Genetically engineering 'ethical' babies is a moral obligation, says Oxford professor

[curlycool89]

Professor Julian Savulescu said that creating so-called designer babies could be considered a "moral obligation" as it makes them grow up into "ethically better children".

The expert in practical ethics said that we should actively give parents the choice to screen out personality flaws in their children as it meant they were then less likely to "harm themselves and others".

Read More

Yep, designer babies are now a "moral obligation". This is what secular ethics has given us.

[Dale_M]

Professor Julian Savulescu .... who is also editor-in-chief of the Journal of Medical Ethics, made his comments in an article in the latest edition of Reader's Digest.

o.0

Reader's Digest?? That staid family publication which was popular decades ago?

Setting that incongruity aside, I would note that Prof. Savulescu, in his role as editor of the Journal of Medical Ethics, okayed the essay earlier this year which defended the morality of infanticide.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/he...perts-say.html

[Nec5]

Looks like Professor Julian Savulescu is in need of re-engineering, starting with a lobotomy.

[JerBear Meaux]

Originally Posted by curlycool89

Professor Julian Savulescu said that creating so-called designer babies could be considered a "moral obligation" as it makes them grow up into "ethically better children".

The expert in practical ethics said that we should actively give parents the choice to screen out personality flaws in their children as it meant they were then less likely to "harm themselves and others".

Read More

Yep, designer babies are now a "moral obligation". This is what secular ethics has given us.

This Professor just seems to believe that you can correct a babys morality through a physical code,by editing the genetic code they believe that they can manipulate the physical aspects of our morality, that they can isolate the physical attributes of our character that cause our immorality and define and give us better attributes ones that will make us behave better. Editing the foundation of the genetic code would be dangerous and they dont understand the role of the mind in the makeup of the physical body they would more than likely cut out the aspects that make us human and try to define aspects of themselves that they would like to see in their children. doesnt it cut out the aspects that make us human and the hope we would lose knowning we could never actually fix the problems with our spirits because they took away the aspects that we would need for our salvation.

[Jeanne S]

Originally Posted by JerBear Meaux

This Professor just seems to believe that you can correct a babys morality through a physical code,by editing the genetic code they believe that they can manipulate the physical aspects of our morality, that they can isolate the physical attributes of our character that cause our immorality and define and give us better attributes ones that will make us behave better. Editing the foundation of the genetic code would be dangerous and they dont understand the role of the mind in the makeup of the physical body they would more than likely cut out the aspects that make us human and try to define aspects of themselves that they would like to see in their children. doesnt it cut out the aspects that make us human and the hope we would lose knowning we could never actually fix the problems with our spirits because they took away the aspects that we would need for our salvation.

This is what comes from an over inflated EGO:Edging God Out

[AlTheCollegeGal]

Considering that I had a philosophy class discussion about Savulescu, I am obliged to observe his grave error: where exactly does he draw the line? According to the article, Savulescu sates "Indeed, when it comes to screening out personality flaws, such as potential alcoholism, psychopathy and disposition to violence, you could argue that people have a moral obligation to select ethically better children." However, latent alcoholism does not necessarily constitute an alcoholic, and furthermore, there are many individuals with impact who were alcoholics. Ernest Hemingway, Alexander the Great, Ulysses S. Grant, and Edgar Allen Poe to name a few were alcoholics. http://gooseberrybush.wordpress.com/...olics-addicts/

Just think how drastically society would change based on if these individuals were not allowed to live. From creating genetically pure offspring, eugenics delves into that which is intrinsically evil to explore: the bestowing of the title "creator" to fallible, imperfect humans. Where would the limits to this extensive power end, and would it end at all? What would stop an individual from weeding out the individuals with superficial traits that the parents do not desire? Brilliance derives from difference. Without individuals who do not fit the mold, so to speak, society would devolve into little more than what Hobbes has coined as his social contract theory. Human life would be brutish and short, animalistic in nature from lack of moral sense.

[JerBear Meaux]

Originally Posted by Jeanne S

This is what comes from an over inflated EGO:Edging God Out

do you think this professor understands what hes doing to the world by promoting
this idea regarding genetics, it seems that what hes doing doesnt seem like its even an appropriate use for genetics.

[BDEklof]

Deb Roman Catholic Convert, 1994

Hello to all!

My first post, not a college grad, but a nurse. Ethical thought and action
is absolutely NOT passed through the genetic strains.

If this professor is Catholic of any stripe he is in grave error.

[JimR-OCDS]

Is this the same professor who stated that post-birth abortions were morally acceptable?

Jim

[OrdinaryMelkite]

Originally Posted by BDEklof

Deb Roman Catholic Convert, 1994

Hello to all!

My first post, not a college grad, but a nurse. Ethical thought and action
is absolutely NOT passed through the genetic strains.

If this professor is Catholic of any stripe he is in grave error.

Welcome to CAF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And yes, the professor IS in grave error.

Indeed. And thanks.

[JerBear Meaux]

Originally Posted by BDEklof

Deb Roman Catholic Convert, 1994

Hello to all!

My first post, not a college grad, but a nurse. Ethical thought and action
is absolutely NOT passed through the genetic strains.

If this professor is Catholic of any stripe he is in grave error.

But the science field has linked alcoholism to a part in the Genome, and im certain that they believe that their are certain physical codes carried in the genome regarding different aspects of character.although i dont believe that alcoholism can actually be relayed through the genetic code im sure they will find a way to interpret their data in a way that makes sense in accordance with their understanding. as they learn more about genetics the more professors like this will become dangerous and a threat to christianity.

[curlycool89]

Originally Posted by AlTheCollegeGal

Just think how drastically society would change based on if these individuals were not allowed to live. From creating genetically pure offspring, eugenics delves into that which is intrinsically evil to explore: the bestowing of the title "creator" to fallible, imperfect humans. Where would the limits to this extensive power end, and would it end at all? What would stop an individual from weeding out the individuals with superficial traits that the parents do not desire? Brilliance derives from difference. Without individuals who do not fit the mold, so to speak, society would devolve into little more than what Hobbes has coined as his social contract theory. Human life would be brutish and short, animalistic in nature from lack of moral sense.

Ah yes it's true, eugenics is back in style again. It's been largely dormant since the 70s, because saying you were in favour of such a thing got you rightly black-listed from ever doing science again.

That's what this really is, eugenics. This time our master race is a bunch of perfect disease-imune people though.

You know what this really reminds me of though? Gattaca (the movie is also very good). When I saw that movie in 2005 it scared me, because I knew even then in high school that scientists were working on such things (it's only really a step-up from IVF using some advanced genetics, and I knew that the Human Genome Project had been working on decoding our DNA). Gattaca is still one of the dystopians that scares me the most because given our current scientific course it's only a matter of time before we get there.

[edwest2]

Originally Posted by AlTheCollegeGal

Considering that I had a philosophy class discussion about Savulescu, I am obliged to observe his grave error: where exactly does he draw the line? According to the article, Savulescu sates "Indeed, when it comes to screening out personality flaws, such as potential alcoholism, psychopathy and disposition to violence, you could argue that people have a moral obligation to select ethically better children." However, latent alcoholism does not necessarily constitute an alcoholic, and furthermore, there are many individuals with impact who were alcoholics. Ernest Hemingway, Alexander the Great, Ulysses S. Grant, and Edgar Allen Poe to name a few were alcoholics. http://gooseberrybush.wordpress.com/...olics-addicts/

Just think how drastically society would change based on if these individuals were not allowed to live. From creating genetically pure offspring, eugenics delves into that which is intrinsically evil to explore: the bestowing of the title "creator" to fallible, imperfect humans. Where would the limits to this extensive power end, and would it end at all? What would stop an individual from weeding out the individuals with superficial traits that the parents do not desire? Brilliance derives from difference. Without individuals who do not fit the mold, so to speak, society would devolve into little more than what Hobbes has coined as his social contract theory. Human life would be brutish and short, animalistic in nature from lack of moral sense.

I don't see the reasoning behind any of your statements. We still do not fully understand how our DNA works. After the "Junk DNA" fiasco, genetic switches were mentioned and one biologist said, "We don't know what turns them on or off."

Genetic engineering is still in the realm of science fiction if not science fantasy. It would be a tragedy if an engineered child was born who developed other problems due to our lack of knowledge. The brain cannot be broken down into plug this in and plug this out. It's not that simple.

Brilliance does not always derive from difference. Personal lifestyle choices have no causal relationship with brilliance - not in a scientifically measurable way. Alcoholics make for good writers? None of the artists or writers I work with are alcoholics.



Peace,
Ed

[pete 29]

Boys from Brazil?

[AlTheCollegeGal]

Originally Posted by edwest2

I don't see the reasoning behind any of your statements. We still do not fully understand how our DNA works. After the "Junk DNA" fiasco, genetic switches were mentioned and one biologist said, "We don't know what turns them on or off."

Genetic engineering is still in the realm of science fiction if not science fantasy. It would be a tragedy if an engineered child was born who developed other problems due to our lack of knowledge. The brain cannot be broken down into plug this in and plug this out. It's not that simple.

Brilliance does not always derive from difference. Personal lifestyle choices have no causal relationship with brilliance - not in a scientifically measurable way. Alcoholics make for good writers? None of the artists or writers I work with are alcoholics.



Peace,
Ed

I am not saying that all alcoholics are "good writers" whatsoever. I am merely pointing out the obvious: If Savulescu believes that one must exterminate a so called "alcoholic gene" it would have drastic repercussions on society. It is apparent that experiences shape individuals' understanding of the world. It was my intention to imply that without people who have overcome/had difficulty with alcoholism, then much of society would change for the worse. And, you have a fundamental error in your speech: just because you haven't observed any alcoholics with whom you work does not necessitate that there are no alcoholic geniuses. Also, it is rather a personal thing to disclose, I think it is highly unlikely that you would know each of your colleagues background history. But, back to Savulescu, what I was attempting to convey is that screening out "potential alcoholics" is a grave wrong, just as screening out other traits is as well.