Originally Posted by Treora
That's basically the second, third and fourth points from my original post, just repackaged. The armful intent should have read harmful intent. These are purely pathos arguments and no logos or ethos arguments.
Thanks for the link, but it appears to be irrelvant to the question. However it does advocate the right for priests to be women and/or marry; that farmers are elitists (!); and that everyone is human, should practice safe sex, that everyone is essentially athetist/agnostic & organised religious practices are only followed by the masses when it suits them.
So there appears to be no moral proclivities against positive eugenics.
Not entirely. There are still other arguments that I can think of.
Morality is often more about custom and value. There is an aesthetic and cultural element and of course, people are very reluctant to change.
Also, it could be argued that in any change, the potential benefit must me compared to the potential harm. Men, for example, may argue, that all this research is undermining their position and role in fathering children (family etc.), as this type of research could lead to women having children without their participation etc.
What really is driving and motivating the medical industry? Helping mankind or making money.
Much of this suspicion probably comes from mankinds experience with technology and especially the armaments industry. When the canon (big gun) was brought into England in the medieval period, the poet and humanist John Donn said that he thought that this weapon would save hundreds of lives.
Of course, the gun had a huge and indirect effect on the whole European 'society of orders' . Noble's invention of dynamite also lead to abuses (that why he sponsored the peace prize I think). Nuclear technology has also the potential to lead to the possibility of total anileation etc.
Of course, in medicine, one of the first principles should be 'Primum non nocere' or 'First, do no harm.' and it could be argued that the burden is really on the medical industry to prove that these changes are beneficial and will do no long term harm. etc.
So if I was on the side arguing against you, ( I don't really know enough to have a particular view of this) I would say that the onus is on you to prove that this technology that you propose will be of overall benefit to mankind and will do no harm.
PS You could also research the GM food controversy and see what arguments were used there. Many of these controversities (including the one on cloning) have parallel arguments.