Slashdot Mirror
First Genetically Modified Human Embryo Under Review
Wired is reporting that Cornell University researchers genetically modified a human embryo in 2007, but have only recently been gaining publicity as their work is being reviewed. "The research raises a number of thorny ethical questions. Though adding a fluorescent protein was merely a proof-of-principle step, scientists say that modified embryos could be used to research human diseases. They say embryos wouldn't be allowed to develop for more than a few weeks, much less implanted in a woman and brought to term."
At this age they are not self aware. Basically they don't know they exist. I don't see the difference between studying an embryo of that age and studyng plants.
We are already using animals that are aware of their existance in labs. Apes can recognise themselves in front of a mirror and we are using them so I feel this is really not a big issue and we should let science go ahead.
Now I'm going to start a very heated debate. We know that babies start to be self aware around the age of 2 so if you really want to test my logic I'll tell you my opinion. We could logically use babies to make tests. Why this horrifies people is because they are attached to their own babies but since these newborns are not sentient yet, where is the harm in using "lab babies"? They would have to be grown in artificial wombs and all that to dehumanize them but logically it shouldn't be stopped.
I might be modded down for opening a can of worms but try to have fun with this ethical puzzle.
In the long run the Cornell scientists have probably done a good thing, as I'm sure this will be a milestone in manipulating our genome. A great proof of concept. But you have to wonder if, as a species, we're ready for this.
Few people would object to using genetic manipulation to eliminate diseases or birth defects. What about homosexuality? Or dark skin? Or some other socially marginalized trait that has no bearing on the genetic fitness of the individual? What effect would "enhanced humans" have on a society built by "mundane" humans?
I personally believe we don't yet have the wisdom or foresight necessary to manipulate our genes. Until we can reach some sort of ethical consensus on the how, why and when of human genome manipulation we should collectively say no.
If right and wrong are culturally defined (not just specific application, but the general principles), I would argue that they don't exist. There is a big difference between "I/we prefer you don't do X" and "X is wrong."
Imagine that you're walking down the street and trip on someone's foot. You're annoyed, right? Now imagine that you realize the person tripped you on purpose, and is laughing. Now you're indigent. Tripping people is wrong!
Clearly your anger has less to do with the pain of falling than with your deep-seated feeling that "it's wrong to harm others." You would not describe this as a preference.
Whatever we say about the source of morality, I think everyone feels that certain things are simply wrong. To deny this removes an important aspect of what it means to be human.
I know that someone will say that different cultures have different concepts of morality, but I don't buy it. There are different applications, yes; but no culture values cowardice and treason and murder. Some cultures defend their genocide and slavery by arguing that the victims aren't human, for example, but they do this because they must justify their actions against the standard that genocide and slavery are wrong. Our instinct to make excuses shows that we agree with the standard.
An embryo is human (Homo sapiens) and living (not dead tissue), in the technical sense. That has nothing to do with whether it is "a person who { is, should be } granted societal protection from being killed." After all, a brainless vegetable is also human and living, and most folks don't see a problem with pulling the plug on one. (The Terry Schiavo case hinged on whether she really was "brainless," in the public consciousness.)
iSKUNK!
Effectively, by accepting that if they don't feel pain (or anything for that matter) they can be disposed, opens the door to euthanasia in case of people in coma - and also to abortion and to extract embryos from pregnant women to do experiments on them. But also it opens the door to murder, just by giving anesthesics to people before they die. But that opens the door to ethnical cleansing. Later it won't make any difference if the people murdered died a quick painless death (i.e. a gunshot in the head, or even a nuke quick enough to guarantee they won't feel pain), or even a pleasureable death (i.e. drugs).
When that happens, good bye, humanism.... good morning, Soylent Green!
> OK .. I chose the arbitrary point when a fetus emerges from a woman
> as the point a fetus becomes human. I have just as much basis for that
> statement as anyone who chooses fertilization.
Lots of logic problems here.
Fertilization is the only logical point to draw a line ans say HERE is where a seperate entity begins. Sperm is just a part of you, the egg is just a part of her. When they meet something is created that isn't either of you. Consult a basic biology text is this isn't clear; The parts about immune system issues between the fetus and mother should be especially instructive.
Time of birth is unsuitable for a multitude of reasons. First off, a child a few days from delivery would have an almost 100% chance of independent survival with modern medical science. Happens all the time, some trauma forces an early delivery, etc. But the current legal regime, and your stated position, would allow the same baby who could equally be delivered and have an almost normal chance of a productive life to be aborted instead. Fairly major ethical problem.
Of course we (in the US) live in a Republic that clearly has birth as the legal definition of citizenship. Says so right in the Constituition. The legal problem can be fixed of course.
> I've noticed it also depends on whether or not the person arguing
> is the one that has to support it.
This is a popular straw man argument. First off, once you conclude you are dealing with a child and not a tissue mass support is a given. After all you can't legally kill off a two week old by denying it basic life support. If you accept the child argument it is totally consistent. Besides, there are long waiting lists to adopt so the argument fails anyway.
> That flimsy argument aside, the US recognizes 90 days of
> development as to when an abortion can occur,
It is getting harder and harder by the year to find a legal scholar who won't admit Roe v Wade wasn't one of the worst cases of legislation from the bench in the 20th Century. Depending on such a dubious 'ruling' isn't exactly an appeal to reason. Besides, medical science has advanced a lot since the 1970s and will only continue. Arbitrary 'viability' cutoffs are dangerous ground to stake out firm moral or even legal positions.
Democrat delenda est