---

Quote: from TheOtherHorseman at 8:46 pm on Feb. 21, 2007

---

Quote: from xxkat at 11:43 pm on Feb. 21, 2007

---

Yeah, I don't like the idea of it.    
 I still don't even know if I like the idea of them taking away diseases, because that is still "playing God", and maybe because that disease got taken away another one might develop.    
 

---

 

 Where does one draw the line at playing God? Is it playing God to mend a broken bone? Are we trampling in God's garden if we use chemotherapy to treat cancer? Are we pissing in His eye if we use respirators to keep someone alive long enough for them to recover full functionality on their own?  

 At one point, exactly, do we cross from the allowable into the forbidden land?

---

Yeah but by the point your bone is broken and your getting chemotherapy you have already developed the disease and you've already suffered from it.

---

so, i'm a little confused -- what you're saying is, it's okay to fix, but not prevent?

---

Quote: from Seafercat at 11:54 pm on Feb. 21, 2007

---

i don't see how someone can say "it's not the scientists' right to play God" -- how is it your right to decide who and who doesn't "play god"?

---

As a religious person, God>>>>>>>>man, and it's not man's place to do His job. Man should learn their place.

---

so, you're telling me it's your right to tell people what to do, because you're religious? yeah, okay.

---

Quote: from TheOtherHorseman at 8:46 pm on Feb. 21, 2007

---

Quote: from xxkat at 11:43 pm on Feb. 21, 2007

---

Yeah, I don't like the idea of it.    
 I still don't even know if I like the idea of them taking away diseases, because that is still "playing God", and maybe because that disease got taken away another one might develop.    
 

---

 

 Where does one draw the line at playing God? Is it playing God to mend a broken bone? Are we trampling in God's garden if we use chemotherapy to treat cancer? Are we pissing in His eye if we use respirators to keep someone alive long enough for them to recover full functionality on their own?  

 At one point, exactly, do we cross from the allowable into the forbidden land?

---

Yeah but by the point your bone is broken and your getting chemotherapy you have already developed the disease and you've already suffered from it.

---

Would you not agree that if one had the power to prevent someone from breaking a leg or getting cancer, it would be an evil thing to withold that power instead of sparing someone suffering or death?

-------
"My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"

---

Quote: from Vintorez at 5:58 pm on Feb. 22, 2007

---

Quote: from Seafercat at 11:54 pm on Feb. 21, 2007

---

i don't see how someone can say "it's not the scientists' right to play God" -- how is it your right to decide who and who doesn't "play god"?

---

 

 As a religious person, God>>>>>>>>man, and it's not man's place to do His job. Man should learn their place.

---

so, you're telling me it's your right to tell people what to do, because you're religious? yeah, okay.

---

You're an idiot, I never told anybody to do anything, I simply SHARED my OPINION, and I didn't force my opinion on you or anybody else. I hate when idiots try and make situations into something their not.

We were put on the Earth to SERVE God. That's a fact.  And last time I checked, as servants, we don't try to overtake God's throne.

---

Would you not agree that if one had the power to prevent someone from breaking a leg or getting cancer, it would be an evil thing to withold that power instead of sparing someone suffering or death?

---

Yes, that would be ideal, and I think it would be good to use genetics for good like that, but come on: if we have learned anything about human tendencies through history isn't it that we try to use technology to gain power and control others in our favor? Think about it. I personally doubt that genetic engineering of children would simple result in the prevention of disease. It would be used to create "normal" kids, who looked and behaved exactly as the parents thought they should, and again if they didn't well then that kid is just a "mistake." Shallow gene pools would become an increasing problem, and eventually it could lead to a pandemic that could wipe out almost the whole population because all people who were genetically engineered could have the same weakness. I think the whole thing just creates more problems than it solves.

-------
"Nothing endures but change"

---

Quote: from xxkat at 5:56 pm on Feb. 22, 2007

---

Quote: from TheOtherHorseman at 8:46 pm on Feb. 21, 2007

---

Quote: from xxkat at 11:43 pm on Feb. 21, 2007

---

Yeah, I don't like the idea of it.      
  I still don't even know if I like the idea of them taking away diseases, because that is still "playing God", and maybe because that disease got taken away another one might develop.      
  

---

   

  Where does one draw the line at playing God? Is it playing God to mend a broken bone? Are we trampling in God's garden if we use chemotherapy to treat cancer? Are we pissing in His eye if we use respirators to keep someone alive long enough for them to recover full functionality on their own?    

  At one point, exactly, do we cross from the allowable into the forbidden land?

---

 

 Yeah but by the point your bone is broken and your getting chemotherapy you have already developed the disease and you've already suffered from it.

---

 

so, i'm a little confused -- what you're saying is, it's okay to fix, but not prevent?

---

yeah, basically, but I mean go ahead and take the gene of some disease away, I just think something bad will come from it like later in life that person may develop some new disease because their old one was taken away. It's kind of like picking at a red bump and its gone for a few hours and then you get an ugly whitehead in its place haha sorry for the bad metaphor.

Post edited at 9:33 pm on Feb. 21, 2007 by xxkat

---

Are we to completely abandon the pursuit of knowledge out of terror over what horrors might be born from it?  Furthermore, are we to pretend that we have PhD's in genetics that enable us to talk on the consequences of the practical uses of such knowledge as if we are authorities?

---

No we should not completely abandon the pursuit of knowledge out of fear, but we should not assume that just because something CAN be used for good that it WILL be. I don't think it's necessary to have a PhD in genetics to speculate about possible consequence, some of it is just common sense. I mean you have to look at both sides of a story. Now, I know my opinion on this subject seems pretty extreme, and really I think I'm more moderate than I'm coming across, but from what I was reading the main argument against genetic engineering was "It's Playing God," and while I do kind of agree with that I just wanted to offer up more solid reasons why this might not be a good thing. I suppose the ultimate question is: How would this technology be regulated so that it could be used for good? A question that needs to be asked of all new techniquest that seem to be on everyone's thoughts, like stem cell research, but that's another topic entirely.

-------
"Nothing endures but change"

---

You're an idiot, I never told anybody to do anything, I simply SHARED my OPINION, and I didn't force my opinion on you or anybody else. I hate when idiots try and make situations into something their not.

---

I said how is it your right to decide who and who doesn't "play god"?
You replied with "it's not man's place", you didn't answer my question, you basically claimed it was your right to tell man that it's not his right.

---

We were put on the Earth to SERVE God. That's a fact.  And last time I checked, as servants, we don't try to overtake God's throne.

---

Last time I checked, that hadn't be proven and therefore was not fact.

designer babies allows for genetic determinism. It is the ultimate anti-thesis of equal opportunity.

The ONLY tinkering we should be doing is to remove the most painful and horrible hereditary diseases. And even then it is questionable as those genes may in the future interact in ways we cannot forsee to stop a contagious disease.

-------
"I give the probability of this working at zero" - Dan DeMatteo

---

Just make it really expensive. Then, for the first time in history, the ruling elite of the planet is guaranteed to be both handsome and intelligent, as the masses get more retarded in comparison. An engineered meritocracy.

---

That doesn't ensure a meritocracy, that's aristocracy, which in history has been shown to be the cause of many bad decisions.

What makes you think the rich are the best to rule? The US is a plutocracy and we have so many problems, many caused by our leaders.

-------
"I give the probability of this working at zero" - Dan DeMatteo