Laws restricting genetics.

Masterhawk · Oct 12, 2016

Most of you have heard of GMOs. For those who haven't, GMO stands for genetically modified organism. The term "gmo" usually refers to genetically modified crops. An example of a GMO is golden rice which is packed with vitamin A and can prevent children in impoverished countries from dying from vitamin A deficiency. Unfortunately, no country has begun producing these potentially life-saving crops yet. Despite the World Health Organization ruling GMOs to be safe, many people are still skeptical. 36 countries ban it and only 28 countries produce it: GM Crops Now Banned in 38 Countries Worldwide - Sustainable Pulse Research - Sustainable Pulse Furthermore, on the first page of "are gmos safe" I only found results stating that they are: https://www.google.com/search?q=cou...hXGMSYKHat6APkQ_AUIBSgA&dpr=1#q=are+gmos+safe

The picture below was made before the new data. REd countries have now laws against GMOs, yellow puts some restrictions on it, and green countries are GMO free.

View attachment 67208546

Another, more advanced form of genetics is cloning. Before we discuss cloning, there are two groups: Therapeutic (cloning cells for medicine or organs for transplants) and reproductive cloning (cloning an entire person or animal).

Although animal cloning has only been practiced on a small scale and human cloning is just a concept as of 2016, this hasn't stopped countries from restricting it. The majority of Americans oppose human cloning but support therapeutic cloning Human Cloning It has gotten to the point where the UN is seeking to pass one of two resolutions: the Costa Rican resolution and the Belgian resolution. The former puts a total ban on cloning while the latter prohibits human cloning but gives therapeutic cloning a choice to the countries. Thirty countries ban all cloning while 15 countries only ban reproductive cloning Laws Against Human Cloning - Human Cloning

View attachment 67208548

In the United States, there is no federal law on human cloning but 15 states prohibit human cloning and three prohibit public funds from reaching them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_cloning#United_States

The last topic I will discuss on genetics is eugenics. Eugenics is when society seeks to encourage genetically healthy traits and weed out harmful ones. I support the idea of modifying babies to prevent down syndrome but when people are killed for being genetically inferior, then the line is crossed. Many conservatives, especially christians see the top two as a slippery slope which could eventually build up to a law which requires some people to be sterilized or even killed. What they need to consider is that the majority of Americans currently oppose human cloning and that by international law, produced humans legally have the same rights as their natural counterparts do. What they also don't know is that the United States actually did this at one point before the Nazis rose to power; thrity states instituted compusory sterilization for some groups https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_in_the_United_States, in fact, America's policies inspired Adolf Hitler to institute more extreme policies in his country. Fortunately, the end of WW2 has led to the decline of these programs making it all the more unlikely that programs which advocate forced sterilization or genetic cleansing will ever mark their return. As someone in the minority of americans which support human cloning, I oppose cloning people for the purpose of exploiting them and forced sterilization.

joG · Oct 12, 2016

Masterhawk said:
Most of you have heard of GMOs. For those who haven't, GMO stands for genetically modified organism. The term "gmo" usually refers to genetically modified crops. An example of a GMO is golden rice which is packed with vitamin A and can prevent children in impoverished countries from dying from vitamin A deficiency. Unfortunately, no country has begun producing these potentially life-saving crops yet. Despite the World Health Organization ruling GMOs to be safe, many people are still skeptical. 36 countries ban it and only 28 countries produce it: GM Crops Now Banned in 38 Countries Worldwide - Sustainable Pulse Research - Sustainable Pulse Furthermore, on the first page of "are gmos safe" I only found results stating that they are: https://www.google.com/search?q=cou...hXGMSYKHat6APkQ_AUIBSgA&dpr=1#q=are+gmos+safe

The picture below was made before the new data. REd countries have now laws against GMOs, yellow puts some restrictions on it, and green countries are GMO free.

View attachment 67208546

Another, more advanced form of genetics is cloning. Before we discuss cloning, there are two groups: Therapeutic (cloning cells for medicine or organs for transplants) and reproductive cloning (cloning an entire person or animal).

Although animal cloning has only been practiced on a small scale and human cloning is just a concept as of 2016, this hasn't stopped countries from restricting it. The majority of Americans oppose human cloning but support therapeutic cloning Human Cloning It has gotten to the point where the UN is seeking to pass one of two resolutions: the Costa Rican resolution and the Belgian resolution. The former puts a total ban on cloning while the latter prohibits human cloning but gives therapeutic cloning a choice to the countries. Thirty countries ban all cloning while 15 countries only ban reproductive cloning Laws Against Human Cloning - Human Cloning

View attachment 67208548

In the United States, there is no federal law on human cloning but 15 states prohibit human cloning and three prohibit public funds from reaching them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_cloning#United_States

The last topic I will discuss on genetics is eugenics. Eugenics is when society seeks to encourage genetically healthy traits and weed out harmful ones. I support the idea of modifying babies to prevent down syndrome but when people are killed for being genetically inferior, then the line is crossed. Many conservatives, especially christians see the top two as a slippery slope which could eventually build up to a law which requires some people to be sterilized or even killed. What they need to consider is that the majority of Americans currently oppose human cloning and that by international law, produced humans legally have the same rights as their natural counterparts do. What they also don't know is that the United States actually did this at one point before the Nazis rose to power; thrity states instituted compusory sterilization for some groups https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_in_the_United_States, in fact, America's policies inspired Adolf Hitler to institute more extreme policies in his country. Fortunately, the end of WW2 has led to the decline of these programs making it all the more unlikely that programs which advocate forced sterilization or genetic cleansing will ever mark their return. As someone in the minority of americans which support human cloning, I oppose cloning people for the purpose of exploiting them and forced sterilization.

You would modify "babies to prevent down syndrome". Would you support modification to prevent weak musculature or low mathematical capabilities?

Masterhawk · Oct 12, 2016

joG said:
You would modify "babies to prevent down syndrome". Would you support modification to prevent weak musculature or low mathematical capabilities?

I believe that parents should have the right to prevent their kids from having genetic disabilities. Modifying babies to grow up to have good looking bodies or be taller is up to debate.

USViking · Oct 12, 2016

joG said:
You would modify "babies to prevent down syndrome". Would you support modification to prevent weak musculature or low mathematical capabilities?

Yes of course.

joG · Oct 12, 2016

USViking said:
Yes of course.

And you would allow abortion?

joG · Oct 12, 2016

Masterhawk said:
I believe that parents should have the right to prevent their kids from having genetic disabilities. Modifying babies to grow up to have good looking bodies or be taller is up to debate.

It is certainly a handicap to be short in a tall world and a disability to be dumb, where all are super bright.

USViking · Oct 12, 2016

joG said:
And you would allow abortion?

This thread has nothing to do with abortion. Nevertheless I will reply once and only once on the abortion theme.

In cases where the fetus was sure not to develop past a mental vegetative state, yes, I would allow abortion.

In cases where there was no reason to suspect risk of vegetative dysfunction, no, I would not allow abortion unless pregnancy threatened to kill or permanently injure the mother.

There are other conditions where I might allow it or where I cannot decide, which I am not going to get entangled in argument over.

I would of course allow any genetic therapy capable of averting any prenatal abnormality.

Lord Tammerlain · Oct 12, 2016

USViking said:
This thread has nothing to do with abortion. Nevertheless I will reply once and only once on the abortion theme.

In cases where the fetus was sure not to develop past a mental vegetative state, yes, I would allow abortion.

In cases where there was no reason to suspect risk of vegetative dysfunction, no, I would not allow abortion unless pregnancy threatened to kill or permanently injure the mother.

There are other conditions where I might allow it or where I cannot decide, which I am not going to get entangled in argument over.

I would of course allow any genetic therapy capable of averting any prenatal abnormality.

How about modifications to make them stronger or more intelligent?

USViking · Oct 12, 2016

Lord Tammerlain said:
How about modifications to make them stronger or more intelligent?

Yes of course.

Until modification is available to all I would require that it be assigned on a random basis so that rich families do not benefit disproportionally.

Lord Tammerlain · Oct 12, 2016

USViking said:
Yes of course.

Until modification is available to all I would require that it be assigned on a random basis so that rich families do not benefit disproportionally.

Who would of course pay for it?

USViking · Oct 12, 2016

Lord Tammerlain said:
Who would of course pay for it?

Since you have changed the subject from the ethics and assignment of prenatal genetic engineering to its financing, then I presume you agree with the views I have previously expressed.

As far as the financing goes, make it some combination of the government and private means, and we will just have to hope the two can get together effectively.

Lord Tammerlain · Oct 12, 2016

USViking said:
Since you have changed the subject from the ethics and assignment of prenatal genetic engineering to its financing, then I presume you agree with the views I have previously expressed.

As far as the financing goes, make it some combination of the government and private means, and we will just have to hope the two can get together effectively.

I expect that it will occur sooner rather then later. I can see some rather dramatic sociological issues arising from a "super class" of engineered humans and non modified humans.

But from an ethical standpoint I don't have an issue with your suggestions. I was just surprised by the call for "equality" when it comes to a elective medical procedure. (IE government funded in part)

USViking · Oct 12, 2016

Lord Tammerlain said:
I expect that it will occur sooner rather then later. I can see some rather dramatic sociological issues arising from a "super class" of engineered humans and non modified humans.

Without engineering we already have a super class of both physical and intellectual elites. See the sports and science sections of any reputable newspaper on any day of the year. Increasing the numbers of such people will reduce the extent of physical and intellectual division amongst us.

Lord Tammerlain said:
But from an ethical standpoint I don't have an issue with your suggestions. I was just surprised by the call for "equality" when it comes to a elective medical procedure. (IE government funded in part)

I favor government funding and management if they are the only way to ensure equality on important political and sociological issues.

As far as it being an elective procedure, I suspect that virtually all parents would choose to endow their children with as much strength and intelligence as science can offer.

bmr528 · Oct 12, 2016

I can understand modifying genetics to maybe eliminate disease, abnormal-ties, retardation etc... But if you let parents choose the physical characteristic's, then you have a world full of 6 foot eight inch NBA players/football players, Or a world full of extremely good looking actors/actress's.. Everyone's perfect, no average people?

I think it may cause issue's... Or is it only for the super rich??

Is this not what Hitler wanted? the perfect society?

djl

Masterhawk · Oct 12, 2016

Apparently the 2 pictures I psoted don't work and the forum doesn't let me edit posts after 10 minutes so here they are:

Btw, I accidentally said that red countries have laws against GMOS when they allow them. Yellow has restrictions and green implements a total ban

And here's the other one:

joG · Oct 13, 2016

USViking said:
This thread has nothing to do with abortion. Nevertheless I will reply once and only once on the abortion theme.

In cases where the fetus was sure not to develop past a mental vegetative state, yes, I would allow abortion.

In cases where there was no reason to suspect risk of vegetative dysfunction, no, I would not allow abortion unless pregnancy threatened to kill or permanently injure the mother.

There are other conditions where I might allow it or where I cannot decide, which I am not going to get entangled in argument over.

I would of course allow any genetic therapy capable of averting any prenatal abnormality.

You will find as you meander through societal matters that they are all interrelated. You make a small change here and way over there you can have a sudden and unexpected problem or benefit. Here the connection is much closer and can cause a paradox in many otherwise quite consistent arguments, depending on the direction from which the discussion comes. So, I was just interested on your take. So, thx.

USViking · Oct 13, 2016

WILL YOU PLEASE POST LINKS TO ALL YOUR CITATIONS, INCLUDING GRAPHICS. THANK YOU.

Masterhawk said:
Apparently the 2 pictures I psoted don't work and the forum doesn't let me edit posts after 10 minutes so here they are:

Btw, I accidentally said that red countries have laws against GMOS when they allow them. Yellow has restrictions and green implements a total ban

View attachment 67208585

And here's the other one:

View attachment 67208587

Debate Politics is the worst internet discussion board I have ever seen for people not linking their citations.

Masterhawk · Oct 13, 2016

USViking said:
WILL YOU PLEASE POST LINKS TO ALL YOUR CITATIONS, INCLUDING GRAPHICS. THANK YOU.

Debate Politics is the worst internet discussion board I have ever seen for people not linking their citations.

1st image: Where are GMOs grown and banned? #GMOFAQ

2nd image: The New York Times > Science > Image > Laws on Cloning

Hopefully nothing has changed since 2007 because I couldn't find a newer one.

Sherman123 · Oct 14, 2016

What is being debated here? Whether we support GMO's, Cloning, and/or genetic modification of human beings?

Kal'Stang · Oct 14, 2016

I once watched a movie where most people were genetically modified to be smarter, better attractive, better endurance etc etc. There were however some that were not. Those people were generally resigned to menial type labor and were treated basically as second class citizens.

Now, I get it, it was just a movie. But frankly I saw in it aspects of real life. Both through my studies of history and in current situations. As such I can easily see such things as being realized if we were to allow genetic modifying as you propose. It'd be one thing if we were able to guarantee that such wouldn't happen. As it stands however I see no reason to support such genetic manipulation.

However I do support genetic manipulation that gets rid of genetic diseases such as down syndrome etc etc.

I also support the cloning of body parts in order to keep a person healthy. Though I would prefer medical nano technology over that and believe that it would be far more beneficial than cloning body parts.

I don't however support cloning whole human beings. Cloning is not so far advanced that it can get past the problem of degeneration. IE: You can only clone something so much before the DNA becomes so degraded that it is no longer usable. If our society were to become nothing more than clones (particularly in light of the fact that clones eventually become infertile if done enough) then we as a species would be guaranteed to die out. I don't mind dying out naturally...but of our own making? Stupid.

Masterhawk · Oct 28, 2016

Kal'Stang said:
I once watched a movie where most people were genetically modified to be smarter, better attractive, better endurance etc etc. There were however some that were not. Those people were generally resigned to menial type labor and were treated basically as second class citizens.

Now, I get it, it was just a movie. But frankly I saw in it aspects of real life. Both through my studies of history and in current situations. As such I can easily see such things as being realized if we were to allow genetic modifying as you propose. It'd be one thing if we were able to guarantee that such wouldn't happen. As it stands however I see no reason to support such genetic manipulation.

However I do support genetic manipulation that gets rid of genetic diseases such as down syndrome etc etc.

I also support the cloning of body parts in order to keep a person healthy. Though I would prefer medical nano technology over that and believe that it would be far more beneficial than cloning body parts.

I don't however support cloning whole human beings. Cloning is not so far advanced that it can get past the problem of degeneration. IE: You can only clone something so much before the DNA becomes so degraded that it is no longer usable. If our society were to become nothing more than clones (particularly in light of the fact that clones eventually become infertile if done enough) then we as a species would be guaranteed to die out. I don't mind dying out naturally...but of our own making? Stupid.

about the whole labor thing, we will have robots which can do a better job in blue collar jobs than any human being will well before human cloning becomes available.

PirateMk1 · Oct 30, 2016

Kal'Stang said:
I once watched a movie where most people were genetically modified to be smarter, better attractive, better endurance etc etc. There were however some that were not. Those people were generally resigned to menial type labor and were treated basically as second class citizens.

Now, I get it, it was just a movie. But frankly I saw in it aspects of real life. Both through my studies of history and in current situations. As such I can easily see such things as being realized if we were to allow genetic modifying as you propose. It'd be one thing if we were able to guarantee that such wouldn't happen. As it stands however I see no reason to support such genetic manipulation.

However I do support genetic manipulation that gets rid of genetic diseases such as down syndrome etc etc.

I also support the cloning of body parts in order to keep a person healthy. Though I would prefer medical nano technology over that and believe that it would be far more beneficial than cloning body parts.

I don't however support cloning whole human beings. Cloning is not so far advanced that it can get past the problem of degeneration. IE: You can only clone something so much before the DNA becomes so degraded that it is no longer usable. If our society were to become nothing more than clones (particularly in light of the fact that clones eventually become infertile if done enough) then we as a species would be guaranteed to die out. I don't mind dying out naturally...but of our own making? Stupid.

They have already gotten past the degeneration of clones you write of. If fact Dolly the sheep's sister clones have been steadily improved and live typical sheep life spans now.

I support cloning for the purpose of making linked and synched individuals that share a singular consciousness. A you with multiple bodies if you will. If one of your bodies dies it would be similar to losing an appendage, as the consciousness of the whole is preserved.

Laws restricting genetics.

Well-known member