Is genetic engineering immoral?

[ribozyme]

I wouldn’t be so compelled to ask this question here and elicit a response. Normally, I would defer because I expect that most people here would oppose it… (the cathecism specifically oppose it in most cases)

This evoked me to ask the question:

I am in favor of manipulating…whatever the genes of the sex-cells are called, I forget…DNA with gene therapy. You fix the genes, you have sex normally–and no genetic disorders.

Singer is in favor of killing any fetus conceived with Down’s Syndrome–and anyone who carries such genes, if they can’t be engineered out.

Not a polymer, understand: human life. Systematically.

Not only is he utterly contemptuous of, among other people, the retarded, but he is a stinking hypocrite, who said the sick should be given palliative care and allowed to die–and then went and propped up his ailing mother’s life for months or years!

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=217487

I used to have extremely passionate views on eugenics and I am somewhat embarassed by them now… I will not use this thread to advocate my views about that subject. If I do become too extreme, feel free to lock the thread.

I am not in the mood to defend my views on eugenics with long disquisitions; I still hold some views that eugenics can be used in a benign fashion, but I prefer to be reticent about it now based on my past experience.

But I do not favor some manifestations of genetic engineering as I remarked:

Eugenics is a complex ethical issue; I do not consider it immoral if it is done “ethically.” I fear its future applications especially when it will be available on the free market as a service that is exoribitantly priced out of the range of most potential parents.

To clarify one of the choices “Genetic engineering should be available in an unregulated free market to benefit the progeny of the rich.” I am not referring only to therapies that have a therapeutic application, but enhancements in that choice.

No, this is not about assaying and aborting fetuses… but about a specific application of eugenics: genetic engineering. Since Hastrman said he favored genetic engineering, I thought he would be considered a “eugenicist” (in the pejorative sense).

 

[Hastrman]

The catechism opposes genetic engineering that has to be done with IVF, it says nothing about the kind that uses gene therapy to cure diseases either in individuals or in the genes they might pass on. I’m fairly sure the Church would favor, certainly the former, and probably the latter.

It might not even oppose genetic enhancement, so long as it didn’t violate the dignity of sex.

 

[Newbie2]

I assume that the topic is referring to human genetic engineering?

 

[Em_in_FL]

As a means to cure diseases… it’s morally fine!

As long as it does not interfere with the natural process in the creation of life… and does not require killing another human life for the sake of the cured… then there should be no moral issues…

This is a similar argument on the subject of stem cell therapy… or any therapy for that matter…

HTH!

I couldn’t vote, though, because I don’t understand the difference between the options… and you have no stipulation for staying within moral bounds of the teachings of the church…

 

[agmoose02]

I voted it as immoral, but my understanding was the question related to the engineering of society or IVF engineering.

I think it is permissible in some forms of gene therapy as long as the cell lines used to create the therapy were obtained in a moral way. Saying it is permissible is not to say that I know if it is right or not.

The thing to remember in this though is that God often shows his greatness through man’s weakness. So even if it is a permissible choice, would it be the right choice? I admit though, if I had a child that could be cured of a genetic disease like CF by gene therapy, it would be a tough choice to discern God’s will in the matter. Was the cure made available through God’s will to be used, or as a test of faith in His plan for my family?