Only God has the right to interfere with our genes

Our genes be the sequence of DNA or contagiousal codes that mend our characteristics. So by changing our hereditarys we must be effectively changing our characteristics and ultimately ourselves. Is this app argonntly checkup c ar that is no opposite from pickings everyday medicinal drug like antibiotics? Or are we inauspiciously playing God and immor completelyy defying character in order to safeguard our species? In my legal opinion scientific progress is enabling lives to be salve and a loving God would non reprove this. A religious psyche may opine at different aspects of genetic design and olibanum hold a different gain. catching technology skill in adult males is the development or role of genes subprogramd to forbid indisposition and disabilities. Genetic indispositions are serious and affect a vast second of community. Diseases or genetic incommodes like Huntingtons, Sickle -cell anaemia, hefty dystrophy and cystic fibrosis wide-cut swop c ause intellectual retardation, physical deformity or early death. enquiry into genes and genetic engineer ordure supporter pr purget these problems and is surely ethical and not immoral. Most genetic look is based on germline therapy that enables genetic changes to the cells carrying the disorder from generation to generation.This representation that permanent changes can be made in the persons genetic code that prevents the transmitting of these cells. So the persons genes prepare been changed, they are not the fill same person they were in terms of the nature of their cells and their latent childs character has been altered. Does this mean Gods work in creating the person and their eventual children impart have been change by reversal? Surely if the genetic disorder has been subvertd or removed then Gods work needed was justly improved. More recent progress government agency that we can grow healthy cells to replace the malfunctioning ones and so remedy disease in that person.This process involves creating pedestal cells. Either from embryos that were produced by IVF but not utilise, or from adult bone marrow or blood. The paper cells are kept alive so they can multiply and be transplanted into diseased cells to produce a curative. Stem cell look into was banned In the UK because the Human Fertilisation and Embryology act said that the engineering science could whole be used to do infertility. I consider this an absurdity that this morally debateable technology was permitted to treat infertility but not to cure diseaseSurely saving life is as all important(predicate) as creating it. This I think was realised by the government and in 2001 the research was permitted. So should this research be allowed or should stand idly by while commonwealth who could potentially be corned are suffering from the diseases and problems above and not uncommonly dying painful deaths. It is clear that I halt with the governments decision, along with a number of non-religious and religious people for a number of reasons. It offers the prospect of cures for currently incurable diseases and gives those suffering a glimmer of hope.Non-religious people grapple nucleotide cell cloning would only use embryos until it was easier to use the adult cells. Genetic research is an built-in part of medicine research and is bound to include some genetic engineering. All genetic research is closely monitored by the law and so leave alone not directly oppose religious ethics but withal has vast potential benefits. on that point are more non-religious people who would counter vie that genetic engineering has too little culture about the long term consequences. They say that it should not take place because the effects are irreversible.This means that should anything go ruin the damage would be permanent. experience is power and people argue genetic engineering gives vast amounts of power to the scientists who could, they say, could act in a malevolent course to create scientifically produced tender beings. This power is almost godly and is too extravagant for the scientists to have. These scientific processes treat valet de chambre no different from commodities like plants. The research and advances could grow to the extent that they envelop the possibility of people having to be genetically screened in the beginning getting life insurance or even jobs.Then a Gattaca like situation becomes imminent where anyone likely to develop illness or dir late would be refused the insurance, the job and would be denied a align of opportunities. Although these arguments are perhaps extravagant they are possibilities and the potential of scientific progress could have in benevolente consequences. Religions have it away that in the modern world they must deal with issues like genetic engineering and amongst them in that location are different views of weather we, as valet, have the discipline to come in with our a dmit genes.Christianity is not harmogenous and so in spite of appearance it there are different attitudes towards genetic engineering. It is in the main the more liberal protestant Christians who think that genetic engineering is a good thing and depend the positive aspects like the potential set of disease and the negative, which would be the potential creation of artificially produced finished creation. There are religious reasons why these Christians champion this scientific research and action. Jesus was a healer who showed that Christians should do what they can to heal and help healers and to cure disease.They entrust that as valets we stewards on Gods furtherming and by discovering the genetic make up of tender being in order to help improve human life is fulfilling this stewardship. They conceptualize that this is no different from researching medicine that can improve human life and reduce suffering. Regarding the potential of this technology getting out have hand, these Christians believe that creating cells is very different from creating people. Creating people via science rather than through sex would be wrong because as it would be taking over Gods overlord of life role, but creating cells is work with God.As far as killing embryos for the genetic research is bear on an embryo is not considered human life until it is 14 eld old (This is then the time sterilise set by the Human Fertilisation and embryology say-so for genetic research. ). They also use some of the non-religious arguments to countenance genetic engineering. It is mainly the Roman Catholics who believe that that genetic engineering is okay under certain circumstances. As long as the technology is for work into curing diseases and does not use human embryos it is permissible.The reason they chafe the use of embryos is because they believe that life begins at conception, whether in a womb or a wish-wash dish. Killing an embryo is killing a human life and is immo ral and banned in the Decalogue. whatsoever Christian are opposed to any pattern of genetic research because they believe God has created the genetic make up of each human at the moment of conception and people have no right to interfere with Gods pass on. Genetic engineering means playing God and by doing this we are defying him which is a indefinable sin. They believe we are doing wrong by try to create a hone world, as only heaven is perfect.Many Christians believe that all piece should be living their normal lives in consonance with natural law (Aquinas) and that only God has the right to interfere with the natural genetic make up of all humans. They also feel that when creating artificially perfect humans we are not thinking about the people that are being produced. A scientifically created person will have no biological parents and many feel that what we are giving the child genetically, we are taking spiritually. These little genetic miracles will be lacking in spirit . This idea is well visualized in the film Gattaca.The Christians against genetic engineering would also use the non-religious arguments against it. Islam is another religion trying to trace between where the lines are in ethics of medical issues such as genetic engineering. Islam is usually in agreement over issues like this however there are two different Muslim attitudes to Genetic engineering. Some Muslims believe that the genetic make up of all humans has been established by God and so therefore humans artificially altering genes would be and attempt to play God which is absolutely an unacceptable sin, shirk the great Muslim sin.They also believe that using human embryos in research is abortion as they believe life begins at fertilisation and therefore do not agree with this kind of genetic research. They believe scientists who are trying to create life from stem cells are trying to play God a so this is also shirk. These Muslims also accept the non-religious arguments again st genetic engineering. Other Muslims hold a similar view to Catholics, that genetic engineering is only good to an extent. As long as it is being to done in an effort to cure disease and not producing humans by scientific means.These Muslims support genetic engineering firstly because the Quran and the Hadith teach that Muslims should do everything in their power to prevent diseases and improve humans lives. In the way that some Christians believe in stewardship, these Muslims believe that humans should work as vice-gerents in hiding and reenforcement lives. This no different from researching medicine that will help improve lives and reduce suffering. These Muslims also believe there is a difference between creating cells and creating people and that creating cells is working with God.They also consider that embryos can be used for research up until they are 14 days old, this is when the human life begins according to teachings of the Shariah. It is very fractious to foresee if t he potential good of genetic engineering and interfering with genes outweighs the potential bad and whether it is ethical in its current state of research. I think that at the moment we have a very good idea of what the positive effects of interfering with our genes would be.It could cure diseases and prevent them from being passed on to generation afterward generation. The negative effects are slightly unclear. will we end up producing genetically modified perfect humans who are lacking in will and spirit through no fault of their own? Is producing humans without sex wrong even? Is it against the will of God? Personally I think that the these questions go unanswered by the critics of genetic engineering who do not have plausible enough arguments to cloture the research into curing disease and saving human life.