Categories





Silver Exchange



New Medical Ethics: Designer Genes For Your Baby, and ‘after-birth’ Abortions

by Nicholas West, ZenGardner.com

I can’t escape the incredible irony that humanity is descending into a new Dark Age even as we technologically advance at the most rapid rate in the history of our species.

However, we have apparently permitted a technocratic elite without a shred of morality and a warped sense of ethics to dictate our evolution … once again.

A Telegraph article entitled, “Genetically engineering ‘ethical’ babies is a moral obligation, says Oxford professor” cites the Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Medical Ethics, Julian Savulescu, as advocating the arrival of genetic cleansing for those who might have a propensity toward “personality flaws.” And, furthermore, that this cleansing is a sign of good parenting and a strong concern for society.

Now, I’m sorry to issue an ad hominem attack right out of the gate, but since Savulescu introduces the subject of genetic evaluation, this guy’s family tree goes back to Romania (perhaps central – think Transylvania) – home to such distinguished rulers as Vlad the Impaler, Vlad’s descendant Prince Charles, and power-mad collectivist, Nicolae Ceau?escu. I’m not saying there is a direct genetic connection between this esteemed academic and brutal psychopaths, but perhaps we should encourage Savulescu to study himself first and foremost … just to be sure.

Anyway, we often like to say in the alternative media, “You can’t make this stuff up.” Well, someone has, and they are intruding upon our otherwise potentially sane reality.

Read More @ ZenGardner.com

1 comment to New Medical Ethics: Designer Genes For Your Baby, and ‘after-birth’ Abortions

  • Gianni Bozzato

    The genes of the words

    By Gianni Bozzato

    Although some traits of an individual are determined by corresponding genes, this does not mean that all traits of an individual are determined with corresponding genes.
    Therefore, although a given external trait (phenotype) of an individual, which can be defined with word of ordinary language or a specific discipline (Psychology, Philosophy, Neurobiology, etc..), possesses a genetic component (due to whole genome), does not mean that in individual’s DNA it must always exist a specific gene or group of genes exactly corresponding to the trait. Indeed, corresponding to that word!

    So, while it may exist in an individual’s DNA a gene responsible for a disease (eg, Tay-Sachs), there are no absolutely “genes” responsible for the altruistic behavior, artistic mentality, entrepreneurship skill. And, even less, there are “genes” of the disposition of generosity, loyalty, alcoholism, violence, and so on.

    But: “… To overcome these difficulties, sociobiologists have “created” the genes of behavior: behavioral units that are arbitrary and in any case identified on purely phenomenological base. Then reified in a genome, however, as a reflection of mere fantasies, that becomes pure invention. ” (ANDREOLI V., La norma e la scelta, EST-Mondadori (1984), 28-31-62).

    Therefore, the moral obligation to which it refers in his article the Oxford’s Prof J. Savulescu, an eminent Australian scientist (http://www.heraldsun.com.au/ipad/prodigious-portrait-prices-cop-a-blast/story-fn6bfkm6-1226389934206), has no scientific foundation.
    This shows that his “scientific” manipulation of scientific language and its ambiguity, namely its weak morality, are traits that we do not have the power to eliminate by genetic selection, but we have the duty to eliminate by cultural selection.

Leave a Reply

  

  

  


4 + six =

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>