Are we headed this way? In a near future, will we want our children to be "designed"? Now we have the "right" to "terminate" imperfect creatures, and even create a child to save a sibling. How far should this go?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Labels
Collecting dust
-
▼
2007
(96)
-
▼
January
(15)
- The right to go naked
- Homage to a Catalonian Christmas
- Pan's Labyrinth trailer
- The Hudsucker Proxy
- God bless this man
- There is No Gene for the Human Soul
- My movies: Gattaca
- The not so nice speech!
- My movies: Bananas (1971)
- The use of Christmas decorations...
- The Great Dictator - speech
- I think she wants to start her own blog... should ...
- Kissing Hank's Ass
- Once I met a terrorist....
- Love letters and books
-
▼
January
(15)
11 comments:
Good question, Nuri.
In the U.S. the Supreme Court has awarded women the "right" to end their pregnancy at virtually any moment up to birth, and for any reason they choose. It has become de facto birth control, allowing women to rid themselves of the consequences of having sex casually and without regard for "protection," but it can also be utilized to rid themselves of a "problem" child of the wrong gender or with some abnormality.
It is a slippery slope, indeed.
I, of course, disagree with Mr. Shott. The Supreme Court acknowledged the fact a woman should have control over her body and, thus, removed the legal consequences of exerting that control.
Design children? Why not? If we have the technology to insure our progeny is born without problems that will hinder them from enjoying life to the fullest I fail to see the downside.
Neither do I see a problem with cloning organs to save a child. I haven't thought through the implications of cloning a complete body for those same ends.
Buffalo, I'm not so sure a 7 month old fetus inside my body is "mine". Nothing magical happens in the birth canal. You see nothing wrong in aborting a 9month old baby when it's inside a woman's body but you'd do your best to save him/her outside? what happened in the process of birth, did he magically become a human being?
And as for designing...I have mixed feelings about this. Who wouldn't want to make sure a child is born without ANY predisposition to illness and live a long happy life? BUT, what if imperfections make us who we are too? They might be valuable in the process of becoming a true human being. Many outstanding scientists, musicians and artists were genetically imperfect...
The movie raises good questions, you should see it!
I am a bit uncomfortable with the idea of 3rd trimester abortions other than when a medical necessity to save the mother's life. It seems to me a person should have made up their mind before then.
Re: Designing. Do you think having been born genetically perfect would have prevented them from excelling in their field - or perhaps reaching even greater heights in another field? I don't know, but I would opt for a baby as close to "perfect" as possible.
No interest in getting into the abortion debate with what is likely 'male' commentators....
But, an interesting book that Gattica writers probably took some of their ideas from - the classic: Brave New World. (Huxley).
I just read it again last year and was impressed at how much Huxley foresaw...and then I decided to read 1984 again and realized that the future we face is likely somewhere between the two.
The most interesting thing about Brave New World, I thought, is that Huxley wrote it in 1932.
Last time I checked I was male. Huxley is on of several very far-sighted writers.
Those are great books, I've read them too, Will.
Buffalo, I think imperfections or handicaps sure play a role in a person's character. Had Edgar Allan Poe not been a drunken sad person he wouldn't have written some of his best pieces!
I mean, you don't get the best of you till you've been both happy AND sad. We're made of good and bad, the idea that everything should be perfect, like in Brave New World, would lead to "lame" people. I know it's only a book, but the characters are all the same, and if they're sad, one pill of "soma" and they're happy again!
About abortion, if you're unconfortable about third trimester abortions, when does your discomfort begin? After all, wasn't that HER body?
Buff said: Design children? Why not? If we have the technology to insure our progeny is born without problems that will hinder them from enjoying life to the fullest I fail to see the downside.
...
Re: Designing. Do you think having been born genetically perfect would have prevented them from excelling in their field - or perhaps reaching even greater heights in another field? I don't know, but I would opt for a baby as close to "perfect" as possible.
Perhaps what made great people reach the heights was the challenge of their imperfection and working through it.
So many of those who think abortion is okay also tout such things as not messing with the environment or staying away from political situations in the world, in other words letting things take their own course. If we want to allow nature to take its own course, meaning not puting pollutants into the air and changing the makeup of the atmosphere to out detriment, why not allow nature to take its own course in human precreation?
I detect a philosophical inconistency.
Nuri, I didn't say that I would ban 3rd trimester abortions - only that I am a bit uncomfortable with them.
True, quite often truly great creative works are born of pain, suffering, sorrow, depression, et al. That a person suffers does not mean they weren't born perfect.
JS: Perhaps you should have someone look at your philosophy detector. It is on the fritz.
Just so I'm understanding correctly, a genetically perfect human is a bad thing because it keeps them from suffering?
Now that I think about it, maybe you're right, Buff. Creating perfect individuals is probably a good thing.
But what will a perfect person "be" like?
The more control we are able to exercise in the creation of little people, the better control we will have on what we look like, what we like and dislike, and how we think.
We can eliminate criminals in a generation. We can get rid of people who like to drive pollution creating vehicles. We can eliminate homosexuality--or heterosexuality.
The possibilities are endless.
JS: Hmmm. Sounds like a bit of sarcasm there, my friend. I find it amazing that you would have a problem with insuring a child be born physically and mentally whole. Eliminating time bombs that could, if triggered, render dire results doesn't seem to be a bad thing.
Could we eliminate foggy thinking right wingers? Hmmm. (:-))
Post a Comment