genetic engineering.. the science-y point of view!
I think the crucial difference is enhancement versus determination. if not enhancement, then why do we bother to dress well, even? The slippery-slope idea of enhancement can be extended all the way down. There's no paranoia for me here though.. haha.. I have become something of a clotheshorse in the past year. *winks*as a biologist, and seeing the things that genetic engineering makes possible, I am both excited and scared. Genetically engineered bacteria are already extant and have been, and in use, for decades. Do we accept their use? For the most part, yes. Would you and I be willing to do without decontaminated soils, oil-polluted oceans and cheap animal feed? Hm... not a particularly strong agreement, even from me. Let's take it a step closer to home. How about genetically engineered plants? We all pay less for our vegetables simply because they have been genetically engineered to be pest-resistant, frost-resistant and more succulent; to ripen faster on the stalk and carry more nutritional value. Rice can and has had an entire biochemical pathway knocked-in for the production of Vitamin A; this rice saves the lives of millions in poorer countries who would not otherwise be able to avoid Vitamin A deficiency. Would you do without these?
One step the closer - genetically engineered animals. Salmon, cows, mice, cats and sheep. Probably, at this point, many of us would begin to shake our heads in emphatic denial. No? What's the difference between animals and plants? The difference, may I postulate, is the ability to feel and to experience emotions, ie the indwelling of what some might term a 'soul'. We become uncomfortable when we imagine that the subject of our manipulations may actually have feelings about it, and yet no choice in the matter. This is piercingly close to the state of a human embryo if it were to undergo genetic manipulation. Cosmetic enhancements like makeup and plastic surgery are done at the choice and with the consent of the individual; they merely enhance what is already present and do not change the genetic constituents of the person. I am still who and what I am, before I take off my makeup. Thus, I am NOT a backer of genetic engineering, in the sense of tinkering with a human before birth. ie transforming the entire organism. The body is the seat of the soul and the temple of the Holy Spirit, and should NOT be tinkered with lightly.
posted by joyinthelord @ 11:16 AM
2 Comments:
I am probably a little more liberal than you on this point.. =)
No matter what we do with our external appearance, we are still, genetically, irrevocably human. So IMHO, yes, by all means - long live eyebrow tattoo-ing and Botox injections!
There are, of course, the limits imposed by good sense - why do we not smoke or fall into drunkenness? Even though it's not expressly forbidden in the Bible, it's because we respect our bodies. And I believe that should be the restraining line for every Christian, whether woman or man. So although I would shudder at a Pamela Anderson type and question her tastefulness, I would not question her morals or humanity; neither could I judge her. The point where an individual stands between conservatism and permisiveness must be determined by him- or herself and the conviction of how much cosmetic enhancement constitutes abuse to the body.
wow, 2 v chim teachers...ok I'm only a primary school teacher, here's my 5 cents worth.
I think its perfectly fine so long it doesn't go to the extreme, meaning that the person equates looking good to feeling confident.
I always believe that there a certain (non-permanent) changes that can be made to make a person feel more comfortable with his/herself, it is a gd move. don't get me wrong,I do not agree with Micheal Jackson.
Post a Comment
<< Home