The Instigator
Allthenamesaretacken
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points
The Contender
Guarneer
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Is genetic modification playing god and therefor a unethical and a sin.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Allthenamesaretacken
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/1/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,156 times Debate No: 51362
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (12)
Votes (1)

 

Allthenamesaretacken

Con

I'm not debating whether or not torturing animals and doing inhumane experiments for the sake of science is in anyway correct. I'm debating whether the basic act of changing the natural computer code that generates all forms of life is morally or religiously incorrect.

Now, many people tend towards the idea that that genetic modification is blasphemy, a disaster waiting to happen because humanity is striving emulate god's grate power something that can only end in disaster, eg a zombie apocalypse. The general paradigm is that genetic modification will only be used for evil purposes eg. when GM companies produce sterile crops that cause other crops to become sterile in order for farmers to be forced into buying their seeds year and year again. The fact is that currently people are unsure of the dangers surrounding eating GM foods and prefer to stay as far away as possible. I admit that I too am a bit sceptical about the current GM food seeing that it rather untested and obscure. But once again im am not arguing whether GM can cause atrocities.

My argument is the following:
Saying that GM is blasphemy is in it's self blasphemy.
Humanity tends to view things we can not do as gods power. 400 years ago trying to replicate lightning would have been considered blasphemy and when somebody died of electrocution everybody would point to divine punishment. Confining gods powers to GM is it's self blasphemy. God's power is to do the impossible. To create the laws of physics not to to follow them. When we can do that we can start debating.

The fact is that changing iron into a spoon is as much sacrilege as editing life.

We can not draw the line beween god and humanity.

Yes like all basic human actions it can be used for unethical purposes but like all basic human actions it can be used for brilliance. Human actions are only ethically defined by the context in which they are performed.

Please forgive me if I have not followed correct debating format. I hope my argument is still valid.
Guarneer

Pro

I accept this debate.. I will suggest that we follow the general debate format:
R1: Acceptance (we are through that now)
R2: Main arguments (I wont mind rebuttals)
R3: Rebuttals
If you wish to accept this, please post your arguments accordingly.

I wish the very best for both me and my opponent.
Francis
Debate Round No. 1
Allthenamesaretacken

Con

I agree to keep to the format suggested.

This will be a bit of a repetition from my original statement but I have no points to argue against.

My main argument is that GM can not be unethical or a sin because no basic action humanity can do, if performed under the right conditions and for the right reasons, be deemed a sin.

GM is just part of humanities grate religious journey.

To change nature is what man has been doing since its birth. Gm is just that proces at a new level. Yes monters can be made but so can perfection on another scale.

To say that it is playing god is stupid. In saying so you are defining parameters around gods power. It is no more playing god than carving a statue or generating electricity .

GM is a amazing new force which could ether sink or elevate our society by a unimaginable amount, but so could the invention of electricity or steel. The best example of this is the power to split the atom. At the time it was also playing god. And it also had the potential to lift or sink society. It started with a little bit of dip ( Bombs) and for a while it seamed that it wold destroy society but then it raised our society to a new level providing us with a anything source of electrical power which we could not have developed without.

Yes we could create monsters that rip people in half in pain from their miss shaped organs (or a zombie apocalypse) but humanity subconsciously strives for goodness and I believe once we get there it will be the greatest monument to god humanity has ever built.

The power of god is to do what man can't. And with the advancements in GM I believe that religiously, morally, physically and philosophically we can genetically modify nature.

I once again apologise if I followed the incorrect format or went off topic.
Guarneer

Pro

Guarneer forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Allthenamesaretacken

Con

What do I do now?

If anybody actually wants to debate on this topic just white on the comment bar and we can restart the debate.
Guarneer

Pro

Guarneer forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Allthenamesaretacken 3 years ago
Allthenamesaretacken
I totally agree with Shipx7 but the fact is many of the adults I have met have a serious dislike for GM and most lay it down too religious reasons which is the only reason i chose too make this debate a religious mater which I usually find tedious.
Posted by Shipx7 3 years ago
Shipx7
This is very simple. It can't be considered a sin. In the bible nothing says we can't genetically modify anything, and if it would be a sin then we would either be told about it or would not be able to do it. Why would we have the power to do something if we aren't supposed to do it. The whole opinion of modifying things is a sin just falls in on itself because if god gave us the power to do something when it would be simple to not do it, then we are meant to do it. From what I can see there is nothing that would support the pro side (modifying is a sin side).
Posted by Allthenamesaretacken 3 years ago
Allthenamesaretacken
On the subject of stem-cells embryos are no longer required thanks to synthetic biology.

http://www.scientificamerican.com...
Posted by Allthenamesaretacken 3 years ago
Allthenamesaretacken
I have no idea why that happened.
Sorry
Posted by Allthenamesaretacken 3 years ago
Allthenamesaretacken
I was in no way debating whether god exists. I am debating the idea that the general religious and ethical factions look down upon GM as unethical or a sin. Im not arguing a certain religion but rather the wider ideas on ethics and sin.
Posted by Allthenamesaretacken 3 years ago
Allthenamesaretacken
I was in no way debating whether god exists. I am debating the idea that the general religious and ethical factions look down upon GM as unethical or a sin. Im not arguing a certain religion but rather the wider ideas on ethics and sin.
Posted by Allthenamesaretacken 3 years ago
Allthenamesaretacken
I was in no way debating whether god exists. I am debating the idea that the general religious and ethical factions look down upon GM as unethical or a sin. Im not arguing a certain religion but rather the wider ideas on ethics and sin.
Posted by Allthenamesaretacken 3 years ago
Allthenamesaretacken
I was in no way debating whether god exists. I am debating the idea that the general religious and ethical factions look down upon GM as unethical or a sin. Im not arguing a certain religion but rather the wider ideas on ethics and sin.
Posted by Allthenamesaretacken 3 years ago
Allthenamesaretacken
I was in no way debating whether god exists. I am debating the idea that the general religious and ethical factions look down upon GM as unethical or a sin. Im not arguing a certain religion but rather the wider ideas on ethics and sin.
Posted by Defender1999 3 years ago
Defender1999
Now stem cell research is a tricky issue- it involves of isolating an fertilised cell away from the human body to be used for research purposes. The problem is, we do know that in science life begins in conception and if life begins at conception- then that "embryo" who has life is also a human being at the start. This issue is very tricky since it involves questionable methods in its process so I oppose it- but I contend they could find ways of alternatives to stem cell research. Science is wonderful but science is never infallible- it will change over time as improvements and innovations abound. Some issues that may involve moral and ethical concerns are best to be left unexplored. I believe there may be good intentions to allow this, we can allow science to flourish on grounds where moral, ethical, philosophical and religious grounds are at dispute. Some things are left to be known simply- not going much to details about some things.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Seeginomikata 3 years ago
Seeginomikata
AllthenamesaretackenGuarneerTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Full forfeit. Wasted debates are not cool!