Parents may one day be morally obligated to edit their baby’s genes

[rangerrebew]

Parents may one day be morally obligated to edit their baby’s genes
As genetic editing becomes a reality, some say it would be wrong not to use it to cure disease
by Tina Hesman Saey
7:00am, November 28, 2017
 

A doctor explains to a young couple that he has screened the pair’s in vitro fertilized embryos and selected those that had no major inheritable diseases. The couple had specified they want a son with hazel eyes, dark hair and fair skin. Then the doctor announces that he has also taken the liberty of eliminating the “burden” of genetic propensities for baldness, nearsightedness, alcoholism, obesity and domestic violence.

The prospective mother replies that they didn’t want those revisions. “I mean diseases, yes, but …” Her husband jumps in to say, “We were just wondering if it’s good to leave a few things to chance.”

https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/science-public/ethics-gene-editing-babies-crispr?mode=topic&context=87&tgt=nr

[Fishrrman]

What's going to happen when they discover a genetic basis for homosexuality?

Will that get "edited out", too?

If that ever becomes possible, watch for "gene editing" to get banned quickly... ;)

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

What's going to happen when they discover a genetic basis for homosexuality?

Will that get "edited out", too?

If that ever becomes possible, watch for "gene editing" to get banned quickly... ;)

Good point. I had thought that recently they found a gene that caused homosexuality?

[dfwgator]

And that's when God steps in and says, "Ok, everybody, out of the pool!"

[Oceander]

GATTACA

[Free Vulcan]

How do you have 'moral obligation' in a nation with Separation of Church and State?

Only when the liberals are in charge.

[Oceander]

How do you have 'moral obligation' in a nation with Separation of Church and State?

Only when the liberals are in charge.

Nonsense.

[Free Vulcan]

Nonsense.

And who exactly is the moral authority in a secular state?

[Oceander]

And who exactly is the moral authority in a secular state?

Why are you assuming that the government is the only source of moral authority?

[Free Vulcan]

Why are you assuming that the government is the only source of moral authority?

Because according to the liberals, it is. All others are a violation of separation of church and state in their eyes. Except for Muslims of course.

So how do liberals claim moral authority that they deny to everyone else? Except for Muslims of course.

[Oceander]

Because according to the liberals, it is. All others are a violation of separation of church and state in their eyes. Except for Muslims of course.

So how do liberals claim moral authority that they deny to everyone else? Except for Muslims of course.

Don’t be obtuse.

[Free Vulcan]

Don’t be obtuse.

That's a turn of phrase, not an answer.

How, as the article's title states, can there be a society wide 'moral obligation' to edit their baby's genes, in a society of separation of church and state?

[Oceander]

That's a turn of phrase, not an answer.

How, as the article's title states, can there be a society wide 'moral obligation' to edit their baby's genes, in a society of separation of church and state?

Because the obligation is personal and has nothing to do with the government.

The US has constitutional separation of Church and state, does that mean that you have no moral authority, given that you’re an American who lives in the US?

[Free Vulcan]

Because the obligation is personal and has nothing to do with the government.

The US has constitutional separation of Church and state, does that mean that you have no moral authority, given that you’re an American who lives in the US?

The word 'obligation' necessarily implies meeting up to the standards of some outside individual or body. Just asking the question in a plural sense as the article does makes it societal and not personal, as it also implies that it is an absolute, which requires an obligation, making it mandatory, and punishment of some sort if not met.

As far as liberals go, I have no moral authority unless I agree with them and the govt, because only they and the govt have any.

[InHeavenThereIsNoBeer]

That's a turn of phrase, not an answer.

How, as the article's title states, can there be a society wide 'moral obligation' to edit their baby's genes, in a society of separation of church and state?

I think so.  We can still (try to) be/act a moral society without using gov't to impose/infringe religious choices.  Just because morals come from God does not mean they cannot be part of our society ALSO.

[truth_seeker]

Because the obligation is personal and has nothing to do with the government.

The US has constitutional separation of Church and state, does that mean that you have no moral authority, given that you’re an American who lives in the US?

So you claim there would not be a time, when government enacted laws which require gene editing for extreme violence, spousal and children physical abuse, various mental illnesses, etc?

Couldn't there be a case whereby the "moral" greater good came from stamping out the evil, pain and harm from such mental deviations from norms?

But where will the warriors come from, when they "warrior gene" is edited out of existence in only certain countries?

Each human has over 3 billion genetic markers, yet over 90 percent are identical in all humans. Epigenetics goes further, beyond the physical gene, to the other material which surrounds (and influences) the genes.

Google it.

 

[Oceander]

So you claim there would not be a time, when government enacted laws which require gene editing for extreme violence, spousal and children physical abuse, various mental illnesses, etc?

Couldn't there be a case whereby the "moral" greater good came from stamping out the evil, pain and harm from such mental deviations from norms?

But where will the warriors come from, when they "warrior gene" is edited out of existence in only certain countries?

Each human has over 3 billion genetic markers, yet over 90 percent are identical in all humans. Epigenetics goes further, beyond the physical gene, to the other material which surrounds (and influences) the genes.

Google it.

 

 Nope.  That’s not my claim at all.  Why don’t you read before you respond.

[RoosGirl]

The word 'obligation' necessarily implies meeting up to the standards of some outside individual or body. Just asking the question in a plural sense as the article does makes it societal and not personal, as it also implies that it is an absolute, which requires an obligation, making it mandatory, and punishment of some sort if not met.

As far as liberals go, I have no moral authority unless I agree with them and the govt, because only they and the govt have any.

Besides that, the article makes clear that it is the doctor deciding, not the parents.  Who assigned him moral authority?

[Fishrrman]

We've been through all this before -- up through the early twentieth century, it was called "Eugenics", and was actually gaining in acceptance.

Then Hitler came along with his notions of a "master race", and that was the end of that... at least for a while.

But, give it time.
The notions desiring to "improve the breed" will rise again, for the better or the worse.