31-12-2002 04:22									#1
	Libertarian stance on genetic engineering? Tired of ads?

What is the libertarian stance on genetic engineering, specifically pre-natal engineering?

Libertarian pro-choice idealogy is based on the belief that fetuses are no alive and not worthy of rights... but a fetus that WILL be alive should have the right to control its own genetic code and not be altered right?


thanks

	31-12-2002 04:33									#2
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Its not the government's role to restrict genetic engineering.

The pro-choice ideology of LIBERTARIANS is not that the fetus is not alive and not worthy of rights (though some may feel that way), it is that a woman has a right to decide what to do with her own body and the government has no right to tell her no.

	31-12-2002 04:39									#3
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Imran:

But what about the child's right to have his own genetic code intact? What if a parent gave their child blue eyes and that child grew up and didn't want them...

	31-12-2002 04:41									#4
	Suffering from ads?

Then tough. The parent owns the child while he is in the womb (think of it as the rent ) and has the right to determine what genetic features he should have. The government should but out.

	31-12-2002 04:45									#5
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Imran:

Are you serious? The libertarian party truly believes that parents have the right to give their child three arms if they wanted to, despite the fact that the child, when born, may not want such genetic changes?!

That's not what I call freedom, Imran...

	31-12-2002 04:53									#6
	Get a bigger avatar today!

I don't know what the Libertarian party believes... look at their website.

That's what I believe though, as somewhat libertarian. Childs belong to parents and in exchange parents MUST provide for them until the age of 18. That's the way it works.

	31-12-2002 04:57									#7
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Imran:

But do you understand my confusion or whatever over this? The libertarians believe in no government intervention and people having maximum freedoms UNTIL a freedom harms others...

it seems to me abortion is a freedom that harms the freedom of life of another (the fetus) but one can assume that the fetus is not a life and will not be a life so its right to life is irrelevent.

BUT, a genetically engineered fetus that IS going to be a life should have the right to its own genetic material. Parents essentially own children but only to an extent... children still have certain rights... they can not be starved or severally beaten, etc. (I'm assuming the libertarian party favours legal action in such cases, right?)... altering one's genetic code against their will seems to be such an issue.

	31-12-2002 05:15									#8
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: it seems to me abortion is a freedom that harms the freedom of life of another (the fetus) but one can assume that the fetus is not a life and will not be a life so its right to life is irrelevent.

That would not explain why the candidate for the Libertarian party for President, Harry Browne was personally pro-life, but backed pro-choice for the party.

	31-12-2002 05:29									#9
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

--"What is the libertarian stance on genetic engineering, specifically pre-natal engineering?"

Imram started off by oversimplifying things.

Personally, I'm A-OK with it.

As far as I know, there isn't an official party stance yet, for reasons I'll outline below.

--"it seems to me abortion is a freedom that harms the freedom of life of another (the fetus)"

There's a division in the party over this issue. There are pro-lifers who insist that life begins at conception. Everyone in the party agrees that life has started by birth. It's where the line is drawn that gets touchy, and where that line is placed by the individual member is going to decide where on the pro-life/pro-choice scale they are.
The same arguments apply to the genetic engineering thing.

Also, keep in mind that no one has ever been able to have any say in the matter of their genes. This isn't being changed.

Wraith
Cats are smarter than dogs. You can't teach eight cats to pull a sled.

	31-12-2002 08:53									#10
	Support Apolyton

quote: But what about the child's right to have his own genetic code intact?

You used a parent giving their child 3 arms as justification for preserving the fetus' right to the genes given it by the parents. What if the parents were told they have a genetic anomally increasing the chances their baby will be born with a genetic disease? Would you say that child has a right to an intact set of genes and the parents cannot seek genetic manipulation to prevent the baby from getting the genetic disease? I'd say we don't have to worry about a parent wanting a child with 3 arms, but I'm sure there are plenty of parents who would want genetic changes to prevent a baby born with 3 arms.

As for your premise, that the fetus is entitled to the genes provided by the parents, that depends on when a person believes life and rights begin, but not even the most ardent pro-lifer would argue that a fetus with a genetic deformity must be born with that deformity even if technology could prevent it.

	31-12-2002 09:13									#11
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

when we talk about genetic manipulation I would think it would be more in terms of disease prevention and to a lesser degree giving hte child better looks, IQ, etc... but I seriously don't think giving the child three arms would be what people have in mind.

This is a problem that arises when you do grant such freedom... how much are you willing to give? The problematic gray area...

	31-12-2002 10:11									#12
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Wraith:

I fully understand the pro-choice libertarian position on abortion... it is assumed that the fetus does not have greater rights at stake as it will not live...

My whole question is this... A genetically engineered fetus, however, is meant to survive... it will grow into a human being whose genetic code has been altered against his will. This human being has a right to have his original genetic code unaltered if he so wishes, right? It seems that a parent, by genetically engineering their child, is destroying this right...

quote: Also, keep in mind that no one has ever been able to have any say in the matter of their genes. This isn't being changed.

Yeah but right now, one's intelligence, etc. is God-given or determined naturally through natural genetics... a person can't complain about having some trait because that's just how it is... with genetic engineering, an unwanted trait would exist due to human intervention, not God's special plan or fate, for example

Berzerker:

it can be assumed that a gross deformity would want to be removed by an individual. a person, however, could very well not want to be born with blue eyes, better eye-sight, and other mundane things... and they will have no say over how their genetic code was altered.


thanks

	31-12-2002 10:52									#13
	Increase Your PM Length

It's a good point.
What happens when parents want their children to have certain qualities, and they start mucking about with genes to prevent homosexuality, eye/hair/skin colour, height, low intelligence etc.

	31-12-2002 11:33									#14
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

I am a libertarian! I am the God of my own universe. Only I have rights in that universe. I recognize no laws that restrict my freedoms as a God within my own universe.

A fetus that I create is in my universe. As the God of my universe, I can choose to let the fetus live, let the fetus die, or change it to be what I want it to be using genetic engineering. I am God. I am a libertarian.

	31-12-2002 11:38									#15
	Put an end to popups!

quote: with genetic engineering, an unwanted trait would exist due to human intervention, not God's special plan or fate, for example

How is one necessarily better or worse than the other? All are outside your control.

If someone would be born blind, or some bad physical deformity, one could say that was God's will, or fate, or one could fix it (assuming the technology was available). Which do you think would be better for the person in question, once he or she was born? And which do you think they'd prefer?

	31-12-2002 12:04									#16
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

David Floyd:

The issue I'm talking about is genetic alterations where the individual could reasonably potentially not want... even things like blindness... though it is an immense handicapt there are undoubtedly people who would rather be blind (as they feel it is what God intended) than see artificially.


thanks

	31-12-2002 12:12									#17
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: and they will have no say over how their genetic code was altered.

They had no say over being born.

quote: there are undoubtedly people who would rather be blind (as they feel it is what God intended) than see artificially.

Lol, I doubt you'd find such a person, but how would a fetus know what God intended?

	31-12-2002 12:13									#18
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Question:
Why would someone nto want a better brain?

	31-12-2002 12:22									#19
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Berzerker:

**** the fetus... the point is that this fetus will grow into an adult individual who may not want his alterations... people are not happy with themselves right now but it's beyond the control of anyone they know... with genetic engineering, someone's unwanted traits would only be there because their parents choose them

	31-12-2002 12:26									#20
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Albert, by that logic, the parents violated the child's rights by procreating in the first place if the child is not happy with the original genetic code they supplied. I don't think the genetic manipulation were are dealing with here is done after the child is conceived, but in a lab before fertilization.

	31-12-2002 15:19									#21
	Suffering from ads?

Well, if, for instance, one genetically engineers her child so that the kid gets a bunch of nasty diseases and he/she'd won't live past 15, I think that should be legally prohibited. Since human cloning hasn't reached the stage where the health of the child can be ensured to a reasonable degree, it should be prohibited. So it really depends on what the genetic engineering is.

	31-12-2002 20:17									#22
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

--"Yeah but right now, one's intelligence, etc. is God-given or determined naturally through natural genetics..."

So what? How is this fundamentaly different from having his parents decide for him? In both cases he has no say in the matter, and may not like the results.
Just because it's up to chance right now doesn't mean people can't complain about their genes. I've heard people do it rather often.

Your opposition here seems to be rooted in a religious basis. Some of us don't believe in god or fate. What decides things now is chance. Things put together by design often function better than things put together by chance.

BTW, the best touching on the question of where genetic engineering may take us I've seen is in Walter Jon Williams' book Aristoi. Recommended read.

Wraith
"How did you end up making a 2000 horse-power cyborg out of an accident victim?"
"My hand slipped."
-- ("Prefectural Earth Defense Force")

	31-12-2002 21:48									#23
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

I'm not a Libertarian, but I see nothing wrong with any kind of genetic engineering and cloning.