So they think that before birth, it's not a human being, but if it's genetically modified, before birth, it IS a human being,
There's the danger in pretending to speak for someone whose argument you don't understand.
It is much more likely that the ban is supported even by people who ok abortion not because of the human or not status of the fetus, but because of the results of genetic engineering humans to begin with. So, in small words, not because the fetus is a human, but because it will become one. Or, abortion deals with what isn't going to be, genetic engineering of babies deals with what pops out and will be.
The better pro-choice argument isn't whether the fetus is human or not human. A fetus is a growth stage of a human, so arguments that fetuses aren't people is disingenuous at best.
The bottom line is that abortion is killing a human.
But this is where the interesting pro-choice argument is, because society as a whole allows for killing humans in specific circumstances. We let citizens kill other citizens in self defense. We let the cops kill a lot of humans for much flimsier reasons (and we debate how flim
It's not about a woman's right to bodily autonomy. It's really about the convenience of being able to stop a pregnancy you didn't want so we create this idea that the fetus is sort of a human being but not enough to warrant protection like the rest of us. I guess it depends on where you draw the line.
You're missing the point: those modified babies grow up to become modified adults. This is a ban on genetically modified adults. Given the unknown risks, this is certainly muddy waters, ethically. We know so little about the harm that might be done, or the good that might be done, or the likelyhood of the one vs the other.
In fact, they very rarely want to do anything when you're healthy in general when in fact we're all slowly dying. Here in Norway 99% live to be 30, 95% to be 57 and 80% to be 73. Half the population dies between ages 75 and 90. Now there's quality of life as well but we're clearly getting very close to the limit of what we can do with reactive medicine. If we want people to regularly live to be 100+ we need to do better than diet and exercise and start figuring out medical treatments to slow or reverse agin
China will pick up the balls we drop, as usual.
So they think that before birth, it's not a human being, but if it's genetically modified, before birth, it IS a human being,
There's the danger in pretending to speak for someone whose argument you don't understand.
It is much more likely that the ban is supported even by people who ok abortion not because of the human or not status of the fetus, but because of the results of genetic engineering humans to begin with. So, in small words, not because the fetus is a human, but because it will become one. Or, abortion deals with what isn't going to be, genetic engineering of babies deals with what pops out and will be.
The better pro-choice argument isn't whether the fetus is human or not human. A fetus is a growth stage of a human, so arguments that fetuses aren't people is disingenuous at best.
The bottom line is that abortion is killing a human.
But this is where the interesting pro-choice argument is, because society as a whole allows for killing humans in specific circumstances. We let citizens kill other citizens in self defense. We let the cops kill a lot of humans for much flimsier reasons (and we debate how flim
It's not about a woman's right to bodily autonomy. It's really about the convenience of being able to stop a pregnancy you didn't want so we create this idea that the fetus is sort of a human being but not enough to warrant protection like the rest of us. I guess it depends on where you draw the line.
You're missing the point: those modified babies grow up to become modified adults. This is a ban on genetically modified adults. Given the unknown risks, this is certainly muddy waters, ethically. We know so little about the harm that might be done, or the good that might be done, or the likelyhood of the one vs the other.
In fact, they very rarely want to do anything when you're healthy in general when in fact we're all slowly dying. Here in Norway 99% live to be 30, 95% to be 57 and 80% to be 73. Half the population dies between ages 75 and 90. Now there's quality of life as well but we're clearly getting very close to the limit of what we can do with reactive medicine. If we want people to regularly live to be 100+ we need to do better than diet and exercise and start figuring out medical treatments to slow or reverse agin