The debate over advanced genetic engineering such as germline intervention brings us directly to the questions popularized by newspaper headlines: Should we ask our scientists to play God? Or, should we ask them to refrain from playing God? The way the questions are posed in the press is usually so superficial as to be misleading. Yet, beneath the superficiality we find a theological issue of some consequence, namely, do we as human beings share with God some responsibility for the ongoing creativity of our world?
The rhetoric that usually employs the phrase, “play God,” is aimed at inhibiting, if not shutting down, certain forms of scientific research and medical therapy. This applies particularly to the field of human genetics and, still more particularly, to the prospect of germline intervention for purposes of human enhancement—that is, the insertion of new gene segments of DNA into sperm or eggs before fertilization or into undifferentiated cells of an early embryo that will be passed on to future generations and may become part of the permanent gene pool. Some scientists and religious spokespersons are putting a chain across the gate to germline enhancement and with a posted sign reading, “Thou shalt not play God.” A Time/CNN poll cites a substantial majority (58%) who believe altering human genes is against the will of God.
Why do critics of genetic research prescribe a new commandment, “Thou shalt not play God”? The answer is that human pride or hubris is dangerous. We have learned from experience that what the Bible says is true: “pride goes before destruction” (Proverbs 16:18). And in our modern era, pride among the natural scientists has taken the form of overestimating our knowledge, of arrogating for science a kind of omniscience that we do not in fact have. Or, to refine it a bit: “playing God” means we confuse the knowledge we do have with the wisdom to decide how to use it. Frequently lacking this wisdom, we falsely assume we possess beneficial scientific knowledge, which then leads to unforeseen consequences, such as the destruction of the ecosphere. Applied to genetic therapy, the commandment against “playing God” implies that the unpredictability of destructive effects on the human gene pool should lead to a proscription against germline intervention.
A related implication of the phrase, “playing God,” is that DNA has come to function in effect as an inviolable sacred, a special province of the divine, that should be off limits to human tampering.
Usage of genetic modification to pick and chose features and personality traits of embryos could conceivably occur in future times. Wealthy individuals could essentially purchase a baby with built-in genetic advantages (Simmons). Ethically, these seem immoral. Playing God and taking control over the natural way of life makes some understandably uneasy. Ultimately, religious and moral standpoints should play a role in the future of genetic engineering, but not control it. Genetic engineering’s advantages far outweigh the cost of a genetically formulated baby and
As stated in the book, “college students have much to teach about sex” (8). That is because the values, ideologies, and worldviews of the students are representative of greater American culture. Although flawed, hookup culture on American campuses hold the possibility of accepting a culture of inclusivity, care, pleasure, and freedom while also rejecting predatory behavior, racism, classism, and abuse. Dismissing hookup culture all together is blind to the reality that young adults are going to have sex, and since sex is non-negotiable, one’s aim should be to foster open dialogue and critical thought onto a future where everyone enjoys the ability to freely explore sexuality, sex, and gender on their own
The ethics behind genetic engineering have been discussed and argued for years now. Some arguing points often include competitive advantages, playing God, and the polarization of society, but Sandel takes a different approach in explaining society’s “unease” with the morality of genetic engineering. Broadcasted through several examples throughout the book, Sandel explains that genetic engineering is immoral because it takes away what makes us human and makes us something else. He states that by taking control of our genetic makeup, or the makeup of our progeny, we lose our human dignity and humility. Our hunger for control will lead to the loss of appreciation for natural gifts, whether they are certain talents, inherited from the genetic lottery, or the gift of life itself.
"It's The End Of The World As We Know It (And I Feel Fine)" --- From a Song by REM
Picture a young couple in a waiting room looking through a catalogue together. This catalogue is a little different from what you might expect. In this catalogue, specific traits for babies are being sold to couples to help them create the "perfect baby." This may seem like a bizarre scenario, but it may not be too far off in the future. Designing babies using genetic enhancement is an issue that is gaining more and more attention in the news. This controversial issue, once thought to be only possible in the realm of science-fiction, is causing people to discuss the moral issues surrounding genetic enhancement and germ line engineering. Though genetic research can prove beneficial to learning how to prevent hereditary diseases, the genetic enhancement of human embryos is unethical when used to create "designer babies" with enhanced appearance, athletic ability, and intelligence.
Sex in today’s world can be seen anywhere. It is on billboards, radio stations, personal books, school books, magazines, peers, movies, songs, and the most famous is televisions. Commercials use seductive images, sounds, and music grabbing the attention of the audience. Movies and television are proof of the sickness of sexual addiction in society. This disease spreads across the country, infecting the way people think and live their lives. Ultimately it is destroying society and what America holds to be morally correct. Two such sources of writing, “Sic Transit Gloria…Glory Fades” and Countering the Culture of Sex, give examples of what effect culture play in the way of living. Today’s culture pumps out messages of sexual immorality and the idea of sexual relations outside of marriage are fine. Sexual immorality can destroy families and create dysfunction in the sacred vows of marriage.
Because of the recent technological advances in genetic engineering, parents could have the choice not only to pick and choose their children’s physical appearances, but many personality traits and talents as well. As amazing and unreal as this seems, for some people a chance to create their baby’s characteristics is a dream come true. Parents can build almost every aspect of their child, taking away the faith most people have in God. The belief that He created man, makes designing and choosing characteristics in a child seem to belittle God. Altering a child‘s genetic makeup also takes away from the idea of a baby being a miracle from God because people would have the choice to change and design possibly any aspect of their child. Parents choo...
[7] Stock, G., and Campbell, J.. "Engineering the Human Germline: an Exploration of the Science and Ethics of Altering the Genes We Pass to Our Children, New York; Oxford University Press, 2000. back
Genes are, basically, the blueprints of our body which are passed down from generation to generation. Through the exploration of these inherited materials, scientists have ventured into the recent, and rather controversial, field of genetic engineering. It is described as the "artificial modification of the genetic code of a living organism", and involves the "manipulation and alteration of inborn characteristics" by humans (Lanza). Like many other issues, genetic engineering has sparked a heated debate. Some people believe that it has the potential to become the new "miracle tool" of medicine. To others, this new technology borders on the realm of immorality, and is an omen of the danger to come, and are firmly convinced that this human intervention into nature is unethical, and will bring about the destruction of mankind (Lanza).
In today’s world, people are learning a great deal in the rapidly growing and developing fields of science and technology. Almost every day, an individual can see or hear about new discoveries and advances in these fields of study. One science that is rapidly progressing is genetic testing; a valuable science that promotes prevention efforts for genetically susceptible people and provides new strategies for disease management. Unnaturally, and morally wrong, genetic testing is a controversial science that manipulates human ethics. Although genetic testing has enormous advantages, the uncertainties of genetic testing will depreciate our quality of life, and thereby result in psychological burden, discrimination, and abortion.
Genetic engineering gives the power to change many aspects of nature and could result in a lot of life-saving and preventative treatments. Today, scientists have a greater understanding of genetics and its role in living organisms. However, if this power is misused, the damage could be very great. Therefore, although genetic engineering is a field that should be explored, it needs to be strictly regulated and tested before being put into widespread use. Genetic engineering has also, opened the door way to biological solutions for world problems, as well as aid for body malfunctions. I think that scientists should indeed stop making genetic engineering for humans, because it will soon prove to be devastating to the human race. It would cause rivalries and tension among different kinds of genetically engineered humans for dominance and power.
Human Genetic Engineering: Designing the Future As the rate of advancements in technology and science continue to grow, ideas that were once viewed as science fiction are now becoming reality. As we collectively advance as a society, ethical dilemmas arise pertaining to scientific advancement, specifically concerning the controversial topic of genetic engineering in humans.
Human genetic engineering can provide humanity with the capability to construct “designer babies” as well as cure multiple hereditary diseases. This can be accomplished by changing a human’s genotype to produce a desired phenotype. The outcome could cure both birth defects and hereditary diseases such as cancer and AIDS. Human genetic engineering can also allow mankind to permanently remove a mutated gene through embryo screening as well as allow parents to choose the desired traits for their children. Negative outcomes of this technology may include the transmission of harmful diseases and the production of genetic mutations. The benefits of human genetic engineering outweigh the risks by providing mankind with cures to multiple deadly diseases.
Kelly presents several interconnected elements to support his argument that the “Hookup” culture, commonly found on college campuses is morally problematic. Kelly defines a hookup as the practice of pursuing a sexual activity without any expectation of a relationship. He also provides four other requirements to help narrow down his definition of hookup culture. These requirements are, lack of commitment, acceptance of ambiguity, a role with alcohol, and social pressure to conform. These elements when paired with sexual activity outside of a relationship generate the potential for gender power struggle, abuse, manipulation and inequality.
Today's waters are constantly being treated like sewage dumps or trash cans. We use them as garbage cans every day polluting the water more and more. "Pollution is often by way of rivers, drains and outflow pipes." Causing an outflow of sewage into our ocean waters. This is not only affecting the community but also the marine life and other sea creatures living in the ocean." This pollution includes human sewage and domestic waste water, factory outflows of acids and poisonous metals, engine oil from roadside drains and garages, farm chemicals washed off the land by rain, building-site rubble, nuclear waste from power plants, and oil from wells, refineries, and tankers." Stating that most of today's waste is from factory or factory ran products that shouldn't be polluting the water