[LMB] We've been discussing gene engineering on people...
domelouann at gmail.com
Mon Oct 14 13:18:10 BST 2019
That's the nature of childhood. If parents decide to school their child at
home, or move to a small town, or (obBujold) not have further children
because their firstborn has so many medical needs, the child's personality
will be affected beyond reversal before they're old enough to have an
opinion on it. When an H. sapiens becomes a parent, that's an inescapable
burden/privilege/responsibility of the role.
On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 7:09 AM Howard Brazee <howard at brazee.net> wrote:
> > On Oct 14, 2019, at 1:34 AM, Beatrice Otter <beatrice_otter at zoho.com>
> > Beatrice Otter:
> > I firmly believe such treatments should be available. When used
> properly, they can do immense good. But there's a difference between
> regulating/controlling something, and eliminating it completely. And I
> think that *the people who have that condition* should be the ones making
> the decisions, both for their own personal medical treatment and for
> whether or not that condition should be eliminated from the gene pool, if
> and when such becomes possible.
> The choice between parents deciding that the children should be on drugs
> and that the children shouldn’t have the genes requiring the drugs is still
> giving that choice to the parents, not the people with that condition.
> (And by the time that child is an adult, his personality has already been
> affected by that decision).
> Lois-Bujold mailing list message sent to domelouann at gmail.com
> Lois-Bujold at lists.herald.co.uk
More information about the Lois-Bujold