I came across this interesting segment today, discussing some background of the new science that is genetic editing. A discussion that delves a bit into morals and ethics (where to draw the line between a disease and a mere difference). They also covered potential future societal implications (in a world where genetic errors leading to chronic disease can be corrected, will the public try and force people whom choose NOT to correct their genes be forced to shoulder the health care costs associated with their children’s illness?).
Also brought up in the discussion (as a criticsm of the science) is the lack of consent in the process (the child does not get to choose what they are or are not born with, nor do future generations).
I find it a bit amusing that this is actually a counter narrative (after being educated about almost any horrible disease, who would WANT to have been born that way?!).
I think you run a much higher risk of alienating your child if you choose NOT to correct these terrible (yet foreseen) issues if the means to do so is easily available.
If these children have the mental faculties to understand the medical abilities of their time, yet have to live with a (at that time) preventable disease because their parents choose not to, its hard to imagine them NOT being pissed off. No matter why they made the choice.
To utilize a situation from today, think about all the kids that are growing up without any vaccinations due to having parents listening to intellectually crippled baboons go on about an issue that they know NOTHING about. Which turns the parents into the very same kind of people.
Its amazing how much left based bullshit is spread in this way.
Either way, say these kids grow old enough to understand the medical abilities of our day, then end up getting sick from mumps, whooping cough or some other disease that is covered by vaccination. If they know that this could have been prevented, yet was not, its (again) hard to see why they would NOT be pissed at their parents.
Whether it is forgoing genetic corrections due to religious beliefs (a very likely scenario), or forgoing vaccines due to being a moron, the children involved are more likely to be angry about their vulnerability than their lack of consent in the matter.
But moving on, I noticed something else about this topic. It is very similar to another that I quite often deal with. In fact, its almost identical, but for the organisms involved (humans vs. plants and animals).
Genetic modification. GMO. Gee-mo as a former co worker of mine used to say.
While genetic editing is very new (and likely has not yet had the chance to build up the publicity to form an irrational and somewhat conspiratorial backlash), its interesting to note the arguments against it as made so far.
They primarily seem to be based around various ethical boundaries (where will we draw the lines?). With not much emphasis on the safety (or ethics) of the practice or procedure itself.
As opposed to genetic modification of food and plants, which gets ample scrutiny. Some fair, but I would figure a good 95% of it being somewhere on the scale between unfair and flat out bullshit.
Indeed, human genetic editing is a very new science and topic , which will likely mature in the years to come (as will its public perception, be it good or evil).
But it none the less interests me, seeing similar phenomenon but differing reactions. Particularly phenomenons directly involved with the human body (and not just a potential side affect).