Is genetical engineering wrong?

[ChefPapiChulo]

Is editing the genes of an unborn baby morally wrong?

Updates

1 y

genetic engineering*

[GuyAnswersGirls123]

I could see some perverse incentives to it which could pose some ethical concerns. Yet it might improve society even for the worst off to engineer some of the finest minds, for example.

[ChefPapiChulo]

Who gets to decide who does it?

[ChefPapiChulo]

What if the people who do it decide that free will is not necessary for society and start to target genetics that are thought to be associated with independence?

[GuyAnswersGirls123]

Generally I would think it most proper for the parents to decide and with medical consultation assuming they're the ones responsible for the child. The people who are responsible for the upbringing of the child should have the ultimate say as I see it, just like adults who are responsible for themselves have the ultimate say on deciding what medical treatment option is appropriate for them given the various side effects and costs.

[GuyAnswersGirls123]

If the state governs the decision, that's a nightmare scenario as I see it but I think any decent parents will rebel against such tyranny. There's only so much freedom that a state can strip away as I see it before things get bloody and revolutionary and a freer society emerges once more in the bloody aftermath until the freedom is slowly squandered again by the state.

[ChefPapiChulo]

Sure, but if it's legal that means the government has a part to play, since the idea of genetic engineering has the betterment of society in mind. Is it possible for the government and scientists to start engineering people to fit their standards that would make a better society?

[GuyAnswersGirls123]

I could hypothetically see a government program designed to genetically engineer humans in a lab setting designed to serve the state. I generally don't think they can exercise it on the general population without a rebellion. Reminds me a bit of this movie starring Kurt Russell (fun B- sci-fi action flick):
https://youtu.be/4oeW9sflsdg

I think such concerns though are now superseded by AI.

[GuyAnswersGirls123]

One of the reasons I lean towards the libertarian side of the equation is that I think too many people aren't sufficiently wary on both sides of the political spectrum that more government intervention over our lives doesn't work converge towards a tendency to better serve the needs of the people but instead to better serve the needs of the state.

The libertarian philosophy to which I lean towards at least repels that danger. It does lack much in the way of solutions to help those who can't help themselves but that's why I'm not a libertarian and only lean libertarian. I suspect that there's some healthy balance but I don't think most people are sufficiently reluctant about embracing more government intervention over our lives, and that includes both people on the left and the right.

[ChefPapiChulo]

nypost.com/.../

[GuyAnswersGirls123]

I've seen those types of stories before and in the context of eugenics. Margaret Sanger behind Planned Parenthood was also a eugenicist to my understanding.

>> As an advocate of BIRTH CONTROL, I wish to take advantage of the present opportunity to point out that the unbalance between the birth rate of the “unfit” and the “fit,” admittedly the greatest present menace to civilization, can never be rectified by the inauguration of a cradle competition between these two classes. In this matter, the example of the inferior classes, the fertility of the feeble-minded, the mentally defective, the poverty-stricken classes, should not be held up for emulation to the mentally and physically fit though less fertile parents of the educated and well-to-do classes. On the contrary, the most urgent problem today is how to limit and discourage the overfertility of the mentally and physically defective.



From my perspective, the ethical problem with eugenics is not the goal to prevent the birth of the "feeble-minded", "the mentally defective", and so forth, especially if we can do it in a way that imposes no harm to a living creature. The problem is that such people often incorrectly assume that minorities are such, for example. They tend to bundle it with racism, sexism, bigotry of this sort.

[ChefPapiChulo]

I mean it happens naturally. People tend to want to marry people who are healthy to have healthy babies.

[GuyAnswersGirls123]

Definitely so. I think not just healthy but competent, bright, charismatic, attractive, the whole package. Genetic engineering of this hypothetical sort would actually put an end to eugenics in my perspective, since eugenics ceased to sterilize the "unfit" and only allow the "fit" to reproduce. It would make everyone "fit".

[GuyAnswersGirls123]

[*] since eugenics [seeks] to sterilize the "unfit" and only allow the "fit" to reproduce.

[Dargil]

I think it is, and taking mRNA COVID vaccines does that.

[ChefPapiChulo]

Maybe genetic engineering would have worked in your favor.

[Dargil]

It did. Why I have such a high IQ.

[OtterMan68]

no, it's not. You can make it less likely to have congenital diseases

[laly520]

morally, yes its so wrong

[ChefPapiChulo]

What if it's to get rid of diseases or mental deficiencies?

[laly520]

then thats a different story if it will get rid of diseases then it won't be morally wrong

[ChefPapiChulo]

But what if someone says it's just for that reason, but then uses it for something else?

[laly520]

then morally wrong not to mention lying

[ChefPapiChulo]

And how do we know which genes are associated with what? The best people have are assumptions when it comes to genes.