Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 11/26/2012 7:20:22 AM PST by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: SeekAndFind

Well, let’s just agree that genetically engineering humans is immoral, then we can haggle over the rest of it, eh?


2 posted on 11/26/2012 7:41:26 AM PST by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SeekAndFind
Is it permissible?

The Lord gave man dominion over the earth, and to my knowledge he placed few limitations on that dominion that would apply to genetic engineering.

The few key ones would be the sanctity of human life and I think it's reasonable that the prohibitions on sex outside of marriage extend to artificial means of fertilization.

What that means to me is that fertilized human embryos should be protected and not killed for science. What's more, fertilization techniques that rely on fertilizing muliple human embryos with the intention of only letting one live is likewise immoral.

I see no prohibition on conducting experiments on animals or plant life.

Is it wise

The real question to me is "Is it safe? Have sufficient safeguards been implemented protect from unintended effects?

But would I ban genetic engineering to cure a human of a genetic disease? No. Would I be concerned that a virus used to implement a genetic change could escape, possibly mutate, and have adverse affects on the general population? Absolutely.

I speculate even now that morgellons disease may have been caused by genetically modified food. It's one thing to be cross breeding fruits. It's another to be introducing insect genes into food crops.

Do we really understand all of the potential things that could go wrong? (RumsfieldSpeak Are there known unknowns or unknown unknowns /RS) Do we have sufficient safeguards against all of them? Are the people implementing genetic engineering taking undo risks in hopes of getting rich?

3 posted on 11/26/2012 8:02:00 AM PST by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SeekAndFind
I know that some self-described "deep ecology" people, like Greenpeace -- taking their inspiration from Jeremy Rifkin --- are against genetic modificaion of plant and animal species. but I have never heard a reason why. They seem to think it's inherently immoral; their objection is not based on any religious doctrine; and it doesn't seem to follow from the available evidence.

Can anybody explain his to me? (Maybe I'm asking at the wrong site!?)

4 posted on 11/26/2012 8:07:37 AM PST by Mrs. Don-o (May the Lord bless you, may the Lord keep you, May He turn to you His countenance and give you peace)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SeekAndFind

Who’s definition of moral?


6 posted on 11/26/2012 9:04:07 AM PST by stuartcr ("When silence speaks, it speaks only to those that have already decided what they want to hear.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SeekAndFind
"Sentiment and bad science are killing the world’s poor."

You forgot the subtitle, but congratulations on apparently learning to copy the source code. Just watch out at other sources. They may use relative links, not absolute lings.

9 posted on 11/26/2012 7:21:01 PM PST by neverdem ( Xin loi min oi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson