Genetically Engineered Humans

Theoretically, there's nothing wrong with using genetic alteration in order to eliminate or at least reduce the occurrence of harmful genetic disorders. Unfortunately, this would probably fall into the Gattaca scenario that so many others have mentioned--in many ways acquiring the fuzzy stigma that plastic surgery has. For reconstructive purposes--to improve quality of life or restore damage done to the body--then it's entirely beyond reproach. But when you get to the idea of "fixing" people to make them look a certain way or to mold them to a particular standard...well, then that's the point at which people start getting stupid. I can only see the use of "gene fixing" starting off with the best of intentions, moral and ethical grey areas notwithstanding, but it would most likely become misapplied by people who are only seeking their obtuse sort of "perfection"--only this time non-consensually inflicting it on their children as well.

No. It's a new step in a process that has been going on forever. Humans have always modified their environment as much as they could and done whatever they could to help themselves and their offspring prosper.

Just as any parent would do whatever they could to hep their ill or disabled child, any parent would prevent that if they could. Who, given the opportunity to spare their child Tay-Sachs, Sickle Cell Anemia, Cystic Fibrosis, Spina Bifida, or any other congenital ailment, wouldn't do it? And what kind of sadist would they be if they didn't?

This is a multi-layered question. Is it wrong to eliminate Tay-Sachs disease, which debilitates and kills children usually before they can enter kindergarten, breaking their families' hearts? Would it be wrong to correct genes mutations associated with cancer? Who could argue?

Of course the sticking point is the definition of disorder, and, consequently, of fix. I strongly suspect this question is asked with disorders such as Down Syndrome in mind. One might ask if fixing some "disorders" is not medicine but eugenics. An individual with Down Syndrome benefits greatly from early medical and educational interventios - they can grow to adulthood, and be more than "productive members of society" - they are treasures to those who know and meet them. And yet, the stress of raising an impaired child is enormous. Not every family can, or will handle it. Therefore, individual choice to treat or not must be respected.

For many decades we have struggled hopelessly to cure illness and disease. Families have pooled resources only to prolong the life of a loved one. The ability to end this vicious cycleis quite profound. Western Medicine typically provides a pharmaceutical agent to alleviate abnormalities in normal homeostasis be they acute illness or chronic disease rather than stop health issues before they become problems. Methods in the East such as Traditional Chinese Medicine seek to cure the problem using natural remedies. With modern medicine, health issues and abnormalities are merely put "on hold", the symptoms masked as if "everything is alright." The ability to practice what I would call "Proactive Genetic Repair" should be embraced as a way to enhance health and promote life.
With this power comes enormous responsibility. The power must be monitored and managed.

The use of science to heal must be balanced with its misuse to recreate.

Absolutely not. While there may be additional issues raised by genetic tinkering, removing harmful genetically-based diseases is nothing but good.

There's a difference between "morals" and "ethics". Morals are how we judge others. Ethics are professional standards. Morals are relativistic and change depending on who is doing the judging and how socially-acceptable any thing is at any given time.

Is it morally wrong? No, not in my view.

Is it ethically wrong? No, not from the viewpoint of the Science establishment.

No. But I think that eventually some financial, legal, and political limits would be imposed. Now, who do you think would do that?

It's only morally wrong in the sense it is incredibly stupid.

We've lasted this long as a species because of the human bodies ability to self-adapt and intervening in that system would throw everything out of balance. We might eliminate one disease or affliction but strengthen or create others.

To the extent that gene-fixing permits an individual to more nearly live a normal life, no, it would not be immoral or unethical. My only difficulty with it would be if the gene-fixing permits the individual to disguise a serious likelihood of having unfit children and then that individual fails to disclose that likelihood to a potential mate.

But having said that, the same argument could be made regarding cosmetic surgery. Facial and body touch ups can send the message that one's DNA is "better" that it actually is, thus fooling mates into thinking they're getting a better deal than they actually are. With cosmetic surgery it is likely the mate will become aware of the alteration. Less likely so with prenatal surgery, which is more the worse if it addresses only the phenotype, or effect, rather than genotype, or cause.

I echo "very interesting question." Would successful genetic engineering offset humankind's efforts to eliminate natural selection? A slippery slope, I'd say -- but given the places on the globe where anything goes, the discussion is more or less moot.

Of course not, I would say it's a moral imperative.

Is taking medicine morally wrong?

No, so long as its safe enough that it won't put the baby at risk of pregnancy complications (if it does, then only for fatal or very serious diseases)

I'm sure it would start with "legit" disorders, things that warrant a "cure". But who is to say where this will end once it gets started? That makes the scales tip towards the morally wrong side. Before you know it, we'll be genitically eliminating the Kevin Federlines of the world.

Screw the scales, I say we go for it.

two things come with genetic engineering of human beings:

This is a huge dilemna. On one hand, we can save millions of lives, on the other, we can raise armies of minions, and these alpha-soldiers may cause new conflicts and wars around the world, resulting in an outstanding number of casualties, possibly millions.

HOWcan anyonebelieve this to be morally wrong?

To believe it to be wrong, one must also believe that any form of prophylaxis is also morally wrong. Like vaccinations, condoms, protective eye wear, spaying & neutering of pets, locking up the car, and stopping a red lights!

Why are the names of the people who made the above posts hidden?

It's only wrong if you're an idiot.

(Sorry, can't stop the truth, Google.)

The benefits of genetic engineering far outweigh the negative aspects of it. The possibility to be able to filter negative qualities of something out is remarkable. The benefit to humanity alone should merit the worth of it's works. Science fiction mostly portrays the negative aspects of it in farsical manners. Anything in the wrong hands is dangerous.

yes.

It depends on what you consider morally wrong. By allowing a genetically disordered child to be born, when you know the problem is fixable, morally right? By tampering with the intent of nature are you being morally right?

There is no right answer to this question. Yet, perhaps the child is being born that way for a reason. It is normal for humans to try and "fix" what we consider wrong, but who is to say that genetically disordered humans need to be fixed? Once we begin to tamper with the making of life we have crossed the line. It is more morally wrong to defy nature, the very fabric which created us, than to allow a disordered child to born.

ABsolutely!

No, I don't believe it is morally wrong.

Unfetter science from the profit system and we will look back on such questions and laugh at our "moral" dilemmas.