Scientists actually could remove a gene which causes disease, but this could end up introducing a new, more powerful disease to the body. Finally, genetic modifying can allow people to live longer. You may think that this is good that people would live longer, but there some negative aspects to this. Life would be very boring of course, but more importantly, overpopulation would happen and humans would be in competition with one another since everything would now be limited. While some aspects of genetic engineering should appealing, they all most likely have a dark secret hiding within
Take this into consideration and acknowledge how it could impact humanity, as well as the cloned human. The advancing technology allows individuals to have the freedom of bringing their prescience about cloning humans into a reality, faster than one could imagine. One mistake could entirely deteriorate humankind more than benefit it. In today’s quickly-advancing technological age, human cloning is possible; however, it is unethical because it diminishes individuality, interferes with nature, and increases the risk of fatal failures. In this world we live for the sake of individuality and what makes a person different from the other seven billion people.
Although evolutionists claim to have the majority of scientific evidence supporting their belief, they omit various pieces of germane evidence that refute their hypothesis of evolution. They overlook indisputable scientific facts that would prove evolution to be a debacle. For example, evolutionists ignore Wilmer Penfield 's discovery that, though the human brain and mind are connected, they are distinct from each other (Strobel, 2004, pg. 263-264). Humanity 's complex consciousness is not seen elsewhere in nature.
Many great things can be accomplished through genetic engineering, but scientific progress is being halted by the opposition 's use of arguments with questionable logic. Most notably is their fear of designer babies. The problem with designer babies is that complex beneficial traits such as height, strength, intelligence, and attractiveness aren’t determined by one gene, and are also dependent on many other variables that aren’t genetic. Some traits such as the shape of an earlobe, eye color, or an individual’s susceptibility to certain diseases are determined by a single gene, and that specific gene can be identified and isolated by scientists. Professor of translational epidemiology at Emory University, Cecile Janssens states, “Even when all genes and their complex interactions are completely understood, our ability to use gene editing for favorable traits will remain limited because human traits are just not genetic enough.” (Janssens).
In a similar world, Brave New World by Aldous Huxley individuals are not born from parents but from jars. These jars are tampered with to have control over the development of the embryo. In this world, close relationships to anyone is looked down on. In both Gattaca and Brave New World, both societies wanted to achieve a perfect world but Gattaca’s definition of perfection is to achieve a world of genetically superior brings whereas in Brave New World it is to have a stable civilization. What stands out in comparison of Gattaca and Brave New World is that to achieve stability in Brave New world is to have no close relations to anyone.
In the article, The Case for Eugenics in a Nutshell, Marian Van Court claims that “human intelligence is largely hereditary”. This is a very unusual statement because intelligence depends on a large amount of factors, not on genetics. Human intelligence cannot be hereditary. For starters, when a child is being created, the genes of two people are mixed together, but there is assurance that the child will not be exactly like either parent (Ridley 12). This might explain that the intelligence of the parents won’t be passed down to the child when the offspring cannot even be so similar to parent.
Knoepfler states, “We should not allow creating genetically modified people,because it 's just too dangerous and too unpredictable.” From the Natural Law perspective, it is interfering with the natural and beautiful process of creating life. It is humans trying to play God. As someone who believes in the good that science brings, I feel that risk designer babies bring outweigh the benefits. It will cause a divide in our society where “traditional” children will be consistently compared to genetically modified children, and it may force people to choose to Personally, I would not be comfort with participating in any assisted reproduction processes. The creation of life is sacred and should be respected and performed in the way God
Would you want the perfect child? The idea of having a parent directed genetically perfect generation is not a new, just look at the 1997 film Gattaca. Only, a superior society is good on paper, but not even close to ethical in real life. The process of genetic selection is a sci-fi fantasy which should not be translated into the real world. Genetic selection is new, unsupervised, and dangerous for the potential children who were their parent’s top choice in a laboratory.
Designer Babies Although knowing what and how your child would look and act, it is not morally right to change God 's will due to genetic research engineering. Genetic engineering could cause a lot of problems, examples include; causing a gap in society, losing individuality, and termination of the embryo. The child cannot consent to having its body and life altered. The process To begin the process the doctor needs an embryo. The mother 's egg and the father 's sperm are put into a dish to fertilize.
The short documentary, Evolution’s Achilles Heel many talked from a creationist point of view in which they mainly disprove the evolutionists ideas of how the world came to be. Evolution the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth. Evolution is also called Darwinism, because it was thought up by, Charles Darwin. Evolution is caused by mutations in the genes, which allows new species to be formed. But creationist don’t believe that.
Moreover, human clones would have no choice but to live with being clones, and possibly the pain of some kind of mutation caused by their cloning. In “The Birthmark,” before Aylmer attempted to remove the birthmark from his wife, she started second guessing him, asking questions like, “Perhaps its removal may cause cureless deformity…” (Hawthorne 2). She was wondering if his solution would make her “flaw” worst, which it did in the end. The problem is, clones do not have this option, even though clone deformities are
However, if the government were to regulate scientific advancements, the scientific world would not see much development, nor would everyday life be as efficient. In addition, science would be restricted to basic knowledge if it were not for advancements. A totalitarian government should not regulate scientific advancements because there are many negative effects that follow, such as the loss of true happiness and knowledge of the world, as told by Huxley. Government regulation of science negatively impacts knowledge of nature and its surroundings. Before the Scientific Revolution, people blindly followed the beliefs of the Church and never questioned whether or not these beliefs were true.
This is a result of racism, which is essentially the only reason why the Lacks family were not given money for the use of their family member’s tissue. “...careless journalists and researchers who violated the family’s privacy by publishing everything from Henrietta 's medical records to the family’s genetic information,” (Skloot). Not only were the cells taken without Lacks’ permission, but the medical records of the family were published without the family’s consent. None of the publishers view this as a violation of privacy, most likely because the race of the family. “‘Scientists don’t like to think of HeLa cells as being little bits of Henrietta because it’s much easier to do science when you dissociate your materials from the people they come from,”’ (Skloot).
Stemming from this controversy, debate regarding the moral obligation that individuals have to provide their cells for research has begun. The Lacks family would probably disagree with this argument, since their experience with a cell “abduction” has led to neglect, withholding of information, and a dehumanization resulting from lack of credit and recognition given to Henrietta Lacks. Despite all of the grievances and injustices, the Lacks cannot deny the scientific uses and progress enabled by the cells; one can only wonder what would have become of medical research if the HeLa line had not been
Stem cell research destroys potential human life, and scientists should find other forms of research to obtain stem cells without harming anyone (“NIH Stem Cell Information”). While stem cells are removed (along with the embryo) and used for study to potentially save a life, more risks are taken in doing this than many people realize. As one of the biggest arguments against embryonic stem cell research is that the scientists are sacrificing human life, it is a fair