"Playing God" D&D

Spin off from the genetically modified human debate...

If GM is "wrong" because it's "playing God" then why are parents who refuse to "play God" by getting their child medical treatments for illnesses vilified?

Why is "playing God" acceptable at times, and horribly, horribly wrong at others?

And yes, getting chemo, getting an organ transplant... all just as much "playing God". Nature told you to die, and you told nature "smurf you".

C.

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Well that's interesting.

Quoting God:" Spin off from the genetically modified human debate... If GM is "wrong" because it's "playing God" then ... [snip!] ... getting an organ transplant... all just as much "playing God". Nature told you to die, and you told nature "smurf you". C."

Because it is human nature to be a hypocrite. lol

That story was real? Fuuuu, that's creepy.

I need more background information on this lol.

I think there is a difference between creating a human artificially (and not just that, but modifying the DNA so the person is a certain way), and saving your already existing life/someone else's life.

I see your point though.

That gm story is interesting I read it a few times.


I don't believe in god so I don't believe one can play god

Quoting ♕¡RedHauté!♕:" That story was real? Fuuuu, that's creepy."

I dunno I didn't look into it further than tracking the story to dailymail.co.uk

heh

C.

I guess for me the concern with GM stuff (like foods) is how it will affect the environment.
So in that sense playing god is wrong because plants etc fit into an environmental balance the way they are. Changing them can effect the balance and have disasterous effects.
An old example is cane sugar was introduced as a crop to Australia, with it came a cane beatle...so a cane toad was introduced and absolutely destroyed the Australian environment. This was, before GM, playing god.
As for the other stuff. I don't care.

I'm confused.

Quoting Freckles Ford:" I think there is a difference between creating a human artificially (and not just that, but modifying ... [snip!] ... the DNA so the person is a certain way), and saving your already existing life/someone else's life. I see your point though. "

I definitely see the negative implications of such technology, and the possible unintended consequences, but it makes me laugh the most common argument I see against it is "playing God".

Well... hate to break it to you, we do that ALL THE SmUrfING TIME NOW.

heh

C.

<blockquote><b>Quoting Freckles Ford:</b>" I think there is a difference between creating a human artificially (and not just that, but modifying ... [snip!] ... the DNA so the person is a certain way), and saving your already existing life/someone else's life. I see your point though. "</blockquote>




So you're anti ivf?

Quoting God:" I definitely see the negative implications of such technology, and the possible unintended consequences, ... [snip!] ... argument I see against it is "playing God". Well... hate to break it to you, we do that ALL THE SmUrfING TIME NOW. heh C."

Ha, I'm not religious, so I guess I could say it's "playing nature?"

Quoting Brink:" <blockquote><b>Quoting Freckles Ford:</b>" I think there is a difference between creating ... [snip!] ... saving your already existing life/someone else's life. I see your point though. "</blockquote> So you're anti ivf?"

IVF doesn't modify DNA so that the potential child looks a certain way or has specific attributes. I think the concept of "designer babies" is wrong though, yes.