Gene editing in human embryos takes step closer to reality
20 replies, posted
https://theguardian.com/science/2018/oct/08/gene-editing-in-human-embryos-takes-step-closer-to-reality
Gene editing to correct faulty DNA in human embryos has taken a step closer to becoming a reality, with scientists showing it is possible to correct genetic problems in mice before they are born.
Moral question time: if you analysed the genome on an embryo and found it to have a severe defect, would it be better to abort or to attempt gene editing?
That super depends on how mature the gene editing process is.
abort as existence itself is suffering and therefore immoral
That entirely depends on the bearer's choice, and whether or not gene editing has proven to fix such defects before, AND how early it can be done.
I don't think there's any moral questioning here. If the probability of a successful gene editing operation is too low, it would probably be better to just abort and try again.
BUT, if gene editing can be done before any defects can hit early on-set, then there's really never a reason to not try (assuming it doesn't cost an arm and a leg).
Yes, Lets shame the hypothetical poor Genetic modified child into killing itself. That's "mortal" way to do it hypocrite.
hopefully i can edit my children to not be so fucking ugly like their dad
this entirely depends if gene editing doesn't ruin you financially and your child in other ways
i think it's perfectly okay to edit an unborn child's genome to get rid of birth defects of great severity
in fact, if gene editing wouldn't cost massive amounts of money (which i presume would be a lot at least when it starts becoming public) id prefer that over abortions
Typical facepunch joke format, somebody asks a question, and one response is deliberately outrageous and ridiculous. Like if somebody asked "how do I clean the outside of my apartment windows" and someone replied with "break into your upstairs neighbor's apartment, open his window, and rapel down the side of the building using his sheets". The only alternative interpretation is that the poster is a 13 year old edge master, which is a legitimate possibility.
Another step towards catgirls and furrys.
I suppose there is certain beauty in all the ugliness too.
I've been thinking, the immortal jellyfish can go back to an adolescent state and begin to regrow when it ages. If we can somehow emulate this, might we be able to edit genes in adults going through the same method?
I might be wildly wrong about this, as I'm sure most genes have done their thing by the time of birth but it might be an interesting experiment to try to change properties of these jellyfish using this method, editing the genes and seeing if the changes take effect when it cycles?
I guess, but regardless people (including myself) is predominantly disagreed over this dumb sounding joke.
It's all that there is, I would call its very existence beautiful.
There may be ugliness in the world, but beauty is everywhere if you look for it.
Life is eating a hot pepper.
There's as much pain as pleasure and some of our best artists, writers, song writers, movie makers and etc understand this as because many of the most celebrated suffered through trials and tribulations of society, the mind or physical limitations.
This is not to say that these techniques developed should not fight abhorrant asshole genetic defections but to a certain point you're no longer making a life better for them nor rather better for what you think is better.
That's the problem with these systems morally. When is no longer better for all, but better for you? How do we combat such thoughts and how do we make sure that the longest lasting impacts are net positive instead of negative?
I find beauty specifically in all-out war.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
