tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7283358323076092847.post7708643710977230652..comments2023-10-24T15:25:04.226+02:00Comments on FRIDAY DEBATE BLOG: THBT parents should be allowed to select for desirable genetic traits in their offspring - closing speechesFDBhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04450364967028019986noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7283358323076092847.post-81954579664390848672013-02-03T19:58:38.258+01:002013-02-03T19:58:38.258+01:00Thank you very much, AM. Exactly, there is a stra...Thank you very much, AM. Exactly, there is a strawman to be debunked :)<br /><br />There is also another point I'd like to discuss with whomever might feel for it.<br /><br />It is this idea of a life worth living. I have to confess that the first time I stumbled upon the work of Professor David Benatar, I was a bit disturbed. That's why, by the way, I ever decided to read more of his work!<br /><br />But I think that this point of view is both valid and cogent. On top of that, it could have a variety of applications, e.g. to adjudicate the question of euthanasia, therapeutic embryos...<br /><br />In short: a very disturbing thesis, but very powerful indeed!HCnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7283358323076092847.post-11189634061289458212013-02-03T19:52:57.329+01:002013-02-03T19:52:57.329+01:00HA, I don’t remember having ever spoke of cosmetic...HA, I don’t remember having ever spoke of cosmetic surgery, nor reading my teammates doing so. However, AA mentioned, in his introductory speech, the idea of “cosmetic medicine.” Of course, when hearing the term “cosmetic”, one has no other option than thinking of the “nipping and tucking” of the surgeon (to make a reference to a famous American TV series). The media are so saturated of this usage that it is difficult to think otherwise. But it is forgetting that cosmetic, as a noun, was first used in English circa 1600 to mean the “art of beautifying,” a usage totally consonant with the Greek root of the word, kosmetike. Per se, it has nothing to do with the surgical field of “cosmetic,” nor with makeups or anything related.<br /><br />When we speak of “cosmetic medicine”, we actually mean the medicine of enhancement, as opposed to the medicine of “reparation”—that is, the medicine as it was practiced exclusively before the middle of the twentieth century. If you want an analogy from the field of plastic surgery, let’s say that cosmetic medicine is to medicine in general what cosmetic surgery is to reconstructive surgery. You get cosmetic surgery when you want to enlarge the size of your breasts, out of a (perhaps unjustified) body image issue akin to anorexia; you get reconstructive surgery when you’d like to get a breast implant after having had a cancer that needed surgical excision of the colonized tissues. This distinction, of course, is irrespective of the procedure itself. And if you want an analogy from the field of psychology, let’s say that cosmetic medicine is to medicine in general what psychiatry is to positive psychology: psychiatry deals with organic diseases hard to dislodge, while positive psychology tries, along the work of Abraham Maslow and its likes, to understand human nature better in order to give mankind tools so that it can fulfill its potential.<br /><br />Thus, when AA, in his introductory speech, spoke of “cosmetic medicine” as being excluded from the scope of the debate, he only meant that a threshold should be found between what uses were acceptable for genetic engineering, and what uses were unacceptable. Conversely, when I spoke of diseases in my concluding speech, I wasn’t referring to the kind of diseases you could find, today, in a medical reference book. I understood it to mean something so undesirable that it should be prevented by all means. This way, we keep the definition open. It was indeed our opinion that determining the nature of this threshold was clearly out of the scope of this debate—this would have taken too much time, and besides should be the work of specialists. We instead preferred to give some food for thoughts as to where this line should be set.<br /><br />This throat clearing was, in my opinion, much needed. Because, then, we don’t really understand your contention that free will has anything to do with what has just been said. I hope yours wasn’t only a failed attempt to raise a point of information, FDA-style.<br /><br />Moreover, if you really want to speak about freewill, I urge you to reconsider the summary and new arguments I give during the exposition of the first clash point I analyzed. It should address your worries, because they are linked to the question as whether unborn persons are free to choose. I hope you could see that, when we put things as bluntly, this statement seems a little bit ridiculous. I hope that the reading of my paragraph will satisfy any other bouts of curiosity you might have.<br /><br />HC<br />HCnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7283358323076092847.post-53609322909653605662013-02-02T21:29:45.585+01:002013-02-02T21:29:45.585+01:00I would like to applaud HC's speech, it was ve...I would like to applaud HC's speech, it was very persuading. Also, the opposition seems to ignore the proposer's defined stance to attack a strawman.AMnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7283358323076092847.post-85570798841337582162013-02-02T18:35:44.025+01:002013-02-02T18:35:44.025+01:00comment addressed to HCcomment addressed to HCHAnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7283358323076092847.post-22457712001575591262013-02-02T17:33:40.831+01:002013-02-02T17:33:40.831+01:00How can you compare embryo selection and cosmetic ...How can you compare embryo selection and cosmetic surgery: in the first you chose which human being shall live, while in the latter, the human being decides for himself to change something in his body.<br />Is this difference "ground" enough for you?HAnoreply@blogger.com