I was mostly referring to a timeframe roughly equal to our current lifetime.
Yeah probably no cat girls or space marines just yet.
All this talk on catgirls made me think of something. We can all agree that editing human genomes (to insert cat features or whatever) should be carefully scrutinized and regulated. What about editing animal genomes to add human features?
You weren't born late enough to be a cat girl.
I'm glad that there is a country that's not as sketchy as China willing to do this. I can understand the ethical concerns, but in order to know the consequences we have to try
👉 Child Genetalia
Who said anything about it being late? you can grow up with loli catgirls.
I understand it's immoral, I just want to know what the legal philosophy is behind banning it. Its a matter of altering something which, until birth, is your own body; something which isn't alive yet.
Additionally, how do we determine what is/isn't a disease? Many advocates for autism and down's syndrome argue that there shouldn't be a "cure", but instead better understanding of people with autism or down's syndrome
This is all very unsettling to read after reading the Cloud Atlas. I haven't seen the movie, just the book and my imagination. Found it in a secondhand store, it had a cool cover and an interesting back-cover.
Ultimately I think it would be better if we attempted to fulfill almost everyone's last dying wish; for humans to become dinosaurs.
Consider this, if a certain genetic feature is determined to objectively lead to a deterioration in the health of the affected is it not our moral imperative to correct it? Most people with a decent knowledge of medicine would agree for instance that vaccination should be mandatory on children that are healthy enough to receive it. It's not any different. On the flip side, if a genetic feature doesn't objectively and clearly lead to deterioration in the health of the affected but might merely cause social problems we should be very careful about modifying those genes because their alteration or removal implicitly communicate that people with those genes are abnormal and undesirable when merely social acceptance would allow them to lead completely normal lives without a need for medical treatment and without any (non-social) handicaps.
To elaborate forward, we right now consider any sort of deviation from what is considered the norm as being negative, even traits that maybe a few decades before were actually helpful such as ADHD, dwarfism and etc.
I agree, but I'm saying that legal philosophy tends to respect someone's right to modify their own body and engage in whatever medical procedures they elect to take part in. The law doesn't really treat unborn people as having rights, and disproportionate social impact on race is not typically a governing principle for law in America (for example, it's illegal to ban black people from your schools, but the law does nothing about people who choose to move to majority white districts, creating a kind of natural, unenforced segregation).
The government tends not to intervene against social forces which disproportionately affect the under-represented, and so this can't really be the basis for outlawing something. The basis for such a law has to be about the health and safety of the unborn child, and their inability to give consent to the editing of their DNA. But then this drags abortion into the picture: if it's illegal to edit an unborn child's DNA because the child's rights are now being considered, is abortion then murder?
That fundamentally needs to change because at that point we're talking about the majority enforcing cultural norms on yet unborn people, including minorities. In every way that is fucked both legal and morally.
I can see this being great for removing awful hereditary conditions, but I'm definitely not in favor of a Gattaca future.
That should be its legality, is it being used to remove a disease that causes undue physical harm from conception?
IF it is, you may remove it. if its not? Get the fuck out.
i can agree with certain unfair advantages that gene-editing may bring, but we shouldn't restrict people in their freedom to pursue their own idea of beauty, where it doesn't hurt anybody, like you wouldn't today
That's what would make it immoral and unethical, yes.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
