[Arxces]

Originally Posted by Black~Enthusiasm

From a religious point of view, does Man have the right or even the privilege of tampering with something eternally-touted as being divinely created? A passage in the Bible, I forget which, has G0d saying he knew the person while he was still in the womb. To me that's very clear that God is the developer and the mother just the carrier if you will.

How can we be supportive of genetic engineering humans and then turn around and oppose this in the same time?

Should parents seven be allowed to mess around with the genetics of their children?

If your kid is "diagnosed" with homosexuality, would you do something about it?

And in my opinion, homosexuality being natural doesn't invalidate the religious argument that its a question of freewill, like the article suggested. The urge to sin may be genetic in origine, but to give in to it remain a question of free choice, thus it remain "punishable" by God.

Removing predisposition to homosexual behaviors before birth, isn't this close to genocide, in the litteral sense of the term (to kill the gene)?

First of all, I'd like to clarify my position on homosexuality. As a practicing Muslim, I am very much opposed to it. That being said, I do not harbour hatred nor prejudices to homosexuals. Regardless of the nature-nurture debate, I am inclined to agree that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice (though sexual orientation may not). It makes sense: if even heterosexuals can abstain, then homosexuals who wish to follow their religious teachings should struggle to abstain. I understand that it may be difficult, and that, as an abstainist (that is until marriage) I will probably never understand how homosexuals feel about people of their own sex. Nevertheless, it IS possible to stop practicing one's homosexual nature, merely by abstaining from homosexual sex.

And whether or not Man has the right to tamper with human nature, Man has been doing so ever since creation (or evolution if you believe in that ... It begins with the choice of spouse, and goes on and on with how you feed your children, how you educate them, how you treat them, etc. Whether we realise it or not, humanity has been practicing eugenics for many millennia now, just by mere isolation and inbreeding. This is why we have races and the like. If I understand Biblical teachings (yes I have read the Bible, but I have not finished it), then Christians believe that EVERYTHING is divinely created. But humanity has tampered with many divinely-created things, even humans. It may be a controversial stance, but I believe that if we tamper in order to produce GOOD, then this justifies tampering. By extension, if parents think they are tampering to prevent their children from committing a sin then their tampering is justified. The hormone patch may be a controversial example, yet not many are worried about the education parents are giving their parents which may have a far more intense impact on the child.

As for genetic engineering, I'd have to disagree with you. Your statement implies that there is widespread support for genetic engineering. Don't misunderstand me, as a student of Biotechnology I am very much in favour of genetic engineering. However, the disdain of the public for GE is very widely documented. But your point is essentially sound; if we support GE, then why should we oppose something less invasive such as hormone therapy? As it turns out, hormone therapy is already used for pregnancies, and helps many, especially older women, have safe and complication-free pregnancies. Perhaps it is not the therapy, but the theological consequences (with respect to homosexuals) that causes many to oppose such a treatment?

Regarding parents' rights to their children's genome, I believe they should be allowed to intervene only when not doing so will cause a life-threatening disease or disability. Parents should not be allowed to modify and customise their child's genome to suit their will. The rationale behind this is that intervention in the case of the former would result in an overall benefit to society (think of the benefits to the healthcare system alone). Intervention in the case of the latter would result in a society with genetic disparity. We already complain about how the rich get richer, while the poor get poorer. How much severe would the gap in human society be if there would be a segment of "transhumans" (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transhumanism) which would inevitably control the others?

Finally, I can sympathise with the Evangelical Christians. If I was a parent, it would be disappointing if my child was homosexual. But if the child was 'diagnosed' with homosexuality, that is if they had a gene that makes them more prone to homosexuality, I would do my best to educate him/her. The rest is up to God. Sometimes the Lord tests us, and all her requires of us is patience and our best intentions. It would be within my rights to teach my child my beliefs on homosexuality, and no one has the right to say otherwise unless it harms the child.