Quote:
Originally posted by homealone
In my opinion the debate is about ethical issues - scientific research into IVF treatments and the treatments themselves, involve the "creation" of human embryo's. Many embryo's "die" during subsequent procedures.
|
But are they "alive" to start with?
Ok. My view. They're potential lives. IMO, until you can ***** it with a pin and make it squeal it's not "alive" (this applies to humans only, BTW). {I see we still have the silly censor in action. You'll have to work out for yourselves what one usually does with a pin. I'm sure you can all do that without genetic modification.}
Quote:
|
Whatever the "meaning of life" I don't think we should get too blasÃÃâ€*’© about "creating" life to suit our whims. Where do we draw the line?
|
But don't we do this already? People choose to have children. Ok, not all, but a lot of couples plan their families, having babies when they want to have them as suits their lives. So what's the difference?
Or do you mean "creating" as in specifying characteristics? Even this I don't have too much of a problem with.
All ethical arguements about us doiing this start from the premise that, in some way, there's a "plan" or we're "special". There isn't and we aren't. So where's the problem?
Will genetic modification of humans destroy the world or the universe? I don't think so. We have better methods of doing the former and are incapable of doing the latter.
Will it give us a better chance of survival as a species? Yes. I think it will.