Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Genetically engineering 'ethical' babies is a moral obligation, says Oxford professor
1 view
Skip to first unread message
BurfordTJustice
Aug 17, 2012, 6:47:53 AM8/17/12
to
Did not someplace already try to create a 'better' race?
Genetically engineering 'ethical' babies is a moral obligation, says Oxford
professor
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.
"To do otherwise is to consign those who come after us to the ball and chain
of our squeamishness and irrationality.
"Indeed, when it comes to screening out personality flaws, such as potential
alcoholism, psychopathy and disposition to violence, you could argue that
people have a moral obligation to select ethically better children.
"They are, after all, less likely to harm themselves and others."
"If we have the power to intervene in the nature of our offspring - rather
than consigning them to the natural lottery - then we should."
He said that we already routinely screen embryos and foetuses for conditions
such as cystic fibrosis and Down's syndrome and couples can test embryos for
inherited bowel and breast cancer genes.
Rational design is just a natural extension of this, he said.
He said that unlike the eugenics movements, which fell out of favour when it
was adopted by the Nazis, the system would be voluntary and allow parents to
choose the characteristics of their children.
"We're routinely screening embryos and foetuses for conditions such as
cystic fibrosis and Down's syndrome, and there's little public outcry," he
said.
"What's more, few people protested at the decisions in the mid- 2000s to
allow couples to test embryos for inherited bowel and breast cancer genes,
and this pushes us a lot close to creating designer humans."
"Whether we like it or not, the future of humanity is in our hands now.
Rather than fearing genetics, we should embrace it. We can do better than
chance."
Full article appears in September issue of Reader's Digest, out 21st August
Genetically engineering 'ethical' babies is a moral obligation, says Oxford
professor
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.
"To do otherwise is to consign those who come after us to the ball and chain
of our squeamishness and irrationality.
"Indeed, when it comes to screening out personality flaws, such as potential
alcoholism, psychopathy and disposition to violence, you could argue that
people have a moral obligation to select ethically better children.
"They are, after all, less likely to harm themselves and others."
"If we have the power to intervene in the nature of our offspring - rather
than consigning them to the natural lottery - then we should."
He said that we already routinely screen embryos and foetuses for conditions
such as cystic fibrosis and Down's syndrome and couples can test embryos for
inherited bowel and breast cancer genes.
Rational design is just a natural extension of this, he said.
He said that unlike the eugenics movements, which fell out of favour when it
was adopted by the Nazis, the system would be voluntary and allow parents to
choose the characteristics of their children.
"We're routinely screening embryos and foetuses for conditions such as
cystic fibrosis and Down's syndrome, and there's little public outcry," he
said.
"What's more, few people protested at the decisions in the mid- 2000s to
allow couples to test embryos for inherited bowel and breast cancer genes,
and this pushes us a lot close to creating designer humans."
"Whether we like it or not, the future of humanity is in our hands now.
Rather than fearing genetics, we should embrace it. We can do better than
chance."
Full article appears in September issue of Reader's Digest, out 21st August
RH
Aug 17, 2012, 7:03:34 AM8/17/12
to
liberal bigot interest.... RH
CheeseySock
Aug 17, 2012, 3:41:58 PM8/17/12
to
though...
My two cents
Aug 17, 2012, 9:20:21 PM8/17/12
to
On 17 Aug, 11:47, "BurfordTJustice" <burf...@hubdub.mo> wrote:
> Did not someplace already try to create a 'better' race?
You appear to be invoking the Reductio ad Hitlerum fallacy
> Did not someplace already try to create a 'better' race?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum
If we can use our knowledge of genetics to benefit future generations
of humanity then why not?
§ñühwö£f
Aug 18, 2012, 11:31:25 AM8/18/12
to
Can't have that now can we?
:)
--
http://www.privacySOS.org | www.extinctioncrisis.org
www.snuhwolf.9f.com|www.savewolves.org
_____ ____ ____ __ /\_/\ __ _ ______ _____
/ __/ |/ / / / / // // . . \\ \ |\ | / __ \ \ \ __\
_\ \/ / /_/ / _ / \ / \ \| \| \ \_\ \ \__\ _\
/___/_/|_/\____/_//_/ \_@_/ \__|\__|\____/\____\_\
0 new messages