[LMB] We've been discussing gene engineering on people...
Karen A. Wyle
kawyle at att.net
Wed Oct 9 12:57:09 BST 2019
Some of this discussion has run along the lines of "facing hardship has improved the character/artistic output of this or that person or these people." True as that is, I think most of us would look askance, at least, at parents who deliberately introduced serious hardship into their children's lives for the goal of forming their characters in some way. (I'm not talking about rich parents who make their kids do chores or take summer jobs.) Many of us would endorse legally prohibiting such conduct. Prospectively eliminating those serious hardships for the unborn seems, to me, to be comparable.
Karen A. Wyle
On Wednesday, October 9, 2019, 06:58:40 AM EDT, Tidsel <tidsel at protonmail.com> wrote:
> All this hypothetical of course. Since there is no gene therapy for
> diabetes. Though if there was, I really cannot believe people would refuse
> to take it.
I certainly would take it, and so would anyone with diabetes I should imagine. But I think this discussion is seeing this question from 2 angles at least: what we would do as adults as our own choice, and what parents would do for/to their children.
I think it got a bit confused by being turned into whether parents would love their grandchildren if they Had diabetes. I cannot imagine anyone who would not, I think few would think otherwise. But the issue is if they would take away diabetes from the embryo if that were possible, to make their lives healthier by far, and whether or not that would change them as persons. As for that last, I cannot see how it would change them in any way other than make them healthier.
Lois-Bujold mailing list message sent to kawyle at att.net
Lois-Bujold at lists.herald.co.uk
More information about the Lois-Bujold