Do you think it should be legal for people to use genetic engineering to affect their children’s characteri?
609294
No, definately not. Aside from the potential dangers of unforseen genetic flaws, it could cause people in elite positions (e.g. with lots of money) to manipulate their offspring to be ahead of everyone else.\n\nThe impact on this would be very destructive indeed when insurance companies and employees would be only accepting people with a certain genetic makeup.\n\nSociety would also be outcasting people who have not had this "special" treatment.\n\nThere would also be the case where it is a matter of opinion what would be a better or worse characteristic. For example, blue eyes, blond hair, fair skin (sound familiar? Nazi Germany perhaps?). This would certainly induce favourtism (hence racism). Diversity and culture would be destroyed and we might all end up being the same. Although some members of nationalist political parties might appreciate it.\n\nRead Brave New World by Aldous Huxley or watch the film Gattaca to see the potential dangers.
981819
YES YES YES!\nI absolutely think people should need a license to have a child! We need to pass a test to drive, is raising another human being less of a responsibility than driving? There are so many people raising children that are obviously unfit parents.
978929
I suppose it's most frequently called genetic engineering, though people who are against such procedures call it, 'playing God'.  Foods that are modified in this way are referred to as 'genetically modified' and sometimes the process is called 'genetic transformation'.
17374
Certainly not! It is the responsibility of parents to know where their children are and with whom. To deprive people of the ability to earn a living after conviction for ANY crime is not in the interest of justice or of society as a whole.\nThe way our laws are currently written, a 22 year old guy who loses his head over a perfectly willing and experienced 17 year old girl is catagorized right alongside the monsters who get their jollies with actual children. It would not be right.\nBesides which, any offender with the money could just go to a doctor and have it removed, or get it covered with another tattoo...and don't think there are not doctors right here in the States that would do it.
22321
This is an issue that I spend a lot of time thinking about. Being sort of closet theoretical evolutionist, I wonder just how poorly equipped our species is becoming with each medical/genetic advance we discover and then apply.\n\nYour question implies the direct application of genetic engineering and manipulation to the human race -- which is an area where there is a lot more potential for than has actually been applied, thus far. I propose that our plight has been cultivated by the application of much more mundane medicine -- to be honest, mundane might not be the best choice of words here because many of these advances are truly grandiose. However, for every modern advance that has come down the way, we surely have done nothing but weaken the genetics of our species.\n\nThink about every time an antibiotic is administered? Yes, we are helping that person overcome an infection that he/she was otherwise ill equipped to rid themselves of via their own immune system. But look where that’s got us. After only a few generations of using – and grossly misusing – antibiotics, these same organisms we were able to fight off have developed resistance to. Now, not only are these bacteria back weeding out the less genetically fit folks among us, there are literally orders of magnitude more of such people susceptible to infection because they have been able to propagate these deficiencies through procreation. In this instance, saving thousands of people of lives over the years may ultimately cost millions of other theirs. You have to ask yourself: Which situation is better.\n\nWhat you have to truly realize is that is it more correct to think and apply our medical abilities on the individual. We are able to heal many diseases and disorders that, even as recent as 50 years ago, would have never even been detected, let alone treatable. But there are a litany more that, even though they aren't curable, they are able to be treated and controlled to the point that become nothing more than chronic inconveniences -- whereas in prior times, these diseases and disorders would have been lethal. Every time we have been able to sustain a person's life beyond that which the technologies of prior years could have, we are allowing those people the opportunity to procreate. Because we don't treat these disorders and genetic susceptibilities to diseases at the genetic level, the offspring of these individuals still carry these "deficiencies.” And thus pass them along for future generations. This is great for the coffers of the medical establishment – acting as ready-made population in need of their services, but it is definitely polluting our gene pool with lesser-fit alleles that would have been eliminated by the process of natural selection. If medicine wanted to truly live up to its credo of: To practice and prescribe to the best of my ability for the good of my patients, and to try to avoid harming them; and to never deliberately do harm to anyone for anyone else's interest, maybe the medical field should take in consideration what they are doing to the species – something that Hippocrates could not have even contemplated let alone include in his oath.\n\nWhere we humans miss the boat at is thinking that we are always one step ahead of nature. What we are realizing is that’s probably a huge miscalculation. We need to take a step back and reconsider our objectives. Is medicine’s and science’s ultimate goal to help individuals within the species or to help the species?
249989
That is a tricky question, but I think it should be possible. I don't think you are referring to genetically modifying homosexuals such as many other answers, but using this as an example to other areas of human race. Lets for a second assume being gay is not genetics, but a choice. Murders and rapist are said to have some genetic defects also, but as it relates here we will say they don't, so we could apply some behavioral techniques while they are still young in order for them to make better choices in their lifes.It won't be easy, but with the right techniques at the right time anything is posible..
500214
Yes, as long as its done correctly.  There are many genetic diseases that could be erradicated by this process.
947970
I agree...I believe that in the proper hands, this could solve many health issues. As with everything else, even good things in the wrong hands, can get ugly...but that's not reason enough NOT to benefit society.\nI was asked many years ago to participate in a survey of 12 people in a room, ( including a man in a religious order) and we all gave pros and cons on why we thought they either should or shouldn't do stem cell research...Most of us concluded that it would be a benefit to society.
519972
There is more good that will likely come out of genetic engineering than bad.\n\nWith genetic engineering we could cure a lot of diseases that are genetic in nature and if we require all children with certain genetic disorders be treated then we could completely eliminate such things as Downs Syndrome, Cystic Fibrosis, etc.\n\nThe option of creating smarter children is also a good one and one which we should not be resisting.  If there are any worries that the rich will use the technology to give their children a competitive advantage then we should be subsidising genetic engineering for those who aren't rich instead of banning it.\n\nOn a more subtle note genetic engineering of crops is really just a more refined and controllable version of what we have been doing for thousands of years anyway so I don't see any reason to object to it provided it is well regulated.  The ability to make healthy food tasty that it provides would be a far better solution to the problem of childhood obesity than banning the sale of the food that the kids are actually willing to eat.
189656
Yes.  Genetic engineering is troublesome for the Catholic Church on two levels . . . first, the "playing God" factor.  But secondly, the Catholic Church has a very strong stance on marital relationships and procreation . . . sex is an activity that occurs between a husband and wife for the procreation of children and the unification of the couple.  "Sex" without either of these components is sinful.  From this ideology comes the Catholic Church's position against artifical insemination (there is no intercourse, no unification of the couple).  As I understand genetic engineering for babies, this is something that is done outside normal martial relations, so the Church would oppose it on those grounds as well.
563767
well i think its stupid cause the kids wont know their "biological" [parents and why would it be so perfect if its not their child and what would it do to the child  if they found out that they were put as an experiment
171266
If you have offspring from a first cousin, chances are good they will be a burden to society due to their mental and/or physical limitations.  Inbreeding breeds mutants...
439280
With the technology today and DNA testing I think that yes with the crimes you have mentioned. They are horrible crimes to other individuals and children and until we really crack the whip and say this will not be tolerated those crimes will continue against the innocent. With tougher penalties maybe they will think twice before committing the crime.
577042
in more ways than one, yes... genetics, which is the science of genes, heredity and variation, is our future... genetically modified organisms; cloning; gene therapy; stem cell therapy; genetic counselling; forensic science; medicines, vaccines, antibiotics; biological weapons; assisted reproductive techniques; and human sex selection are but some of the promising yet controversial uses and applications of genetics through biotechnology and engineering.\n\nprehistorically, humans applied knowledge of genetics with the domestication and breeding of plants and animals. and with the passing of time, the gaining of knowledge now took genetics to a whole new level. \n\nfurther studies and modern researches even gave rise to different fields thus, paving the way for biotechnology and genetic engineering. classical genetics consists of the techniques and methodologies of genetics, and these patterns of inheritance still remain a useful tool for the study of genetic diseases. behavioral genetics studies the effects of human disorders as well as its causes. in clinical genetics, physicians are trained as geneticists to diagnose, treat, and counsel patients with genetic disorders or syndromes. molecular genetics focuses on the structure and function of genes at a molecular level.
996648
It should be noted that the doomesday scenarios claimed for this technique - cloning Hitler or the like - are absolute nonsense. This takes genetic determinism to its illogical conclusion. To suggest that a clone would adopt the personality of the original is to suggest there's a gene for "genocide of the Jews", which is clearly nonsense. \n\nIt should also be noted that many people accused of being genetic determinists aren't, or at least aren't by the definition used by the accusers. When a gene "for" X is implied, there is always an unstated "given all other things being equal", and usually an "but only in a statistical sense", so a gene for a behaviour will only make it more likely, not force it.\n\nThen we have the religious objections - that the clone would not have a soul. Since embryos are cloned in the same way identical twins are formed, this would mean that identical twins do not have separate souls.\n\nThe real issue I have with this kind of science is eugenics. According to my genes, I'm dead by now - or at least many people with one condition I happen to have are. If we allow the creation and cloning of "perfect" embryos, and encourage the termination of "imperfect" embryos, we will live in a much worse-off place. We will be at the will of whoever decides what is "perfect" and what is not. What's more, people will suffer the whims of their parents. What happens when a couple order up an athlete, and the child instead spends all day fiddling with his Wii? Will they punish him for not turning out how the reciept says? Will ethnic minorities be eliminated as being imperfect? Will parents ensure they have somebody to look after them in old age order up an ugly and infertile slave child?\n\nIt's clear to me that we should ban commercial offerings of genetic manipulation of offspring right now, and also close our borders to genetically engineered humans - so treatment cannot be offered in rogue states. The ethics need a clarification and unity - is stupidity a disease?
415392
I would certainly hope they wouldn't do that. I am strongly against what this law is creating and will be creating. I hope that the U.S. has better sense then that. I also think that this whole thing with the new law is also teaching bad examples for our kids. It's teaching them to be prejudice and judgmental. We have enough kids waiting to get into foster care as it is with no home to go to.We could not afford to take kids from their parents and put them with strangers and hope they won't grow to be hateful knowing the government is responsible for taking them away from their biological families.
10251
Yes!  Sex is a natural occurance for humans and I think the better educated the person then they can hopefully make better educated decisions.  \n\nI do believe though that parents should be aware that the class is going to be taught that way they can add their own information if wanted or keep their kids from the class for religious or personal reasons.