Skip to comments.Genetically engineering 'ethical' babies is a moral obligation, says Oxford professor
Posted on 08/16/2012 12:22:09 PM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
Genetically screening our offspring to make them better people is just 'responsible parenting', claims an eminent Oxford academic.
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".
The academic, 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.
He explained that we are now in the middle of a genetic revolution and that although screening, for all but a few conditions, remained illegal it should be welcomed.
He said that science is increasingly discovering that genes have a significant influence on personality with certain genetic markers in embryo suggesting future characteristics.
By screening in and screening out certain genes in the embryos, it should be possible to influence how a child turns out.
In the end, he said that "rational design" would help lead to a better, more intelligent and less violent society in the future.
"Surely trying to ensure that your children have the best, or a good enough, opportunity for a great life is responsible parenting?" wrote Prof Savulescu, the Uehiro Professor in practical ethics.
"So where genetic selection aims to bring out a trait that clearly benefits an individual and society, we should allow parents the choice.
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
Eventual outcome would be at the bottom of the slippery slope of, - Who decides what your off-spring will be and if and how many you can have? -
Why don’t we just breed robots, programmed for “correct” behavior?
Wait a minute I know this name... oh right he is the editor of the ethics journal that published the article by two ethicists who proposed that infanticide was just a form of late abortion.
“So where genetic selection aims to bring out a trait that clearly benefits an individual and society, we should allow parents the choice.”
AND your Secretary of Health and Human Services will be happy to make that ‘choice’ for you.
“Oh, I’m sorry sweetheart, you are unable to conceive.”
“Dr. Mengele, Dr. Howard, Dr. Fine ... Dr. Mengele, Dr. Howard, Dr. Fine ... to the operating room”
I could imgine that traits of independence, personal responsibility, and work eithics will be the first traits to be screened out.
Genetically screening offspring to create an army for the elite.
So we will have a society of intelligent wusses. B.S. We will always need warriors but I’m sure that warriors can be created too. Have you ever read Brave New World?
This is just another take on the 'salvation by works' angle.
This is absurd. A moral code is a set of Chosen values. It is a product of cognition. Babies do not have the kinds of cognitive skills to do this. There is no instinctive moral code. Now if you really want to improve the Human race then you need to prevent stupid people from breeding. Also liberals but I repeat myself.
That was one conclusion I agreed with. Infanticide is morally the same as abortion - both center on the murder of the innocent. I wonder how this "ethicist" would feel about including homosexuality on the list of characteristics that can be screened out.
I kinda laugh at people like this.
I’ll have utter futility with a side order of exposing my fascism, please!
Why do the nations rage and the peoples plot in vain?
He who sits in the heavens laughs; the Lord holds them in derision.
Now, a thought. There's currently a theory on the table that the mutation(s) that causes CF (cystic fibrosis) is the reason any human beings survive the recurring visits of what we know as The Black Plague.
It's like sickle cell disease. You need one factor only to have immunity to the infection being protected against. If you have two factors you suffer from the pain of sickle cell. If you have no factors, you just die from malaria.
In this case, if you have one copy of the factor you are immune from black plague. Alas, if you have two you may die quite early due to CF. If you have no factors, if black plague comes around you just die.
So, it may be possible through careful genetic counseling to create a race of humans who do not have the CF factor. No one would have CF anymore.
Then when the Black Plague visits again, and the antibiotics fail, everyone will simply die.
Like to note that what happens with CF, since those without the factor can survive to breed ~ you end up with a population without CF factor. Over time they come to dominate and might grow to be as much as 90% of your population. Other places maybe they're only 50%, and in other places 10%.
This would explain why the death rates reported in the Medieval period were all over the place. In some places everybody died. In other places hardly anyone died.
So, what's the ethical value in stripping the CF gene from humanity? It kills and it saves both!
Maybe we should be putting chastity belts on everyone and screening them before they are allowed to contribute genetic material to a conception?
Exactly - except for the few whom the "ruling elite" wish to cultivate for future rule.
I agree with you. I should have made clear they proposed that infanticide could be justified based using the most common argument in favor of abortion.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.