Where do we draw the line?

jajganker · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **jajganker** on Thu Mar 31, 2011 10:23 pm

I've got to thinking. I'm going to say why I've been thinking about what I have, what it is, and then I would like to know your opinion.

So, I was talking to the man I love. He has Becker's Muscular Dystrophy, which is a sex-linked trait on the X chromosome. Thus, we know that any son will be okay, but any daughter will be a carrier. With today's technology, we could either let chance decide which we got if we wanted kids, or choose to have a son and ensure that the trait isn't passed down.

That thought leads to the idea that our power is expanding. It has been since we, as a human race, discovered genetics. Earlier this year a Senator was shot in the head. She's recovering. We can do amazing things with modern medicine. I hate to mention it, but we have the day after pill and abortion. All our discoveries have some good to them, but there are dark sides to some of them as well. It's not just health discoveries. Technology makes it easier and faster to do things, and also easier and faster to kill. Atomic bombs, automatic weapons, planes that fly themselves, and the list goes on.

It's almost as if we've taken to playing God. If we're not there, it seems like we're going int that direction. We can decide who lives and dies with simple actions, and we can also save more people.

So, my question is, where do we draw the line? Where is that line between doing what's right and playing God?

Fallacy · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Fallacy** on Fri Apr 01, 2011 12:04 pm

What is "playing God"? Why is it a bad thing? Why are doing the right thing and "playing God" mutually exclusive options?

jajganker · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **jajganker** on Fri Apr 01, 2011 12:39 pm

"Playing God" is deciding who lives and dies regardless. Like stopping people from living simply due to small issues such as MD and similar things. It's like Artificial Selection of human beings.

I'm not saying they're mutually exclusive, I'm trying to say where do we draw the line between helping improve life/bettering our species and simply discounting people from life due to genetic problems and birth defects.

Also, there is the possibility of eventually creating immortality. What of that? Is it good or bad?

I suppose another way you could think of this is should there even be a line?

Fallacy · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Fallacy** on Fri Apr 01, 2011 1:23 pm

jajganker wrote:"Playing God" is deciding who lives and dies regardless. Like stopping people from living simply due to small issues such as MD and similar things. It's like Artificial Selection of human beings.

I'm not saying they're mutually exclusive, I'm trying to say where do we draw the line between helping improve life/bettering our species and simply discounting people from life due to genetic problems and birth defects.

Also, there is the possibility of eventually creating immortality. What of that? Is it good or bad?

I suppose another way you could think of this is should there even be a line?

Well, I don't consider zygotes, embryos, or fetuses persons (up to a point), so I have no problem with abortion or the morning after pill, or anything like that.

Concerning immortality -- I think that we should totally try to pursue it, and that it's pretty much inevitable for our species to obtain it if we don't die off beforehand; but we must obviously be careful with it.

I'm not sure if there should be a line; give me some more examples and I can give you my opinion on them.

jajganker · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **jajganker** on Fri Apr 01, 2011 2:30 pm

Using technology, we can discount persons with certain defects. Such as what I said earlier about me and my man. We could choose not to have a daughter simply because she'd be a carrier. However, do we have the right to make the choice ourselves? Do we have the right not to give any child a chance just because we don't want to pass down a trait?

And what if it gets to the point where, at least on a genetic standpoint, almost everybody is the same as everybody else with the single "X" and "Y" chromosomes being the only real difference? What then?

Fallacy · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Fallacy** on Fri Apr 01, 2011 2:43 pm

jajganker wrote:Using technology, we can discount persons with certain defects.

When you say persons, what exactly do you mean? Fetuses?

Such as what I said earlier about me and my man. We could choose not to have a daughter simply because she'd be a carrier. However, do we have the right to make the choice ourselves?

I'd say so.

Do we have the right not to give any child a chance just because we don't want to pass down a trait?

Yes.

And what if it gets to the point where, at least on a genetic standpoint, almost everybody is the same as everybody else with the single "X" and "Y" chromosomes being the only real difference? What then?

That's not a very realistic hypothetical. In the case that that happens, making abortion illegal and forcing genetic diversity seems like a good idea.

jajganker · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **jajganker** on Fri Apr 01, 2011 2:50 pm

But should we ever let it get that far?

And what about potential mass genocide of persons with disabilities? I don't mean abortion. I mean young children and adults.

How do we make sure we keep ourselves in check?

Do we need a "line" just to be sure nothing horrid happens?

Fallacy · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Fallacy** on Fri Apr 01, 2011 3:07 pm

jajganker wrote:But should we ever let it get that far?

And what about potential mass genocide of persons with disabilities? I don't mean abortion. I mean young children and adults.

How do we make sure we keep ourselves in check?

Do we need a "line" just to be sure nothing horrid happens?

I'm pretty sure this is a slippery slope fallacy. What evidence is there that a mass genocide of real people will happen if we allow people to have selective abortions?

jajganker · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **jajganker** on Fri Apr 01, 2011 3:11 pm

Curse you for knowing that! Still, this entire thread is a giant hypothetical.

I'm not meaning just abortions. I mean general furthering. Ever hear of Hitler? You know, the guy who killed thousands just because he wanted to make a perfect race?

Don't you think, to a point, we are trying to make a perfect race by not setting a line? Thus, is it not feasible that we are leading ourselves to another Holocaust?

dealing with it · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **dealing with it** on Fri Apr 01, 2011 3:57 pm

I have literally cut friends out of my life because they were convinced that winning the genetic lottery is important. Then again, I live in Alberta, where eugenics was practiced only a handful of decades ago. If I was born in my grandparents' era, I'd have been sterilized, and there are people alive today who still think this was a good idea.

The best way to treat people as ends and not as means is to ask some handicapped people if they'd rather not have been born. Then try to decide what a daughter would think of you considering this.

I don't think of it as playing God. I think of it as meddling with people's lives. You are under no obligation to prevent people from being born.

jajganker · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **jajganker** on Fri Apr 01, 2011 5:10 pm

Ah, eugenics is a hard thing to get by.

Part of the "where do we draw the line?" issue is eugenics.
There are people who will keep going for the sake of eugenics, and, much as it sounds crazy, breeding out undesirable traits is very much eugenics. Going along with that, do we actually want to use eugenics?

I'm not particularly open to it. We recently studied genetics, and eugenics is actually rather...undesireable. Thus, dealing with it brings up a valid point. By making such choices, we are meddling with lives. If I were to ensure I never had a daughter with my man, then wouldn't I be meddling with her potential life?

Fallacy · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Fallacy** on Fri Apr 01, 2011 5:59 pm

Going by the logic of "saving potential lives", you should never masturbate, and have as much procreative sex as is humanely possible.

If handicapped people hadn't been born, they wouldn't care if they hadn't been born.

I do see your point about eugenics, Jag. I would have no qualms with trying to create a perfect race, except for the fact that we're humans and we'd probably try to kill off the "lesser humans". But wait -- if we were trying to create a perfect race via (humane) eugenics, wouldn't we eliminate human arrogance and violence, thus preventing another Holocaust?

jajganker · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **jajganker** on Fri Apr 01, 2011 6:04 pm

Note: I'm just here to play Devil's Advocate now that this is going.

Anyway...
Is there such things as humane eugenics? Is there a humane way to tell even one person that they cannot have children, even if they want them and will be a good parent?

However, on the other side, what is the real harm of breeding out harmful defects? Wouldn't it improve the quality of life?

Fallacy · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Fallacy** on Fri Apr 01, 2011 6:10 pm

jajganker wrote:Is there such things as humane eugenics? Is there a humane way to tell even one person that they cannot have children, even if they want them and will be a good parent?

I don't advocate that. Let parents have whatever kind of children they want -- whether they be genetically modified, normal, or handicapped.

I think there are some really cool and incredibly useful things we change in the human body. Superheroes, anyone? :3

jajganker · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **jajganker** on Fri Apr 01, 2011 6:21 pm

There is no documented case of an actual superhero. However, if we were able to do it...wouldn't that be revolutionary?

Also, you're basically saying that we can deny any potential life as parents as long as we wish it. However, it's immoral to get rid of them once they exist...how does that work? We refuse them the potential to even exist at will, but we turn around and say it's bad to kill them once they've made it past the womb?

dealing with it · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **dealing with it** on Fri Apr 01, 2011 6:24 pm

If someone chooses not to have children, does the reason matter? If you abort because you want to keep the gene pool pure, is that worse than choosing to abort because you can't afford a child?

jajganker · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **jajganker** on Fri Apr 01, 2011 6:33 pm

Is it okay to abort at all? How can you tell whether or not the fetus is thinking cognitively? How do you determine whether it's alive or no? Does a lack of complete development mean that it isn't a person?

Fallacy · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Fallacy** on Fri Apr 01, 2011 7:01 pm

jajganker wrote:There is no documented case of an actual superhero. However, if we were able to do it...wouldn't that be revolutionary?

Yep, although incredibly dangerous.

Also, you're basically saying that we can deny any potential life as parents as long as we wish it. However, it's immoral to get rid of them once they exist...how does that work? We refuse them the potential to even exist at will, but we turn around and say it's bad to kill them once they've made it past the womb?

A big reason for this is because of a woman's right over her own body. Also, I'm not really sure whether I think that casual third trimester abortions should be illegal or not, although I lean towards "no".

jajganker · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **jajganker** on Fri Apr 01, 2011 7:07 pm

Is there such thing as a "casual" abortion? Though, if you let it get to the third trimester, is it still okay to completely get rid of the child?

Fallacy · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Fallacy** on Fri Apr 01, 2011 7:21 pm

dealing with it wrote:If someone chooses not to have children, does the reason matter? If you abort because you want to keep the gene pool pure, is that worse than choosing to abort because you can't afford a child?

I agree mostly with this. Some may view certain reasons for aborting an unborn baby more or less moral, but from a legal perspective, the motivation should be irrelevant, methinks.

Where do we draw the line?

a topic in Discussion & Debate, a part of the RPG forum.

Where do we draw the line?

Re: Where do we draw the line?

Re: Where do we draw the line?

Re: Where do we draw the line?

Re: Where do we draw the line?

Re: Where do we draw the line?

Re: Where do we draw the line?

Re: Where do we draw the line?

Re: Where do we draw the line?

Re: Where do we draw the line?

Re: Where do we draw the line?

Re: Where do we draw the line?

Re: Where do we draw the line?

Re: Where do we draw the line?

Re: Where do we draw the line?

Re: Where do we draw the line?

Re: Where do we draw the line?

Re: Where do we draw the line?

Re: Where do we draw the line?

Re: Where do we draw the line?

Post a reply

Make a Donation

Who is online