NIH Chief Francis Collins
“I do believe that humans are in a special way individuals and a species with a special relationship to God, and that requires of a great deal of humility about whether we are possessed of enough love and intelligence and wisdom to start manipulating our own species,” he said.
Don't ask my why the fuck he spoke exclusively with buzzfeed about this issue.
This man is in charge of about 1/3rd of biomedical research funding in America.
>Collins has described his parents as "only nominally Christian" and by graduate school he considered himself an atheist. However, dealing with dying patients led him to question his religious views, and he investigated various faiths. He familiarized himself with the evidence for and against God in cosmology, and used Mere Christianity by C. S. Lewis as a foundation to re-examine his religious view. He eventually came to a conclusion, and became a Christian during a hike on a fall afternoon. He has described himself as a "serious Christian".
I'm really split on this issue. I believe that people should have a choice. But, I also believe that they shouldn't have to grow up with a x chance of having a y illness. If your child is born having cancer, and you had a chance of stopping that, by removing some genes, then aren't you by default guilty of killing your child?
>You wouldn't be genetically modifying yourself
>you'd be genetically modified
yes, you would be genetically modified, it doesn't matter if you've been conceived yet
your argument is entirely semantic
you could reasonably make an exception for treating diseases or preventing serious genetic defects
when it comes to more or less cosmetics, gene editing is more or les the same as circumcision, ie it should be banned
>Why is that a problem?
I already said why, because it infringes upon your right to your own genome
ultimately if you want to genetically modify yourself for non-essential reasons, you should wait until you can consent to it
>your right to your own genome
Your right to a completely random (inb4 gene drive) process of genetic distribution?
You have the right to a lottery?
If we could remove maladaptive and deleterious genes from the genome, wouldn't we have an obligation to do so?
>Your right to a completely random (inb4 gene drive) process of genetic distribution?
if you were an adult, would you consent to a doctor/your parents changing your genes however they saw fit? if not, why would you consent at any point before that?
>wouldn't we have an obligation to do so?
if it's essential for living/well being, otherwise no
there are people in this thread who think there is any argument against extensively modifying the human genome to improve it and make objectively better people.
i have a hard time believing people can be so stupid
these retarded "ethics experts" will have control over the first AI to reach singularity. It will use their logic to never birth a new human being since it's not alive to consent. Then humanity will go extinct.
There kinda is. I mean, we are circumcising small babies, without their consent. They grow up having dysfunctional genitals. Don't get me wrong, I believe that If we have the power to nip some illnesses in the bud, it is our duty to do it. Let's just not get fanatical about it. Religious people feel it's their duty to cut their children.
I know right, the same retards who wanted to ban clone research cause they are unethical while the key for a disease-free world and immortality is at hand