backtop


Print 69 comment(s) - last by Master Kenobi.. on Aug 22 at 12:57 PM


  (Source: Columbia Pictures )

Professor Julian Savulescu  (Source: smh.com.au)
The process would be similar to checking embryos for conditions like Down's syndrome

Imagine being able to design a human the way we use computer software to design every day items like clothing or furniture. University of Oxford Professor Julian Savulescu recently said that parents should have the choice to do such a thing, allowing them to create the kind of child they desire rather than leaving it to chance. 

According to Savulescu, the manipulation of genetics has evolved over the years and has already proven to be beneficial to those who are expecting. For instance, parents can use tests, which focus on particular genes in embryos, to see if their child will have certain conditions like Down's syndrome. 

While this type of testing is not seen as an issue, Savulescu said the testing of an embryo's genes to see what kind of personality flaws it could have has raised concern amongst the public -- and he believes it shouldn't.

"Indeed, when it comes to screening out personality flaws, such as potential alcoholism, psychopathy and disposition to violence, you could argue that people have a moral obligation to to select ethically better children," said Savulescu. "They are, after all, less likely to harm themselves and others. If we have the power to intervene in the nature of our offspring -- rather than consigning them to the natural lottery -- then we should." 

Savulescu's ideas have been compared to those of the Nazis, who adopted the eugenics movements during World War II. However, Savulescu argues that this is different because parents can choose to participate or not. They don't have to genetically alter their children, but they should be able to choose to, he said. 

"Whether we like it or not, the future of humanity is in our hands now," said Savulescu. "Rather than fearing genetics, we should embrace it. We can do better than chance." 

Savulescu posed this argument in a recent article in Reader's Digest

What do you think? Could eliminating potential character flaws in embryos create a perfect human race, or could there be serious, unseen implications with having so much power over this thing called life?

Source: The Telegraph



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: All these arguments
By flyingpants1 on 8/21/2012 8:35:28 AM , Rating: 2
"It's wrong" is not an argument, dude.


RE: All these arguments
By FITCamaro on 8/21/2012 10:09:50 AM , Rating: 2
The simplest answers are often the correct ones.

You can go on a long diatribe of this topic, but my answer is the ultimate message. For Christians its wrong because you're messing with what God created. For everyone else it's wrong because it starts to go down a slippery slope of how much you can do is ok. It ends with war between those who are modified seeing themselves as superior against those who are not. Granted liberals(who advocate this kind of thing) already think they're superior to everyone else.


RE: All these arguments
By bah12 on 8/21/2012 10:51:47 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Granted liberals(who advocate this kind of thing) already think they're superior to everyone else.
Nah they just don't see the danger of a class split, because all of this would be funded by No Child Left Behind 2.0. Taxpayers money to make sure every child gets the same mods.

I can see her on the news now in line at the genetics office "When am I's gonna get my goberment check fo my babies", as she's prego with her 12th kid that she has to have a DNA test on Springer to even tell which of the 10 dead beats she slept with that month knocked her up.

I weep for society.


"We’re Apple. We don’t wear suits. We don’t even own suits." -- Apple CEO Steve Jobs














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki