4 ms·
My concern about this isn't the specific procedure, it is the moving of the line of what is allowed. What will happen next? I am sure there will be an illness w
by SilkRoadie 12y ago
My concern about this isn't the specific procedure, it is the moving of the line of what is allowed. What will happen next? I am sure there will be an illness where just a tiny bit of gene splicing could improve the lives of x amount of babies.
You look the blocking of websites.. It started with child porn which everyone thought was acceptable but then the same legislation was used against piracy websites. Now Britain has an internet filter...
Before there was a red line in genetics. Allowing this procedure really blurs that line and I worry this is just the start of a slippery slope..
As for how much it helps parents. It doesn't help many with their first child as the parents are often not aware they are carriers of conditions. For subsequent children adoption was always available.
- antirez 12y agoHow is different than giving antibiotics to somebody ill? You are preventing the natural outcome, with something artificially created. I think many people when the topic is "DNA" simply over-react.
- robmcm 12y agoThe argument is that changes to genetics bridge generations. If you kill someone with medicine they die. If you give someone a faulty gene, it could affect exponential number of people with each generation. Unless it affects reproduction ;)
- antirez 12y agoIt is the same with antibiotics, people that naturally would not be able to reproduce, will, so the global genetic outcome will change, and possibly something making a given person susceptible to a given infection will be passed to the next generation. But nobody, fortunately, pretends that it is a bad idea to give antibiotics to patients.