> My point above is more about whether we should accept all changes than
> whether a certain change *could* be beneficial. Being born with a
> cross on your forehead (due to parents having odd religious views)
> *could* be beneficial in some circumstances, but most likely not and
> would impose quite a bit on the child.
I would not want my child to be born with a cross on his forehead,
but a religious person might. I might want my child to be born with a
nanotech enhanced immune system, but a religious person might not.
How can we judge these differences of opinion? Should I simply say I am
Right and He is Wrong? Should I take a live and let live attitude, shrug
and say that each person does as he chooses? I don't have good answers
to these questions.
> > What about a parent who takes his child into space on some kind of
> > irreversible journey (say, a traditional SF generation ship to the stars)?
> > Should children conceived on such a trip be able to sue their parents?
> > Should the children on the Mayflower have sued their parents for exposing
> > them to the hardships of the New World? I don't think we can categorize
> > such journeys into necessary vs unnecessary risks.
> Isn't this a very different problem?
It is similar in that we have a parent who is imposing risks and costs on
their unborn children. If there is a feedback or compensation system
by which children can express their rights, wouldn't this arise in
situations other than genetic modifications? Forcing a child to grow
up in a harsh or limited environment should count, shouldn't it?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:50:30 MDT