Eugenics/Genetic engineering

Watch
LennyBicknel
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#1
Here's some thoughts to trigger debate -

Would you support forced abortions if a developing baby in the womb was found to have a genetic disease? (e.g. Downs Syndrome; Cystic Fibrosis; Huntingdon's Disease etc.) Alternatively, would you support mandatory genetic engineering of these babies, if technologically permitted it?

My thoughts - I think this whole concept has been given a bad rap from eugenic's original purpose: creating a 'pure' race, envisaged by race-obsessed ideologues. In practice, however, eugenics can provide some substantial benefits, notably removing life-impairing genetic diseases from the gene pool, freeing future generations from suffering with and caring for these illnesses. I recognise, however, the leniency which surrounds what a 'life-impairing' disease is (e.g. is short-sightedness considered life-impairing? Is being born with a deformed arm life-impairing? etc.)

Thoughts?
0
reply
Badger Face
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#2
Report 2 years ago
#2
I 100% support it as long as it is done ethically to only remove life altering conditions and not for making "designer" children.
1
reply
Michiyo
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#3
Report 2 years ago
#3
Yes. As long as it gets rid of terrible diseases, it is good (I do not think it should be used for designer babies).
1
reply
Ragman75
Badges: 15
#4
Report 2 years ago
#4
Its fine as long as it is voluntary, if its forced by the state its both immoral and will end terribly. It would be immoral because it is not the job of the state to pre-emptively mandate how people can exist within society, they act after not before. It will end terribly because as you described the rules which bind when a baby should or should not be aborted/genetically altered, are subjective. Moreover even if there were some objective criteria, who's to say a politician wont change the rules to "must abort all short kids/GA every ginger away" in an attempt to satisfy any special interest, or even the demos. All in all the point im trying to make is that it is not the states job to forcefully improve the population by any means, they are "public servants" not "public parents".
0
reply
Arran90
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#5
Report 2 years ago
#5
What about mental health conditions or personality disorders?
0
reply
Mr Dee Mented
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#6
Report 2 years ago
#6
(Original post by LennyBicknel)
Here's some thoughts to trigger debate -

Would you support forced abortions if a developing baby in the womb was found to have a genetic disease? (e.g. Downs Syndrome; Cystic Fibrosis; Huntingdon's Disease etc.) Alternatively, would you support mandatory genetic engineering of these babies, if technologically permitted it?

My thoughts - I think this whole concept has been given a bad rap from eugenic's original purpose: creating a 'pure' race, envisaged by race-obsessed ideologues. In practice, however, eugenics can provide some substantial benefits, notably removing life-impairing genetic diseases from the gene pool, freeing future generations from suffering with and caring for these illnesses. I recognise, however, the leniency which surrounds what a 'life-impairing' disease is (e.g. is short-sightedness considered life-impairing? Is being born with a deformed arm life-impairing? etc.)

Thoughts?
Yes of course, if we could carry out forced abortions then we could remove those faulty genes from our human gene pool.
0
reply
tazarooni89
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#7
Report 2 years ago
#7
(Original post by LennyBicknel)
Would you support forced abortions if a developing baby in the womb was found to have a genetic disease? (e.g. Downs Syndrome; Cystic Fibrosis; Huntingdon's Disease etc.)
I wouldn't support forced abortions or even voluntary abortions, any more than I would support simply killing a fully grown person with Downs Syndrome. They might not have a life we consider ideal, but as far as they're concerned it may still be a better one than none at all. Ending someone else's life based on their difficulties is not our decision to make.

Alternatively, would you support mandatory genetic engineering of these babies, if technologically permitted it?
I wouldn't support mandatory genetic engineering for various reasons e.g. parents may be concerned about potential adverse risks, they may not be able to afford it etc. Although I would support genetic engineering being strongly encouraged. Again, I'd just liken it to the prevention of disease in any fully grown person. Vaccinations for example, are not mandatory, they are just strongly encouraged.

My thoughts - I think this whole concept has been given a bad rap from eugenic's original purpose: creating a 'pure' race, envisaged by race-obsessed ideologues. In practice, however, eugenics can provide some substantial benefits, notably removing life-impairing genetic diseases from the gene pool, freeing future generations from suffering with and caring for these illnesses. I recognise, however, the leniency which surrounds what a 'life-impairing' disease is (e.g. is short-sightedness considered life-impairing? Is being born with a deformed arm life-impairing? etc.) Thoughts?
I wouldn't have any problem with the use of genetic engineering to create "designer babies" either, assuming it was risk free.
0
reply
_gcx
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#8
Report 2 years ago
#8
I have no problem with designer babies, but sterilisation or euthanization is blatantly immoral.
1
reply
Dheorl
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#9
Report 2 years ago
#9
Voluntary = fine, mandatory = disturbing
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Are you worried that a cap in student numbers would affect your place at uni?

Yes (134)
58.77%
No (52)
22.81%
Not sure (42)
18.42%

Watched Threads

View All