like, b4 it's born?
and say why plz :)
to me, it seems WRONG not to do it. what person would object to being spared to a genetically linked disease? and the generations after will be cured too! :)
it's a long way to go, but we can get there!
2007-12-05 12:50:01 · 5 answers · asked by Abira 4 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Biology
Is that even possible? Once the baby's conceived I don't think you can do that because you'd have to swap DNA in EVERY cell...and that's only a viable option "in vitro". And if the conception happens "in vitro" it's much, much simpler to do sperm screening or embryo screening.
In my opinion, the whole idea's unethical.
2007-12-05 12:59:37 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
If it was possible, which choice would be better? Eliminate a disease from a baby before it was born (such as Down's Syndrome), or elect to have an abortion because the unborn child has a serious medical issue?
But, all of this is too new to tell right now. Would you want to volunteer to have the first altered child and see what happens to him or her later? Or his child? Or Grandchild?
We have no idea what happens in later generations, just like you can't take seeds from a genetically altered tomato and expect the same quality tomato next generation.
2007-12-05 13:01:15 · answer #2 · answered by JD_in_FL 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
IT is a long way and when it becomes available I am all for it. I see no reason not to treat diseases prenatally.
2007-12-05 12:54:30 · answer #3 · answered by Lee S 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I say, yes. Go for it if it can be done. But, we're not there yet by a long way.
2007-12-05 13:39:06 · answer #4 · answered by Joan H 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
yes,but not for every advantage like i.q or to be a chemist or athlete
2007-12-05 14:07:52 · answer #5 · answered by woodsonhannon53 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋