Where will it end?

add cloned babies with edited genes into the mix!!!!

How many of you would avail yourselves of this technology?





http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/...ild-808625.html




think of how easy it is now to have a cloned child from anyone!!!

I see nothing wrong with it. If it helps future generations be disease free, then it is a win-win.

What is wrong is all the bull the major religions give about ethical concerns. What the hell does Christianity know about ethics?

I can imagine that in the future all people look alike.

So... It's unethical to allow someone to NOT get eye-cancer now?

Logic missing much?

Screening for a known genetic disease - I have no issues with that, per se. Screening for positive attributes is where I think the line is going to get blurry.

Yeah I agree with this. Mainly because I don't wanna be a second citizen, if paranoia serves out.

But then, I can just create a new me and implant my personality into that and be a first class citizen. Then I'd have no quarrels.

Ever notice how far askew some of these topics go?

We're talking about medical technological research that is actually beneficial. When medical technology and research provides a real benefit, that's what it's supposed to do.

Here, we're talking about something truly unique--a process (screening, not actually genetic engineering) to, in this case, eliminate a genetic trigger for a form of hereditary eye cancer (that's got to be unusual!). Rather an artificial selection process.

It has absolutely nothing to do with cloning, or with implanting personalities, or physical attributes, nor editing genes.
This is a direct application of artificial selection, applied to an embryo...in order to remove an unfavorable thing: a likely rare, but undoubtedly nasty disease.


It's a win-win.

That's what medicine's for, theoretically. Every once in a while, they actual do what they're supposed to do!



What the hell anyway?!
Is it unethical to attempt to remove a genetic trigger for a nasty hereditary disease...simply by picking the unaffected embryo, or is it unethical to continue to propagate barbaric, expensive, and deadly "treatments" for such diseases, while alternatives are available, but are suppressed by the federal government?

It's simple, if it's in our power to eliminate genetic diseases, then we owe it to future generations to do so.

I think Jude Law is some kind of deformed clone

Yet that guy has more chicks than a T-Bird

I cannot disagree with that!

I personally, cannot believe that there is any sort of "fuss" about this.

I believe that anyone who sees problems with the complete avoidance of hereditary dysfunctions should ask themselves that one question coined by Nip/Tuck:

"Tell me what you don't like about yourself."

And I guarantee every single one of us can answer that question, and would--if given the chance--change what we could. And not even looking at this from a cosmetic standpoint, this would eliminate so many of today's genetic disorders. Bye bye autism, bye bye downs, the list goes on. As far as "religious ethics" go, if God were truly uniquely designing us individually and not leaving that in the more than capable--yet fallible--"hands" of genetics then there would be NO genetic dysfunction what so ever!

And please don't get me started on the religious aspects for the simple fact that all of the Abrahamic religions have at one time or another committed genocide for the sake of ideals, not because God said it was right or wrong but because those individuals in charge just didn't agree with the way others interpreted God's word...and in the end God allowed it to happen, not because He's good and not because He's evil. It's because he gave each and every one of us free will and of that will either "good" or "evil" are the byproducts...that's right BYPRODUCTS!

On the subject of God's decisions, I personally believe the only person to have figured it out was Matt Groening, and to quote "God" on Futurama:

"If you do too much, people depend on you, and if you do nothing, they lose hope. The trick is to use a 'light touch' and when you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all."

crystal sage has an interesting view of the world

I agree - I see no problem in removing hereditary and genetic diseases, but I think we'd move into a 'bad place' if people start modifying superficial things (eg. eye colour, facial features etc)

*I* actually DISagree... you ALREADY choose what color eyes your child will have... if your eyes are blue, and your spouses are blue, and everyone in your family's eyes are blue, etc., the child will have blue eyes. as long as noone is FORCED to "Edit" their children, then i say they should be ABLE to have a child with blue eyes if they want one. the child would still be yours.. either way, the child would have traits that he/she didn't choose, that was more of a choice of the parents, just like their first names, and why would anyone NOT want to have the CHOICE to have a child that is most "perfect" for THEM. i applaud it, as long as noone is FORCED to do it, that's the main issue with me.. but if it's possible AND it's not hurting ANYONE around you, then it should be an option. and as far as religion and god goes, if you believe in god, you must believe that he wouldn't allow scientists to discover how to manipulate genes if he didn't want it to happen, since he surely knows that if it CAN be done by a human, it WILL be done... he would have just made genes too hard to understand, or impossible to see, just like trying to find out what the inside of a quark looks like, heh. and if he allowed scientists to edit genes so that humans can learn some sort of "life lesson", then let us learn it! and in the meantime, we'll stop a few diseases and have children with healthy skin and hair, heh.

I agree with you on your first sentence. However, what does Christianity have to do with major religions. Please do not signal out on group without adding others as well. Otherwise the last part of your sentence doesn't make sense.