4 ms·

Germline editing has consequences far beyond "my body, my choice". If your offspring have genetic defects from gene editing, and their offspring also have the s

by vore 8y ago

Germline editing has consequences far beyond "my body, my choice". If your offspring have genetic defects from gene editing, and their offspring also have the same genetic defects, then "your choice" has consequences far beyond just you that "personal freedom" can't cover. If you choose to abort, only your offspring is affected: far less consequential than possibly ruining generations to come. I don't know what the War on Drugs has to do with anything here.

sho 8y ago
> If your offspring have genetic defects [..], and their offspring [..] > If you choose to abort, only your offspring is affected By aborting, you're not merely potentially saddling your offspring with genetic defects - you're denying them the most basic right to exist in the first place! And their offspring, too. You're shutting down that whole line before it can even start. I'm pro choice, but this line of argument makes no sense to me. Hard to see how anything could have consequences "far beyond" depriving a germline of existence itself.
- mirimir 8y ago
  I do see vore's point. By aborting, you just deprive the gene pool of some genes that are on average not much different from anyone else's. But by using CRISPR, you're adding potentially damaging stuff to the overall human gene pool. However, one could say the same about people who get exposed to mutagenic chemicals or radiation. Even through choice, as with airline crews. And once you start setting rules about who can reproduce, you have the specter of eugenics.
- Thiez 8y ago
  You may be pro-choice, but you would probably oppose the right of mothers to end the lives of their children (and descendents of those children) after pregnancy. So I don't see what is strange about the argument; you are allowed to terminate a pregnancy, but you do not necessarily have the right to inflict arbitrary other life changing modifications on your children. Like, no doctor would agree to amputate the legs of an unborn child without medical necessity (when asked by the mother), and I think 'my body, my choice' does not apply there. I will admit there is a bit of a grey zone; few (if any?) places outright prohibit pregnant women from smoking and drinking, despite the possible negative consequences, but such behavior is still generally frowned upon.
  - chr1 8y ago
    > but you would probably oppose the right of mothers to end the lives of their children after pregnancy Unfortunately the distinction is not that clear cut. When we have technology to raise several weeks old fetus to maturity in an artificial womb (which we'll have soon), what will be the difference between 'after pregnancy' and 'during pregnancy'? In both cases it will be something that can become a human if someone wants to spend resources to keep it alive. > Like, no doctor would agree to amputate the legs of an unborn child Situation with gene editing is the opposite. Is it moral to allow your child to be born with one leg, if there is an way to cure her to have both legs? And the point about 'affecting all descendandts' is wrong because if we have a technology to make a change we can easily reverse it too.
    - iguy 8y ago
      > the point about 'affecting all descendandts' is wrong because if we have a technology to make a change we can easily reverse it too If we had perfect editing technology (even without perfect knowledge of effects) then as you say we could easily Ctrl-Z the next generation. But we don't have this yet, so I think it's not unreasonably to worry a bit about inflicting changes (including unintended off-target edits) on grandkids too.
      - chr1 8y ago
        Sure worrying a bit is reasonable, and that's the reason most people would not use gene editing now. (Unless they are trying to correct some well understood life threatening condition). If we talk about so many people using it that it can change genetic composition of humanity, it means we already have a reliable way of making changes.
mirimir 8y ago
> I don't know what the War on Drugs has to do with anything here. Arguably, "my body, my choice" applies to drug use. But then, there are similar objections regarding public welfare. [For the rest, see my reply to sho.]

by vore 8y ago

sho 8y ago

> If your offspring have genetic defects [..], and their offspring [..] > If you choose to abort, only your offspring is affected By aborting, you're not merely potentially saddling your offspring with genetic defects - you're denying them the most basic right to exist in the first place! And their offspring, too. You're shutting down that whole line before it can even start. I'm pro choice, but this line of argument makes no sense to me. Hard to see how anything could have consequences "far beyond" depriving a germline of existence itself.

mirimir 8y ago
I do see vore's point. By aborting, you just deprive the gene pool of some genes that are on average not much different from anyone else's. But by using CRISPR, you're adding potentially damaging stuff to the overall human gene pool. However, one could say the same about people who get exposed to mutagenic chemicals or radiation. Even through choice, as with airline crews. And once you start setting rules about who can reproduce, you have the specter of eugenics.
Thiez 8y ago
You may be pro-choice, but you would probably oppose the right of mothers to end the lives of their children (and descendents of those children) after pregnancy. So I don't see what is strange about the argument; you are allowed to terminate a pregnancy, but you do not necessarily have the right to inflict arbitrary other life changing modifications on your children. Like, no doctor would agree to amputate the legs of an unborn child without medical necessity (when asked by the mother), and I think 'my body, my choice' does not apply there. I will admit there is a bit of a grey zone; few (if any?) places outright prohibit pregnant women from smoking and drinking, despite the possible negative consequences, but such behavior is still generally frowned upon.
- chr1 8y ago
  > but you would probably oppose the right of mothers to end the lives of their children after pregnancy Unfortunately the distinction is not that clear cut. When we have technology to raise several weeks old fetus to maturity in an artificial womb (which we'll have soon), what will be the difference between 'after pregnancy' and 'during pregnancy'? In both cases it will be something that can become a human if someone wants to spend resources to keep it alive. > Like, no doctor would agree to amputate the legs of an unborn child Situation with gene editing is the opposite. Is it moral to allow your child to be born with one leg, if there is an way to cure her to have both legs? And the point about 'affecting all descendandts' is wrong because if we have a technology to make a change we can easily reverse it too.
  - iguy 8y ago
    > the point about 'affecting all descendandts' is wrong because if we have a technology to make a change we can easily reverse it too If we had perfect editing technology (even without perfect knowledge of effects) then as you say we could easily Ctrl-Z the next generation. But we don't have this yet, so I think it's not unreasonably to worry a bit about inflicting changes (including unintended off-target edits) on grandkids too.
    - chr1 8y ago
      Sure worrying a bit is reasonable, and that's the reason most people would not use gene editing now. (Unless they are trying to correct some well understood life threatening condition). If we talk about so many people using it that it can change genetic composition of humanity, it means we already have a reliable way of making changes.

mirimir 8y ago

> I don't know what the War on Drugs has to do with anything here. Arguably, "my body, my choice" applies to drug use. But then, there are similar objections regarding public welfare. [For the rest, see my reply to sho.]