Referring to all the articles, do you think science and technology has done more good than bad? Consider all the aspects, from the impact on daily life, on medical science (our health), on the environment, on ethics, on human nature, on the physical, mental and social and spiritual development of a human being.
I refer to “Better late than never ( ST 23/01/05)”, where Professor Iliescu, at the age of 66, successfully gave birth to an infant daughter, making her the new record holder of the world’s oldest mum. This is most definitely a benefit that science and technological has derived for many singles, regardless of their age. I am puzzled by the fact that this conception has aroused radical criticisms that I see as unfair to Prof Iliescu. Every woman in this world has the right to conceive, as it is a special ability imbued after puberty-reproduction. Although the critics’ concerns about selfishness and irresponsibility are not invalid, however, they tend to think that they can be right to judge whether it is morally abject. I find this repugnant. At least she would have the ability to take care of her right now, given that she is still healthy, and that she is financially capable of doing so. Therefore, I do not see why there should be objections to that, although the child would have lost its parent at a young age. However, all of us would have to lose our parents one day through death, and that no matter when it happens, it would strike us hard all the same, hence responsibility and selfishness cannot be said to be valid issues. After all, with her inheritance, the baby would likely grow up to be independent-of course her mum would have either implicitly or explicitly prepared her for that already.
In “Plan for babies with genetic mums draw fire”, I also similarly agree with my previous point that I do not see why there should be criticism. Although this is a fresh concept, but the child need not know that the mother who has contributed her cells with healthy mitochondria, until he/she is old enough to be able to understand such concepts. Even the age 30 can be said to be a safe age to disclose this fact, as it is not likely to induce radical disapprovals from the child later on. After all, this was made out of good intention, and while being wrong ethically, I feel that it can be validated as it would lessen the chance of a child having to suffer its life being a defect. Hence, on humanitarian grounds, it can be fully justified. Of course, my reasons for agreeing with such newfound breakthroughs are based on a ‘ends justify the means’ belief.
Meanwhile, in “Coming to a stadium near you: Gene Cheats”, I think that gene doping can be ‘legalised’ in the sporting world. However, athletes (or even possibly, superathletes) should be fielded under a new category more akin to novelty- altered athletes in which they would be merely showcases and only used to flaunt our flouting of our human achievements. Why flaunt such a flout? Why be proud? This would serve as a reminder to us that as humans, we will never attain perfection, nor immortality. No matter what we do, we would still have our physical limits. Hence, the idea of gene doping should not be considered as an alternative to boosting athletic performance in the same sense as steroids.
-3:30 PM-
IDIOT.