Gattaca?
Can't believe I'm about to make a double post in the middle of my exams.. I think it shows that i'm either slacking too much, or waaayyyy too stressed..
Actually wanted to type this yesterday, but slipped my mind.
I'm gonna refer to Andy Ho's article in Saturday's Straits Times' Daedalus section, where he supports the notion of allowing future parents to choose ther child's individual features, e.g. hair colour, eye colour, face shape...
*His weekly Saturday column is certainly no stranger to controversies and arguments - why, the previous week's article on humans being able to "catch cancer" certainly stirred up a bit of storm in the forum pages the following days* - but i digress.
On the contrary, my personal belief is that such genetically engineering should not be allowed in the first place.
I think there was a part, where the selection of child features was compared to the selection of products which we make in everyday lives. If we are allowed to make decisions over such issues, why not choose our children's features?
My belief is that the answer lies in that not everything is that simple. "Simple features" like hair colour, nose shape - they are multi-factorial. i.e. they aren't controlled by single genes, rather, by a multitude of genes working together to give the final end product, i.e. you.
Carrying on from my above point of the unreliability of choosing those features - what would parents do if they discovered that the "children" (or could I use the word products?) that they've chosen, are not what they wanted in the first place? Would they shower less love and attention to their children? or worse still - abortion? give up their child for adoption?
*****
I'm not even gonna talk about the issue of slippery-slope (cos its been so over-emphasized that i'm sure everyone knows about it).
I'm gonna end off here - cos 1) i should really be studying , and 2) i don't have the time to pore over his article and come up with some detailed powerful analysis and counter-arguments - Hence, my rather short post.
Actually wanted to type this yesterday, but slipped my mind.
I'm gonna refer to Andy Ho's article in Saturday's Straits Times' Daedalus section, where he supports the notion of allowing future parents to choose ther child's individual features, e.g. hair colour, eye colour, face shape...
*His weekly Saturday column is certainly no stranger to controversies and arguments - why, the previous week's article on humans being able to "catch cancer" certainly stirred up a bit of storm in the forum pages the following days* - but i digress.
On the contrary, my personal belief is that such genetically engineering should not be allowed in the first place.
I think there was a part, where the selection of child features was compared to the selection of products which we make in everyday lives. If we are allowed to make decisions over such issues, why not choose our children's features?
My belief is that the answer lies in that not everything is that simple. "Simple features" like hair colour, nose shape - they are multi-factorial. i.e. they aren't controlled by single genes, rather, by a multitude of genes working together to give the final end product, i.e. you.
Carrying on from my above point of the unreliability of choosing those features - what would parents do if they discovered that the "children" (or could I use the word products?) that they've chosen, are not what they wanted in the first place? Would they shower less love and attention to their children? or worse still - abortion? give up their child for adoption?
*****
I'm not even gonna talk about the issue of slippery-slope (cos its been so over-emphasized that i'm sure everyone knows about it).
I'm gonna end off here - cos 1) i should really be studying , and 2) i don't have the time to pore over his article and come up with some detailed powerful analysis and counter-arguments - Hence, my rather short post.
penned in the diary of memories by Alvin at
2:22 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home