro genetic testing for risks, or pren

by adwn 8y ago

> Avoiding genetic risks is easily doable with technology that (for that very reason) is generally accepted, such as in-vitro genetic testing for risks, or prenatal screening with the option of abortion. Woah. I'm not opposed to abortions, but suggesting that killing a future human being due to a gene defect is ethically superior to fixing that defect is beyond comprehension to me. That's on the same level of twisted priorities as Jehovah's Witnesses that would rather let their child die than allow a blood transfusion. At some point you need to take a step back and ask yourself, what is more important: Clinging to some very abstract ethical values, or saving the life of a human being.

IfOnlyYouKnew 8y ago
There are no “abstract ethical values”, and the reasoning why GMO-babies are considered unethical are well-documented in this threat, I’m not going to try to discuss the ethics of abortion from first principle here because it would just end in wasted time without barely scratching the surface of what you can easily find on Wikipedia.
- adwn 8y ago
  > reasoning why GMO-babies are considered unethical are well-documented in this threat I don't dispute that genetic engineering on humans is ethically controversial, that's not the point. The point is that you're saying that it's more ethical to kill a developing human being than to fix its gene defects. One of those options bears abstract, vague risks which may or may not come true, while the other option has a concrete, 100%-certain outcome, which is the death of a human [1]. [1] Again, I'm not arguing against abortion here.
  - arbitrary_name 8y ago
    Ok, but consider the case in aggregate. The first case, or abortion case, is ethically dubious. But consider if this technology takes off and is poorly regulated and done badly. The aggregate consequences to me are worse than the first case. I'd rather cull a few elephants than try to bio engineer elephants to survive environmental catastrophes, with the possible broad reaching and irreversible consequences on the wider elephant gene pool and environment. Not saying abortion in case of genetic defect is a light issue, but I'd rather the cure not be worse than the disease.

by adwn 8y ago

IfOnlyYouKnew 8y ago

There are no “abstract ethical values”, and the reasoning why GMO-babies are considered unethical are well-documented in this threat, I’m not going to try to discuss the ethics of abortion from first principle here because it would just end in wasted time without barely scratching the surface of what you can easily find on Wikipedia.

adwn 8y ago
> reasoning why GMO-babies are considered unethical are well-documented in this threat I don't dispute that genetic engineering on humans is ethically controversial, that's not the point. The point is that you're saying that it's more ethical to kill a developing human being than to fix its gene defects. One of those options bears abstract, vague risks which may or may not come true, while the other option has a concrete, 100%-certain outcome, which is the death of a human [1]. [1] Again, I'm not arguing against abortion here.
- arbitrary_name 8y ago
  Ok, but consider the case in aggregate. The first case, or abortion case, is ethically dubious. But consider if this technology takes off and is poorly regulated and done badly. The aggregate consequences to me are worse than the first case. I'd rather cull a few elephants than try to bio engineer elephants to survive environmental catastrophes, with the possible broad reaching and irreversible consequences on the wider elephant gene pool and environment. Not saying abortion in case of genetic defect is a light issue, but I'd rather the cure not be worse than the disease.