Quote:
|
Originally Posted by thatmariolover
Meh. Scientifically it's interesting.
Morally, I have to say that embryos aren't capable of thought. The can't have a desire to live or die. They are incapable of sentient thought. Yeah, they might grow into people. But I mean, sperm might join with egg if you weren't using condoms.
It's all where you draw the lines. I'm perfectly comfortable with embryos being used.
|
“I knew you even before
you were conceived.”
Jeremiah 1:4-5
To me that says something. Being a religious statement, I understand it wouldnt help solve anything scientifically, but I am a christain, and I take those words to heart. So is abortion murder? Even if it is still a undeveloped embryo? Yes. It is. Something that was once living is no longer living. It's not alive anymore, so therefore it is dead.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by manasecret
Which I agree with abortion being legal. Woman's rights are as important as unborn baby's rights. It's an unfortunate circumstance with the rights of one crossing another's.
|
No it's not. Woman dont have the right to kill. Since when were women allowed to murder someone? But an unborn baby does have the right to live. Weather you are living inside somebody or outside somebody, you are still alive. The ONLY time I think abortion should be allowed is if the doctors confirm that the mother may die from delivering the maybe. Because then the woman has the right to defend herself, and her life is no more important than the baby's.
And no one has mentioned some of the other things that stem cells can be used for. These cells are "blanks", meaning that dont have any information on them yet. Once stem cells have been studied further, they can be programmed and introduced into the body to alter soemone's genetic make up, meaning genetic disorders such as down syndrome, autism, or Alzheimer's can be cured. But, on the flip side, you can use this technology to try and improve humans, by making them stronger, faster, taller, etc, etc. Which I strongly disagree with.
I was so strongly inspired by this that I wrote a short argumentive essay:
Genetic Enhancements:
Forging Humans
If genes were metal, then science is slowly becoming the hammer and the fire is surely time-it burns more brightly and hotly with each passing day. Geneticists would be the proper name of the scientists who study genes, but in the future one would not be wrong to dub them “genesmiths” or even “humansmiths”, for soon they will understand enough to wield the hammer and prove how malleable humans really are. What was once a mere fantasy that played the subject of science fiction novels and movies has now become more and more of a reality.
In February of 2001, the entire human genome was successfully mapped out, and scientists have begun to realize the amazing potential of this feat. What is there to stop us from using this genetic “library” to alter disease causing genes and curing such fallacies as Alzheimer’s and Huntington’s? The information that scientists now hold is comparable to the Rosetta stone. We have obtained the key to understanding a language we have long since known existed, but upon using this key we have unlocked a door only to reveal a nearly infinite number of new locks. These “locks” represent the potentials of genetic engineering, and they are not impossible to unlock. Once the proper research has been performed, scientists will gain each “key” needed to open each lock. With this information we may have the power to create a cure as contagious as any disease, alter human embryos to save a child from Down Syndrome, improve the mental and physical strength of even the healthiest human, or alter the human germ line.
But with this new information a series of questions arise. We must carefully consider the consequences of opening each lock, or we might just find ourselves opening a modern day Pandora’s Box. Some uses of genetic engineering seem quite practical, and would benefit the entire world. Imagine being able to save a family member from Alzheimer’s, or actually being able to cure autism. As the situation stands, scientists are not yet able to perform such miraculous work. For the time being, geneticists can no more alter a gene to cure Alzheimer’s as they can alter a gene to enable a man to lift more weights. Writer W. French Anderson quotes Xu Zhi-Wei (a professor of molecular biology, medicine, and bioethics) in saying that no scientist knows exactly how each of the trillions of organic materials that make up a human body collaborate with each other, and if an individual gene has 20 or greater purposes then how would we know that altering a gene for the common good would not also have a drastic side effect? (Enhancing)
Although what Professor Xu Zhi-Wei stated is true, we must also take into consideration that it will not be long until such feats are possible. Geneticists may not know the consequences of altering each gene for the time being, but they will learn. Soon we will have the power to not only cure humans, but to improve them. When scientists finally do have the appropriate understanding to be able to successfully perform these operations, I believe that genetic engineering should only be used to cure diseases or prevent a disease that is obvious in an unborn baby. Genes should never be altered to enhance a human’s natural abilities, such as emotions, strength, stamina, intelligence, or personality. I also believe germ line engineering (quite different from germ line therapy) should not be practiced.
One reason for my lack of support of genetic engineering to enhance humans resides in the blurry language of nature and ethics. Who gave us the right to be God, or to play the role of Mother Nature? There have been life forms on the Earth for millions of years, each one evolving at their own pace, and each one changing to become the biologically perfectly suited organism for their environment. One may not realize it, but nature is governed by certain laws, and these laws maintain order. Order is a characteristic of all living beings. Every organism on the planet represents and demonstrates some form of order or another. It has been that way for millions of years, never wavering from that path of perfect law and order.
But now, humans have realized that it may be possible to break that law. They may no longer be bound to Darwin’s laws of Natural Selection, also known as the “Law of the Jungle.” Under normal circumstances, a species evolves when members of said species die because they are not suited to their environment. By dying, they are no longer capable of passing on the genes which held the defective trait for which they died for. The members best suited for survival will indeed survive, and pass along the “good” genes required for surviving. These positive genes become stronger and more profound with each generation, while the negative traits slowly pass away. What will happen when humans decide to break the law? As with breaking any law, there must surely be repercussions, and I personally fear what sort of punishment Mother Nature may exact.
Certain religious parties may not believe in the theory of evolution. For one thing, it is a theory and you are by no means obligated to believe it. But accelerated evolution is not only wrong by nature’s standards, but is also wrong ethically and religiously. In the eyes of most organized religions, the act of playing God is not something encouraged. To alter your genes to cure a disease is one thing, but to actually use this technology to improve yourself has a far different meaning, and the correct choice ethically would be to not perform the action.
Speeding up and altering the path of human evolution is a dangerous and risky business, and the cons of such a feat greatly outweigh the benefits.
Another reason for not using genetic engineering to improve human potential is a human fallacy known as “lack of self control.” Where do you draw the line at? The first genetic enhancements may start out as something innocent and simple, such as changing eye color, hair color, or gaining a few inches on your height. But when and where do you draw the line between innocent and immoral? History as proven time and time again that humans have a certain lack of self control, and when they are handed great power they tend to use it, despite the consequences. Just because we can do something, does not mean we have to. What starts as mere changes to a human’s body could easily lead to bizarre transformations.
Some people may request changes that would result in the creation of some abomination that is harmful to its self and others. Perhaps a human has a certain trait altered to leave them in a permanent state of fury? Or maybe they are given enhancements to make their physical body more of a weapon than it already is. Imagine a murderer or other criminal that gets genetic enhancements to make himself faster and stronger, perhaps with finger nails that are more like claws and teeth more like fangs? Once this happens, law enforcement agencies will have no choice but to give their employees genetic enhancements that make them a more perfect hunting machine; faster and stronger than the criminals. And it won’t stop there. After a time, some people will realize that gene’s aren’t the only means of human potential enhancements. Perhaps a computer chip imbedded in their brain, combined with an intelligence enhancing gene?
Centuries down the road, the human race may not even be human anymore, but instead a bizarre combination of technologies. Gone would be the humane days, and we would instead live in a time of prosthetic and biologically enhanced monsters.
The military would of course exercise the same amount of self control that the rest of the human race would have: none. They would embrace the new technology to formulate super soldiers; creatures enhanced to become the perfect fighting machines, made from a combination of prosthetic pieces and gene alternation (including the use of animal DNA to achieve more radical results.)
As you can see…the technology at first used for innocent changes could soon escalate to all out anarchy.
There is yet another reason to avoid using genetics to improve humans, and it is perhaps the most obvious one of all. It is quite simply the risk involved. For their entire existence, humans have had one major desire: to understand themselves, mentally, anatomically, and spiritually. Humans have existed for over 100,000 years, and the inner workings of our bodies and minds is still huge mystery. We have a better understanding of the physical properties of our mind, and how our certain electrical and chemical processes work, though we are still not even close to understanding how the mind completely works. We know most things of how our body functions physically, and we clearly have no solid understanding of the spiritual side of humans. I believe W. French Anderson said it best when he wrote:
"My concern is that, at this point in the development of our culture's scientific expertise, we might be like the young boy who loves to take things apart. He is bright enough to disassemble a watch, and maybe even bright enough to get it back together again so that it works. But what if he tries to "improve" it? Maybe put on bigger hands so that the time can be read more easily. But if the hands are too heavy for the mechanism, the watch will run slowly, erratically, or not at all. The boy can understand what is visible, but he cannot comprehend the precise engineering calculations that determined exactly how strong each spring should be, why the gears interact in the ways that they do, etc. Attempts on his part to improve the watch will probably only harm it. We are now able to provide a new gene so that a property involved in a human life would be changed, for example, a growth hormone gene. If we were to do so simply because we could, I fear we would be like that young boy who changed the watch's hands. We, too, do not really understand what makes the object we are tinkering with tick" (Anderson).
The analogy made by Anderson is simple and precise: we may never understand enough about the mysteries surrounding the human body to actually make improvements. If we are lucky enough to not harm ourselves physically, the enhancement might even alter our mental or spiritual beings as well.
However our opinions stand at this point, we must take into consideration the opposing views of this argument before making a logical decision on which course would benefit humans the most. In an editorial included in an issue of “The Economist”, the editor wrote that the power of a human to have control over his genetic makeup is a right and freedom that he should not be denied. The editor continues by saying that the use of genetic engineering should not only be used to cure diseases, but also to enhance human beings, such as giving them greater strength or the ability to run faster. According to the editor, it is our ultimate freedom to be able to alter our genes to become the person we want to be, although he does make mention that limits should be involved. He says that the technology of genetic engineering should not be used to make a human dangerous to society or harmful to the well being of others. He followed through by stating that every case of gene alteration should be handled individually to make sure that the gene enhancement in question does not cause dire consequences further down the road.
Although his provocative essay may seem like a reasonable solution for the genetic engineering dilemma, it has many holes. Even if we were to disregard all the ethics and risks involved by undergoing such a task, limits would be nearly impossible to enforce. The methods used to alter genes would become as rampant on the streets and practiced as much as illegal drugs are in today’s time. Despite all the efforts taken to limit it, it cannot be kept a secret forever.
To conclude my opinion, I would suggest that the research being done to learn to alter genes for the sake of enhancement be abandoned all together. We would do well to avoid ever accepting the Pandora Box, and refuse the temptation before it can form, though it would do well to mention that I am one to compromise. The study of gene’s and genetic therapy should not be abandoned completely. I would recommend that instead of using our technology to develop something that would become a plaything to the rich, we instead use it to form cures and remedies for diseases that run amok in our world today. More good can come of solving problems that currently exist rather than trying to fix something that is not broken.
I also believe that one final warning must be issued: If humans decide to continue to learn how to alter genes to enhance human potential, the futuristic world portrayed in Ray Bradbury’s prophetic novel “Fahrenheit 451” might touch a bit closer to home and seem more of a reality than before, but instead of burning books, we will be burning our very humanity and the “pages” that composes it. Instead of forgetting our history and our ability to read, we may instead find ourselves forgetting what it’s like to be human.
Works Cited
Anderson, W. French. “Genetics and human malleability.”
The Hastings Center Report Jan-Feb 1990 v20 n1 p21(4)
The Economist (US), April 25, 1992 v323 n7756 p11(2)
Changing your genes. (editorial)
Shriver, Donald W. “Enhancing Humanity”
The Christian Century March 7, 2001 v118 i8 p4
Knowledge Environments.
http://www.knowledgeenvironments.com...r/04years.html
Published: 2003 Accessed: July 22, 2004
Copyright Zachary Wright 2003
Re: Japan legalizes stem cell research!
Hybrid Mode
