Tuesday, June 6, 2017

Blog #74 - Hanna and Genetic Engineering

The subject of genetic engineering / manipulation came up during Hanna, though in an unrealistic sci-fi scenario where the CIA tried making super soldiers through invitro - genetic enhancement.  But while this sounds like sci-fi now, there are a lot of things today that can be done that are NOT science fiction that are pretty close to genetic manipulation.  
1. What happens if you want a boy in your family since your family already three girls?  What could you do to increase the odds?  Picking the sex of your child can be done now w/ invitro fertilization (IVF) once fertilized eggs divided into eight cells, that mass can be tested for sex and then implanted in the mother's womb. 

2. What if you really loved your dog or cat and wanted one exactly like it?  Apparently, a company existed for 2 years called Genetics Savings and Clone and was able to clone a couple of cats.  It shhut down in 2006 for reasons I can't quite fathom (besides my basic revulsion of the idea, other qualms), but here's an NPR link to a radio interview about the company when it opened in 2004 http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4176651

  - Here's a more recent story from 2009 about a Korean company that cloned a Labrador Retriever for $155,000.  http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/AmazingAnimals/story?id=6762235&page=1

 3. What if your only child died or had was dying from an accident and making a clone to replace the missing or needed parts was the only way to replace or help that child?   This would be a tough one for me to answer b/c I've never ever been in a situation like this, and I don't know how desperate I might get to save my daughter's life.  If making a clone of my daughter to create stem cells could help her, I would be all for it.  Chances are, scientists wouldn't have to go as far as cloning to help her since our body makes stem cells all of the time. 
 - But, South Korean scientists in 2004 were successful in cloning a human embryo using the same person's cells (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1672523&ps=rs).  The idea was to aid the woman's health, not clone her.  Even so, a recent poll in America states that 84% of Americans feel that cloning humans is morally wrong.

 4. Would you be willing to be part of a genetic experiment that not only strengthened your muscles but prevented them from deteriorating with age?  Gene therapy can allow us to repair damaged cells but apparently scientists at the University of Penn have done such a thing with mice in 2004 - called "Mighty Mice."  This kind of therapy could help people with muscular dystrophy or ALS (Lou Gehrig's disease).  But could it also be abused by athletes and others looking for an edge, especially if they aren't injured?  Gene therapy doesn't usually show up on drug tests since it's supposed to be part of your natural body chemistry, so how do you know who's doping and who's not?  

 5. If you had the chance (and it were possible), would you pick certain traits for your child before he/she was born?   Would you want a child that is more predisposed to music, athletics, math, or would you try to pick the hair and eye color and let fate take care of the rest?  

 6. Is this kind of genetic selection ethical?*  Would it create a separate subspecies of humans like portrayed in the movie Gattaca - those who have been enhanced and those who haven't?  If you haven't been enhanced, you're stuck in a 2nd class citizenry status much like African Americans were before the Civil Rights movement, while those who have been genetically enhanced (those with money, of course) get the best pick of jobs, lives, etc. 

Pick at least three questions (one must include the last one about ethics*) and answer them by tomorrow before class.  Thanks.  300 words minimum. 

Sources:
Gallup Poll on Cloning - http://www.biopoliticaltimes.org/article.php?id=5736
Moral Obligation to be part of a medical research study - http://www.biopoliticaltimes.org/article.php?id=5909

15 comments:

  1. Sanae Chestnut

    I think that picking the preferred sex of your child is totally up to you. When I grow up and have kids I to be honest want my first born to be a boy. This may be the ingrained ‘men are above women’ idea that society put in my head but I think that having the oldest be a boy is cool. I always think of those movies where the big brother is super protective over his sister and I always wanted that. But in all honesty I don’t think I am that desperate to actually PAY money to get the sex of the child I want. It shouldn’t be that serious. But I can see why people would do it if they are planning to have only one child, and they want that one child to be a girl. IVF is very popular but I think it is overhyped. I think you don’t need to go through the trouble, just be grateful because there are people and women who can’t have babies.
    I have had many pets but not a dog or cat. I am more of a fish, or reptile/amphibian type (even though I really want a hedgehog). I think that cloning your pet is a cool idea but I just don’t think it would be the same. If you have the money I say do what you please but I think as long as it doesn’t affect the animal's health then it’s fine. BUT i think that this may have just been some low key animal cruelty type of stuff and they just covered it up. But who knows.
    I think cloning a child is super freaky. The thing about cloning the child and replacing certain parts for health reasons is fine but letting your kid die than a few weeks or years later your kid is back? I don't believe in a god but I think this is inherently what they intended for us not to do. I think we have to stop trying to escape death and just let life happen. We already try to control so much and it is becoming unnecessary. I have recently had death in my family and I think it would be morally wrong to bring that person back specially without their consent.
    No. I don't think I would ever want to be apart of an experiment unless it involves eating. I don't think I wouldn't want my muscles to deteriorate. After a while I would not want to be super buff at 80 years old. I want to see myself age as I get older.
    We had the ‘agree,disagree’ on this topic on Monday and I stood on the agree side. I think that picking traits for your child is fine because it can advance your child in the future. But Kyle late brought up the reason of it would make minority’s have an even smaller voice because there would be all these super kids then the regular kids whose parents couldn't afford the treatment. I think this is true but I am all for this idea if it is for medical reasons. I think that if you can afford it and you're that afraid of your child being a screw up then go for. I think you should let your child develop into who they want to be. You shouldn’t be the parent who forces their child to go to violin lessons when they want to go outside and just play tennis or something. This is a tad biased but you have to let your child grow up and become their own person, not the one you developed in a tube.
    I think that genetic modification can be ethical. In the movie Hanna I am still confused on what exactly went down but I think what they did was wrong. Once Eric got shot and Hanna found out that wasn't her father the story got kind of weird. I think this can be wrong because it does not allow your child to be a florist because you want them to be a doctor. But it can be ethical when used for health reasons like preventing cancer. You shouldn't try to create the billboard child.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Ari M:

    4. Though it is controversial, I think I would not be okay being part of a genetic experiment if it were for enhancing my muscles and preventing them from deteriorating. As much as I would love to be some sort of superhuman, I feel that there may be too much risk to come along with it. Also, I believe that immortality is something that humans constantly pursue though it is not something meant to be. We are engineered to die at some point and that goes for all of us, including our muscles. Since we are supposed to die, we should not attempt to reach higher grounds regardless of how cool super strength would be.
    5. If I had the chance to pick my child's traits I think I would have to do it. I think this answer contradicts my last one because it messes with genetics but hear me out. I believe that it is a fathers duty to ensure that his children are better and more successful genotypes of himself. Therefore, if I can ensure my kid is smarter, more athletic, and overall better than other children, I would definitely say yes. I would love my child either way if I picked there traits or not but the reality of the situation is, is that each generation is in competition among one another. I want my child to be best equipped to be successful in their life and if I have to pick their traits for that to happen, so be it.
    6. While I think that having an advantage on your constituents is important in life, I mostly see genetic selection as unethical. I think it would create a higher class of individuals who are enhanced with the best abilities and make a super race. This would be inherently unfair to the rest of people as the higher race would always be more successful as they would be genetically engineered to be so. And even though it could prevent illness among other things, it would certainly be abused in a capitalist society as with great power comes great responsibility.

    ReplyDelete
  3. 4. Would you be willing to be part of a genetic experiment that not only strengthened your muscles but prevented them from deteriorating with age?

    I would be willing to be part of a genetic experiment that strengthened and prevented deterioration in my muscles. For one, I am an athlete (Football and Track) and this could give me a major edge in both sports, all while assuring me that it was much less likely for me to get injured. Being stronger and avoiding deterioration would help me in these sports and in other physical activities, while also keeping me safe and healthy. In this case, it says I would be partaking in an experiment, so I would also be contributing to science. However, the case would be acceptable for myself, because it is an experiment, but I do not think it would be acceptable for any person to obtain. It would be unfair if some athletes had it over others and it could be unsafe in the public's hand. (I understand this sounds hypocritical, but I would be contributing to the experiment!)

    5. If you had the chance (and it were possible), would you pick certain traits for your child before he/she was born?

    No, I would most definitely not pick the traits of my child before they were born. Like it said in the film we watched earlier this week, if you pick the traits of your child, then you are ruining the idea of the child being a gift and that a parent is supposed to love their child unconditionally, no matter their appearance, skills, mental capacity, etc. I see it as immoral, because it is practically playing God. It is not us who should be choosing our children and who knows, it could lead to grave genetic consequences in the future. However, I do think that the practice should be allowed for fixing genetic diseases, in order for parents who wouldn't be able to have children (or healthy children) otherwise.

    6. Is this kind of genetic selection ethical?*

    No, I don't think it is. Like I said above, it would be playing God and who are we to really know if what we are doing is right. It could also lead to some sort of genetic disease or disorder. I believe it could lead to a unfair class system, because those who are enhanced would have the advantage over the others in everything. Plus, if we are all enhanced, are any of us? I believe it would be best if we did not partake in these experiments and we all just stayed who we are.


    ReplyDelete
  4. I would not be willing to participate in a genetic experiment like mentioned. It doesn’t sound all that appealing to me to be tested on for the potential of a good outcome, and that’s not enough for me. In general, I’m not a fan of the idea of messing with genetics for the purpose of trying to escape death or move away from the inevitable. If it could be used to help with diseases like muscular dystrophy or ALS, then I would be all for it. However, simply to get ahead in life, I don’t think that it’s worth it. It would need to be a protected process by doctors that is monitored closely, so healthy people cannot take advantage of it. It’s the same opinion I have of most genetic experimenting, that the only time it is okay is for health reasons.

    I would not pick any traits for my child before they were born. To me that is messing with one of the only things I believe needs to be left to fate. Overall, I’m a strong proponent of the idea that people have free will to make their choices and lead the life they want for themselves. But with children, it is a step into the unknown and I believe it should remain that way. My parents didn’t expect that they’d end up with three children, but that is what they got, and they love us all unconditionally even though they only expected one. If parents could start messing with their children’s abilities and appearance, it would take away the unconditional love and send a message to children that however they were originally wasn’t good enough, that changes had to be made to have an acceptable child. To me, that can be incredibly damaging to self esteem throughout life.

    I think that genetic experimentation and manipulation has a place in society. If it can get rid of genes that hold cancer, mental illness, or other sicknesses, then of course we should step in to stop them. But if it’s only to create a dream child, it doesn’t seem right to me. Especially with how much these procedures appear to cost, it would separate the haves from the have nots, and create a deeper divide than we already have in our world. It would be all about those who could afford the procedures and would leave those who couldn’t in the dust.

    ReplyDelete
  5. 4. I wouldn’t be willing to participate in this experiment because I think aging is the most natural, necessary thing in the world. I would be fine with not possessing the strength I had when I was younger; however, if I were to contract ALS or lose my ability to walk, the gene therapy would be welcome. Gene therapy definitely could be used by athletes which is why I think that the procedure should be very carefully administered only to those in absolute need of it. Despite limitations put on the therapy, there would no doubt be doctors illegal altering the genes of athletes, and in that case I think that new tests could be developed by scientists to test the genetic makeup (I don’t know how, but I’m sure they could figure something out.)
    5. If it were possible, I would absolutely not choose my child’s traits in advance—I don’t feel that that procedure is at all necessary, unless in the case of some life-threatening disease that they may contract. I don’t believe in putting standards on a child prior to them being born (and for them to feel like they were a disappointment if they don’t reach those standards). I think that part of being a parent is the anticipation to find out how the kid will turn out; I would be bored if I already knew and got exactly what I wanted. If I wanted the child to like music or a certain sport, I would try to let them form positive associations with that activity to the point where they liked it, instead of forcing them to participate based on genes they didn’t even choose. I believe part of growing up is learning to love interests that are individually yours, and if I had an idea of what I wanted them to do prior to their birth, the pressure may be too much. Also, many people who are genetically disposed to be good at a certain thing hate the thing or don’t participate in the thing, and I’d take that into consideration.
    6. Genetic selection would just add a new element to the already existing socio-economic disparities in the world. As is seen through thousands of years of history, the rich prosper and the poor are treated like lesser beings. The rich armed with the ability to make their children super-beings that are genetically superior would just add a horrific new element to Social Darwinism that could possibly ruin the lives of millions—even billions—of people. I also don't like genetic engineering because I believe (due to preexisting standards and racist ideologies) that the human race would progressively get whiter and whiter until the “genetically superior” people were all aryan. The concept of an aryan super-race is absolutely horrifying to me, and is indistinguishably reminiscent with Naziism (although the genetic engineering would be less violent, I still wouldn't like diversity to be erased).

    ReplyDelete
  6. 4. I am okay with the idea of gene therapy if the ultimate goal was to improve someone’s health circumstances. For myself, however, I don’t think I would want to currently use this for prevention reasons. I would only want to use gene therapy technology in the future if I had gotten some disease that gene therapy could help take away the effects of. I wouldn’t want people to be taking part of this for prevention methods, since I feel that people would become lazy with their health and feel that they do not need to try to stay active, since they could rely on gene therapy.

    5. If I had the chance to pick the traits of my child, I would not do it. I don’t really understand the side of people wanting to pick the traits of their child so that their kid can get ahead in life. All this would do is create unnecessary competition, as it almost feels to me that if a parent felt so inclined to pick the traits of their child, it goes to show how insecure he or she is of themselves that they don’t want people judging them for having children with “bad” traits. The idea feels kind of immature to me, since people should be accepted for how they turn out to be. What would happen to the human race after “the perfect human” is finally created? In reality, we have absolutely no way of predicting what society would be like if everyone was genetically engineered to have the perfect traits, so it’s really just not a smart route for people to go down.

    6. I don't think the kind of genetic selection we see in Hanna is really ethical. We can plainly see how unhappy she is when she realizes how different she is from everyone else, and when Erik finally tells her she has been genetically altered. Besides the movie, genetic selecting completely destroys the meaning behind human life. Some could argue that this would be a great change that would enhance society, but not all change is good change. Humans would officially lose their character, as we would all be simply reduced to machines at the will of those who decided our destiny.

    ReplyDelete
  7. 6.I don't think that genetic engineering would be ethical. I believe that with genetic engineering it would create some type of super race. It would be like in time where the 1% live on forever as superiors and everyone else who can't afford it suffers. We talked about how in class it could be seen as eugenics and I think that may be the case. People would start wiping out traits that are seen as undesirable and in most of society that seems to be lighter skin and hair since that equates to American beauty. What would happen to little brown/black girls like myself?

    4. I highly doubt that I would want to be apart of a program that genetically mutated me, because I could never know the possible harm it could cause me in the future. I'm pretty religious and I think that God made us the way we are so I feel like messing with that is somewhat like humans trying to play God and I don't agree with that. Also the whole abusement part with athletes I honestly think that would happen because people would normally do anything they can tk advance themselves and this would be one way athletes could advance themselves more. This kinda goes along with that superior race thing because then it's like all the superior athletes who could pay for this would pay for their kids and so on and so on.

    2. I love my dog but there is no way I would want a clone of her if she died. Whenever my dog dies will be when she dies and I most likely won't get another dog like her. I feel as though that leaves me with an erie feeling because I know that wouldn't be my dog just a copy of her. That dog probably wouldn't even have the same personality as her because that dog wouldn't have the same experiences as my dog does. The whole cloning situation just creeps me out.

    ReplyDelete
  8. 2.) I don't agree with this concept of cloning pets. It reminds me, in a sense of Earnest Becker's "Big Delusion" in the sense that one is trying to cheat death. In this case, they are trying to make their pet immortal by cloning a second life for their pet. Death is a natural part of life, and we shouldn't be trying to resurrect a cloned pet; it's artificial. It's not the same thing, and it's an unhealthy way of trying to fill a void. I know it's sort of a slipper-slope argument, but if we were to clone our dogs, who's to say that we won't start cloning our loved ones? Dad dies from cancer? Who cares! Just throw some DNA into a machine and cook up a father. I know it's not that simple, obviously, but it takes the value away to life if we don't have to worry about death because we can always copy and paste animals.
    4.) Heck yeah! I can be like Captain America: alter my genes and make me HUGE. We could create a new standard-of-living for mankind as we reinvent the human body to be superior. With technology like this, we could reduce muscular abnormalities like ALS or other debilitating diseases. We could improve the efficacy of the communication between the muscle neurons of the brain and the muscles of the body. We could better control the distribution of the neurotransmitter acetylcholine, reducing tourettes, seizures, and other issues.
    5.) I would absolutely take advantage of this resource if I had the chance. Some may argue that by genetically altering a fetus the parents loses an unconditional love for their child. I don't think this is true. Parents already do so much to try and advance their child- from piano lessons, to youth soccer leagues, to tutor programs, etc. Genetic modification is the same principle. Besides, this puts your child at the best advantage, which I think most parents want for their kids; they want to give them the best chance for success. In addition, if we can control their genetic makeup, we can reduce, if not completely eliminate, psychopathology and genetically-inherited diseases. We could reduce our children's risk of alcoholism, depression, anxiety, or faulty proto-oncogenes that cause cancer, or cardiovascular disease. Don't we want to progress as a society? A more Utopian reality where we don't have to have children's hospitals? Where all of our children are the next cutting-edge scientists, doctors, leaders, athletes, etc.?

    ReplyDelete
  9. I have no problem with picking genders. I have absolutely no reservations here. None at all. If a family already has three girls, I’m a tad bit confused as to why they would want a fourth child, but I’m not judging. I think they should’ve just engineered a boy in the first place. The only time I would ever have any potential issue is when there is a clear “preferred option”. There is a potential issue that every single family will choose to have a boy, and then men will outnumber women like 50 to one. However, this problem is self-correcting, as that means that so many men will die without reproducing, thus satisfying the equilibrium. Fortunately, these problems are unrealistic. Our society doesn’t value men above women enough for families to overwhelmingly choose to have boys.
    I love pets. I’ve had several dogs throughout my lifetime, all of which have meant so much to me. However, my relationship with my current dog, Nitro, is basically the same as my relationship with my former dog, Vegas. To me, those two dogs are effectively clones to me. I have no problem with cloning dogs, or any pets. If my pen runs out of ink, I’d want an exact copy of that pen. If my dog dies, I’d want an exact copy of my dog.
    I have no worries about genetic engineering used in the real world. I feel that in 99% of cases, it’ll just be removing health issues. However, for this class, of course we’re going to talk about Nazis. With genetic engineering, it would be possible to get blonde-haired, blue-eyed children. However, this is not the real problem. This is just a symptom of an underlying racism. People also have the option to have red-haired children, but that wouldn’t be nazism. People always have the option to be racist, and genetic engineering has the potential to allow for racism. That’s not the fault of genetic engineering, that’s the fault of society.
    Chance Stephenson

    ReplyDelete
  10. When it comes to cloning my dog, I feel like there has to be a definition of defining what makes the two dogs exactly the same. Also, does this mean I have two dogs or just one that's cloned like my dog? Either way, I'm here for it. If I'm able to have two dogs that are perfect in my eyes, why wouldn't I take the chance to have this done? Of course I would hope that it's a safe procedure and my dog isn't hurt or affected negatively in any way.


    If my child was on the verge of dying, I'm all for getting the transplant. I don't see why getting a clone of (I'm going to assume my child is a girl because that's what I would want) her would be beneficial though. Why would there need to be a clone of her already messed up body parts? Disregarding that though, if my child’s life is on the line, I'm going to do everything in my power to make sure she's alive..even if it means giving up my own life. I feel like once you have a child, your life no longer revolves around you; it's about your child.

    I don't think this kind of genetic selection is ethical. It doesn't have a ton of meaning to me unless it's a medical reason or life and death situation. As we talked about in class, humans want to control a vast majority of things in life; from choosing what we wear everyday, to deciding what we want our job to be in life, to choosing who we marry. I think the beauty of watching your child grow up and blossom into their own individual personality is breathtaking. Yes children have characteristics of their parents, but as they grow up, life becomes finding out who they are--not who their parents want them to be. If anyone has ever read the novel Uglies, I think that's the type of society that would be created with this. In Uglies, children undergo a surgery that makes “pretty” once they turn 16. However, until they turn 16, the city is divided by Uglyville and New Pretty Town where the “uglies” live in Uglyville and the “pretties” live in New Pretty Town. There's the sense that the two types of people aren't supposed to speak each other and be friends or anything...I think this what will happen. The world will be divided more so by money, but you will be able to tell who has money based off the type of child they have. I don't like this idea because technically the world becomes filled with robots that were man made and engineered vs being brought up and developed on their own.

    ReplyDelete
  11. 4. I would not be willing to be part of a genetic experiment that strengthened my muscles or prevented them from deteriorating with age. If the science behind this experiment was backed up and became normalized in society, I would consider it. However, I do not think that I would be willing to put my and my body in such a risky situation. Health is the most important thing because if you aren’t healthy, you automatically are faced with more problems than you used to have advantages of being in good health. I wouldn’t be against other people taking part in this experiment because they can decide what they want to do with their bodies, and that way I can observe from afar. This whole concept just seems wrong to me in most situations and very unnatural. I feel like people strive so much to be perfect that they forget that nothing can prevent them from the guarantee of death and flaw. If me or someone I knew had some sort of condition that prevented them from being able to live comfortably, then it would make reasonable sense to participate in this experiment, however seeing that I am not affected by something that hinders me from living to my fullest, there is no reason for me to partake. I just feel that there is so much we don’t know about this new discovery that it’s not worth the risk or hope to invest time or energy into something that could have so many consequences.
    5. If I had the chance to choose certain traits for my child before they were born I would not do it. I believe that one thing as humans that we are not able to control is our family. I believe that parenting teaches you to love unconditionally and accept people for who they are in a society of people driven by superficial things. People often try to have control over their lives that this could become a problem. Many of the world’s most important and admired figures struggled with some sort of disorder or disease, so trying to create the perfect child is inherently dangerous. Where does the patience and tolerance go for children who aren’t born out of your individual image? If you set up an expectation for your child and they turn out different, people may just look at their child as a failure. I think that to truly accept your child as a gift, is to accept them as they come, not as an object of your desire. I feel like choosing your child’s traits, is in itself a selfish act because although you may be preparing them for the future, who are you to decide traits personal to them?
    6. I do not believe that generic selection is ethical. In the movie, when Hanna discovers that her DNA was genetically selected, she becomes sad. She never was able to live the normal childhood that the children she met were able to live. She didn’t know what real food tasted like, what electricity looked like or how to turn off the TV. But she did know how to kill people, run away, and a ton of random useless facts fit for an assassin. Her upbringing affected the way she talked to people and live without concerning herself with whether or not she had to be on edge. She was forced to live a life that she didn’t want because of what was chosen for her. She was an experiment, and called herself a freak. Hanna did not deserve to have this childhood, but because of genetic selection, she was trained to become a soldier. These enhanced survival skills were plugged into her DNA before she was even born. I do not believe this is ethical, and if this were made legal in real life, I would become scared for the human race. I would be concerned for both the children being enhanced and the ones who weren’t, as this would just be another way of creating division between the human race and would widen the social gap. People would lose respect for anyone that isn’t perfect and lose sight of the purpose and importance of parenthood. To me, this has more disadvantages than advantages and is dangerous. If this were to happen I feel like people as a society would be too far gone to be able to come back.
    zora

    ReplyDelete
  12. Okay, so I’m going to answer questions 4-6.
    #4: Would you be willing to be part of a genetic experiment that not only strengthened your muscles but prevented them from deteriorating with age?
    I would definitely participate in this experiment. Because this experiment is only affecting my body directly ad nobody else’s, I am in support of experiments like this. Me personally, I would definitely love to be in an experiment where my body itself could possibly become stronger and last longer. Of course I’d have to know and understand the side effects before consenting, but overall yeah. I’m not really an athlete and I don’t really exercise or anything like that, but I love hiking and I would LOVE to know that I could hike for a very long time. Also, my brain is a huge muscle in my body and I never want that to deteriorate. My nana has dementia and it is horrible watching her brain fall apart and I NEVER want that to happen to me.
    #5: If you had the chance (and it were possible), would you pick certain traits for your child before he/she was born?
    I would never ever do this. Like I said in the debate during class, traits to me means personality, looks, and basically who you are. If I have children, I want to participate in their life and help them figure out who they are and who they wat to be, not control who they are from birth. Medically, I would 100% do it, but that’s a whole different story. I don’t want to morph my child into something I see ass desirable because I want to love my child the way they come and the way they were meant to be.
    #6: Is this kind of genetic selection ethical?
    I think it depends on which part of genetic selection you are referring to because medically I don’t find it unethical at all, but going back to number five I do. I don’t think it’s unethical for a person to decide to alter THEMSELVES genetically because they are in control of their own body. I think it depends on the situation.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Depending on what your morals are; I believe that determines whether or not any genetic selection is ethical. For me personally this wouldn’t be ethical seeming that I believe in fate and the natural selection God has for me and whoever will be a part of my family. In the long run this could create a subspecies unless you were “perfect” from birth. This would allow you to fit into that separate subspecies and for this reason I believe that the distinction of who has and who hasn’t been enhanced would vary. This would create false identity just like that of the lighter skinned blacks who slid through the cracks and masked themselves as free whites. As for being in a situation where my child was dying I’m not sure what path I would take. The closest thing I can think of to having a child is my little sister in which I would be all for cloning, but on the other side I feel as though a person would still grieve the same. My thought process in this situation is that weather your child dies or they get cloned, you would still lose this piece of you and nothing would be the same. Or at least how it used to be. During this process I just feel as though you try to reach and unrealistic happiness and security. Not to be blunt but things die people die. It’s the way of life and if that way of life changed I believe we would be staring at a helpless world. Other thoughts are what kind of crime takes place with those who then can’t afford all of these fancy procedures? If you think crime is insane now just imagine the things people would do to keep their family both “perfect” and alive. Lastly in the situation that I have 3 girls and want a boy I believe that you either stop having kids or you risk having a fourth child. I say this because IK believe changing the gender of your child is a waste of money only for them to grow up wanting to be transgender or shave their head etc. Gender tweaking through fertilization is not definite at all.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Kyle Beauregard

    2. Horrible idea. No matter how close the doctors can get it physically, it will never be the exact same animal. Maybe it’ll be something small, such as which food it likes, or which paw it seems to favor. It could also be something huge, like the animal’s personality, or scars it had form living on the streets, or a favorite human. No matter what, it won’t be the same animal. And you’ll be reminded of that every time it doesn’t act the way you hoped it would. Maybe that will only be a minor inconvenience for you; it doesn't bother you that much, or you only wanted the animal to LOOK like your previous pet. But it could also lead to neglect or abuse, if the owner isn’t mentally stable, or unable to cope with the differences.

    3. In this case, it depends on how far the cloning is going. This, oddly enough, reminds me of the debate on abortion. If you only clone a few organs to save the child’s life, it isn’t fully sentient, and isn’t suffering, much like the fetus in the mother’s womb. It won’t be hurt by it’s disposal, because it isn’t even fully aware yet. However, if the clone is a functioning child, capable of thoughts and living, then we get into some scarier stuff. Like, ‘what are we going to do with this newborn child’ kind of scary. Do you kill the clone so it doesn't just get up and walk around with the face and DNA of your child? Or would that be like killing a baby? Kind of a crude comparison, but I think it’s an important distinction to make.

    5. Nope, that’s boring as hell. If we're talking medical issues, then sure – I’d want my child to be as healthy as possible, after all. But other than that, I’d leave my kid alone to be whatever they were going to be. I don’t want to choose their traits or appearances. As far as I can tell, that would take all the fun out of parenting. The joy of parenting, to me, would be the discovery of who my child is. What they looked like, their interests, their talents. All of that would either come to them inherently, or from the way I raised them, and that’s beautiful to me.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I am going to answer questions 4 through 6.
    4. I would definitely be willing to participate in a genetic experiment to strength my muscles and help them last longer. I would be willing to do this because the experiment is affecting MY body, not anyone else’s, so it is my choice. I don’t believe in making choices involving bodies for others, so because this only affects me I would be fine with it. I feel as though this would be a great thing. I don’t really do a lot of physical activities except marching band and hiking, which only take place in the summer and fall. And I definitely think this muscle experiment would help me to become a better hiker and marcher.
    5. I would never pick the traits of my child. In terms of medical health, that’s a completely different story, but in terms of TRAITS, I don’t believe in altering someone else’s body or making that decision for them. If I have a child I want them to come as they naturally would. Parents are supposed to love their children as they come, and I don’t want to make this “perfect” child in my image because that’s not the real them. I want to help my child figure out who they are, not control who they will be.
    6. Alright, so I think this depends on the situation. Regarding question 4, I think this genetic alteration is ethical because the person is making a decision that will only effect their body, and not anybody else’s. I don’t agree with the opposite answer to question 5. I don’t think the alteration of your child’s traits is ethical, but I wouldn’t stop anyone who did. In not in charge of their decisions, but I would really wish they wouldn’t. It’s similar to abortion in terms of decisions. I would never get an abortion because I don’t believe they are ethical, but I’m not going to stop anyone who wants one because I’m not in control of their body. It’s not my decision to make.

    wallie

    ReplyDelete

Thanks for commenting. Your message will appear as soon as Mr. W. approves it. Thanks.