Medical Research or Playing God?

[vargo]

Recently, there has been a flood of controversy surrounding the issue of genetic engineering. Virtually every congressman in the United States has spoken out against cloning, and many have spoken out against genetic research which could potentially irradicate any disease in an unborn child, or cure current fatal diseases like muscular dystrophy.

 

Another topic of hot controversy is genetic tailoring, where parents can make designer children. They can make sure that their children are good from the get-go. Of course, some are afraid of this kind of tinkering will lead to the creation of a master race, much like events portrayed in the movie Gattaca, where non-genetically tailored people were relegated to a sort of slave class, getting minimum pay for the worst jobs. The best jobs were reserved for the genetically elite.

 

Surrounding both the issues of genetic engineering and cloning is the concept of "playing God." You'll often hear some congressman blathering on about how we have "no right to 'play God'." We're never told why we don't have this right. It's just the most recent mantra that bureaucrats have chosen to indoctrinate the public with. This one works particularly well, since the overwhelming majority of Americans are religious (only about 10% are nonreligious), Christian, Jewish and Muslim in particular. So, no matter whose god you're talking about, most everyone will agree that it's wrong to assume his role. We're never told why, but I suspect it has something to do with the assumed perfection of the Christian/Jewish/Islam God. I say that becaue the overwhelming majority or cloning opponents are Christian, Jewish and Islam (no mystery behind that one; supposedly they're all the same God, according to Judaism and Islam. Christianity, of course, believes that their God is different and better). While I can imagine the Buddhist and Hindu religions having objections to cloning based on their beliefs in reincarnation, I haven't really heard of Buddhist monks actively preaching out against cloning, trying to influence state matters.

 

So, you may ask yourself, "What's wrong with implementing a technology, like genetic tailoring, which could potentially be used to rid the world of a good deal of genetically transferred diseases?" No one really knows except for the religious people. Some fear that Jesus will personally come down, on the advent of human cloning, and basically say "OK, that's enough, guys." Please note that I'm deadly serious about this. Christian indoctrination actually does go that far. I have heard such concerns voiced.

 

Here are some common objections to cloning, genetic engineering and genetic research.

 

If we allow people to clone themselves, the clone may feel different or ostracized from society. The psychological impact on a child after finding out that they were merely the product of some test tube experiment rather than the beautiful, natural way of reproducing would be immense.

 

Since there is literally no way to distinguish between a cloned human being and one birthed through natural methods, it is highly doubtful that the child would be ostracized by society simply because no one would know. Furthermore, we have children produced by invitro fertilization, and they are essentially test tube babies, as well, not the result of natural conception methods. There is no history of those children being psychologically damaged or deranged. Furthermore, if presented with the facts at a proper age, adopted children cope quite well. There's no precedent for this psychological argument at all. Sometimes black children feel exiled in school. Does that mean we should ban parents from having black children?

 

A cloned human isn't really a human being. They are abominations. Only God has the right to create life.

 

Bigoted supposition that can be expected if cloned children ever become even somewhat common in the American population. This argument is heavily layden on assumption. First, the person assumes that God exists. Secondly, he assumes to know the preferred method of reproduction. How does this person know that God won't start "creating" children when we start cloning? And, worst of all, it is assumed that, if a human being is created through means other than natural "God-approved" (assumedly) methods, that person isn't a human, even though clones are physically and biologically indistinguishable from naturally conceived humans!

 

I won't accept the whole "playing God" argument until a few criteria are met:

 

1: God must be shown to exist.

 

2: God must be shown to actively interact with the natural world.

 

3: It must be proven that those purporting this argument have been in direct communication with God, and know his intentions. A written transcript, video record or other form of documentation with sufficient evidence that the being in question is indeed God would suffice.

Or

God himself must issue a public statement condemning cloning, along with a list of reasons why he does so.

 

Cloning is still a dangerous technology. If we allow scientists to experiment on human embryos, we let them destroy countless lives.

 

Another heavily assuming argument. This one assumes that embryos are actual human beings, but something is not defined by its potential! Sure, the embryo has the potential to become a human being, but it also has the potential to miscarry. Furthermore, you don't cook eggs for breakfast and proclaim that you're cooking chicken, do you? The embyro is life, but that's not the question. The question is whether or not it's human life.

 

Cloning is science gone berserk. Tinkering with the building blocks of human life is just unfathomable. These scientists are mad.

 

This pop-culture argument stems from films like Jurassic Park, where the concept of scientists working to bring dinosaurs back to life is treated as something that is utterly disastrous and that will inevitably go wrong. The people who use this argument typically believe that there is some higher force that dictates events in nature (other than the laws of physics, of course), and that any time man attempts to tinker with what happened (i.e. bringing dinosaurs back), this force will make sure that we pay a terrible, terrible price for our arrogance.

 

There are many problems with this argument. Firstly, we've never observed this "higher power", be it God or Fate or Karma or whatever, so assuming that it exists as a premise is flawed. Secondly, even if it does exist, then how can we presume to know its intentions? What if it wants us to bring dinosaurs back? If it didn't, it wouldn't have left their DNA behind. How do we know that any action we take, no matter how considered, isn't the dictate of this force? We don't, and we just start second-guessing ourselves, which is completely unproductive.

 

Why do scientists want to close a human, anyway? There's no reason to. We just shouldn't do it.

 

 

Usually reserved for when cloning/genetic engineering opponents are backed into a corner, this argument attempts to shift the burden of proof on to the other person. After having all his or her reasons not to clone decimated, the person then tries to force scientists to explain their position, when it's perfectly clear.

 

Yes, scientists want to clone a human being simply to say that they did it and make money from it. Uncomfortable with the idea? Too bad. Science is all about saying, "We can do it." It's a challenge, and scientists want to meet it. Research into cloning a human being would teach us more about how the genetic code works, and we'd gain invaluable information through such research.

 

Suppose we adopted this ridiculous "we shouldn't tinker with nature" argument for every other endeavor scientists undertook. We'd have no genetically modified food, no seedless graps, no pitless watermelons, and food wouldn't be as readily available in the US as it is. Did you know that most of the produce on the shelves of your local grocery store is genetically modified in some way? That's playing God. Should we stop?

 

Or, how about making sky scrapers? The Babylonians were supposedly punished by the Christian god for building a really big tower, because they had the arrogance to presume to be like God. So, building really tall buildings must be playing God as well. Why hasn't God struck Donald Trump dead, or knocked down the World Trade Center (oh wait, he sent his Al-Queda minions to do that for him).

 

I'm getting sick of this pointless anti-cloning attitude based entirely in religion. It's just one more example of Christian bigots trying to shove their beliefs down others' throats by trying to put their beliefs into law. All you hear is the same, repetitive arguments. "It's wrong to play God." "God has a way he wants things done." It's presumptuous bullshit. And our congressmen, who are supposed to exercise religiously neutral judgment, buy them! Ole Dubya went so far as to ask the Pope for his opinion, as if it mattered! The opposition to cloning is almost entirely religious in origin, and lawmakers should thusly ignore it.

 

This is research that could save millions of lives, and yet we're supposed to outlaw it because "God has a plan." It makes no sense to me, and I just can't see what's so difficult to grasp about the separation of church and state

[Guest Heavenly Deceit]

Scientists are playing god the moment they start demanding sacrifices, genocide and rape.

[a midnight star]

***** Furthermore, you don't cook eggs for breakfast and proclaim that you're cooking chicken, do you?*****

 

Ahh, but there is a difference. Eggs that we eat for breakfast have not been fertilized. Chickens can lay eggs that were never fertilized. An unfertilized egg is not life. It has potential, but is not life. Life IMHO does not start until the moment of fertalization.

 

As a woman we rid ouselves of at least one egg every month.

[Vixentrox]

Farm fresh eggs might be fertalized if the rooster is running with the hens.

[a midnight star]

True, but most egg farms, including those who who sell independently keep the roosters away from the hen house. That and most roosters can not run around together. They will attack each other.

 

(farm girl here)

[Vixentrox]

We only had one rooster for our 30 or so hens. I'm sure he was quite a happy fellow.

[a midnight star]

LOL!!! I had to call my grandmother just to make sure I wasn't sticking my foot in it!!

 

One rooster is fine, but more than one in the same hen house would be a disaster. The roosters will fight to the death over the hens.

 

and here I thought that men go crazy over women!

[highvoltage]

Some men do.

[highvoltage]

But as to the original topic, if the chicken eggs were fertilized and you fried one up, would you call it cooking chicken?

[Asimov]

So what's wrong with taking a life?

[vargo]

But as to the original topic, if the chicken eggs were fertilized and you fried one up, would you call it cooking chicken?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Thank you for keeping my point of the Topic

[a midnight star]

***But as to the original topic, if the chicken eggs were fertilized and you fried one up, would you call it cooking chicken?*****

 

 

Yep. Ok ready for some illogical thought?

 

I didn't know until about 5 years ago that the eggs weren't fertilized. I ate them anyways. I grew up on a farm and eating chickens, rabbits, etc.. was well, normal. It was just the way it was. Now, I do not think I could cook and eat an egg that was fertalized. Just the thought of it turns my stomache. There a couple of things that I was raised up with that I can't seem to stomache. Eating cow tongue is one of those. It didn't bother me until after I was away from it all.

 

Will I feel the same way about this subject? I do not know. All I do know is that I must follow my heart and what I feel is right, but at the same time respect those who follows a different moral compass. I do know that I do not equate human life with animal life.

 

***So what's wrong with taking a life?****

 

I could not justify within myself to what equates to me is killing humans.

[Asimov]

I could not justify within myself to what equates to me is killing humans.

 

But it isn't a human. It's a potential human.

[RedPillAddict]

I am a clone. I killed my original. You cant tell me apart in any way except for the oversized genitalia, of course.

[a midnight star]

****But it isn't a human. It's a potential human.***

 

And that is the base of our disagreement. I am willing to agree to disagree with you.

 

There are two schools of thought.

 

1. Life begins as conception (this was my point with the eggs)

2. Life begins at bith (this is used to justify term abortions)

 

actually maybe one more thought

 

3. Life begins somewhere during the 3rd. Trimester.

 

I am at the first thought. You think differently.

 

To each their own.

[RedPillAddict]

****But it isn't a human. It's a potential human.***

 

And that is the base of our disagreement. I am willing to agree to disagree with you.

 

There are two schools of thought.

 

1. Life begins as conception (this was my point with the eggs)

2. Life begins at bith (this is used to justify term abortions)

 

actually maybe one more thought

 

3. Life begins somewhere during the 3rd. Trimester.

 

I am at the first thought. You think differently.

 

To each their own.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

life starts in the nutsack, if you wanna get technical.

 

Thousands of men are destroying potential humans everyday in America! We must ban masturbation!

[a midnight star]

come on now. Women rid themselves of an egg every month.

[RedPillAddict]

come on now. Women rid themselves of an egg every month.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

true.

[Asimov]

****But it isn't a human. It's a potential human.***

 

And that is the base of our disagreement. I am willing to agree to disagree with you.

 

There are two schools of thought.

 

1. Life begins as conception (this was my point with the eggs)

2. Life begins at bith (this is used to justify term abortions)

 

actually maybe one more thought

 

3. Life begins somewhere during the 3rd. Trimester.

 

I am at the first thought. You think differently.

 

To each their own.

 

I think life is a little difficult to define when it comes to things like that...we kill life every day, death isn't the problem.

[crazy-tiger]

come on now. Women rid themselves of an egg every month.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<fundie>

That's natural though... The wanton genocide that is casually called "masturbation" is deliberate and deserves the death penalty.

</fundie>

[a midnight star]

 

Finally, something we can agree on. That is stupid and silly.

 

My mother walked in on my once and accused me of practicing witchcraft. Who knows, maybe I was a pagan way back when. The thought was that as long as you didn't get off it wasn't a sin.

[crazy-tiger]

My mother walked in on my once...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

 

I don't think I'd ever have been able to face my mother again if she'd walked in on me.

 

Nothing is more embarassing that getting masturbation tips from your mum...

[vargo]

***But as to the original topic, if the chicken eggs were fertilized and you fried one up, would you call it cooking chicken?*****

Yep. Ok ready for some illogical thought?

 

I didn't know until about 5 years ago that the eggs weren't fertilized. I ate them anyways. I grew up on a farm and eating chickens, rabbits, etc.. was well, normal. It was just the way it was. Now, I do not think I could cook and eat an egg that was fertalized. Just the thought of it turns my stomache. There a couple of things that I was raised up with that I can't seem to stomache. Eating cow tongue is one of those. It didn't bother me until after I was away from it all.

 

Will I feel the same way about this subject? I do not know. All I do know is that I must follow my heart and what I feel is right, but at the same time respect those who follows a different moral compass. I do know that I do not equate human life with animal life.

 

***So what's wrong with taking a life?****

 

I could not justify within myself to what equates to me is killing humans.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

The embyro is life, but that's not the question. The question is whether or not it's human life.

[Samurai Tailor]

****But it isn't a human. It's a potential human.***

 

And that is the base of our disagreement. I am willing to agree to disagree with you.

 

There are two schools of thought.

 

1. Life begins as conception (this was my point with the eggs)

2. Life begins at bith (this is used to justify term abortions)

 

actually maybe one more thought

 

3. Life begins somewhere during the 3rd. Trimester.

 

I am at the first thought. You think differently.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Do you have difficulty reconciling the fact that at least half (and perhaps as much as 80%) of all zygotes will spontaneously abort?

[highvoltage]

****But it isn't a human. It's a potential human.***

 

And that is the base of our disagreement. I am willing to agree to disagree with you.

 

There are two schools of thought.

 

1. Life begins as conception (this was my point with the eggs)

2. Life begins at bith (this is used to justify term abortions)

 

actually maybe one more thought

 

3. Life begins somewhere during the 3rd. Trimester.

 

I am at the first thought. You think differently.

To each their own.

 

Yes, I respect your opinion. As I think I said in another thread of yours (and TFT disagreed with me) there isn't an absolute right or wrong in this situation. We have to make up our own minds.

 

Now, more food for thought:

I always considered what makes us human is not our bodies, or our genetics, but our minds. No one ever defined a human with "ATGGGCCGATTTTGCC...". It's our ability to think, feel, and percieve our environment that makes us human. It's how we see and interact with the world and each other that make us human.

 

First you have an egg, which has 23 human chromosomes. Then you have a sperm with 23 more chromosomes. What happens when you combine the two? You get a zygote with 46 chromosomes. The zygote then begins to split throught several generations and becomes a blastocyst, which contains about 100 cells, all of which are identical to one another (embryonic stem cells). All these cells do is split, there are no heart cells, no brain cells, no liver cells, etc. It's not until after this stage do these cells begin to differentiate from each other. Yet when still in the blastocyst stage, these cells do not compose an independent organism. They are simply a mass of identical cells.

 

-------

Now, I also have a problem with abortion, but not at the very earliest stages of pregnancy. I do have a problem aborting a fetus, but not an embryo. Do you see the difference? I don't have a problem with harvesting these cells (from the blastocyst) to cure diseases that real people that are already living are suffering through.