Why are people opposed to genetic modification.?
549101
A large part of it is because they are idiots.
908536
First off I am pro-genetic research.  I think it is the key to understanding the way the human body works so we can combat diseases and perhaps cure AIDS and cancer if we understand how they affect the body at a genetic level.  Anyone who doesn't see the potential benefit of this and the REAL practical aspects to advancing  our knowledge as a whole for the betterment of our standard of living is blind.  If we want a future with cheaper and more effective medicine and more efficient ways to treat diseases including some now considered terminal or incurable then it's better to research than not to research.\n\nSecondly, genetic "coding" goes on whether we want it to or not.  In fact, all living things are a product of genetic coding so if you are against it, then you are against reproduction. ;)\n\nAs for checking to see if there is a "crime gene"...  First we need to find out if one exists before worrying about the possible "Minority Report" scenario coming true.  I don't know if there is one but I also believe people have control over their own actions and shouldn't be held accountable for something they have not yet committed IF such a scenario existed...  However, as it sits now, this would be a poor argument against genetic research given the real world potential applications that can be used today vs. the far-fetched notion of preemptive crime prevention based on one's genetic makeup.  Who knows?  Maybe they can find a cure to crime in the form of a pill instead of a cell.  Why not?  The chances of that happening would be just as plausible and good for humanity.
980679
It is the opinion of some that life on earth would be better if not for science and technology\nYou were not far from the answer though...
943624
I think embryonic stem cell research is wrong.  I am a Christian, have been all my life, and I don't like being stereo-typed because of my religious 'convictions.'  Advocates argue that Christians are against embryonic stem cell research because they, we, think when we die we will have to answer for it.  NEWS FLASH!  I have accepted Christ, I am going to Heaven when I die, and here is the kicker......I won't have to answer for THEIR transgressions!  I think embryonic stem cell is wrong because life does begin at conception.  The argument that it doesn't is just a way for those who end life to feel better about themselves.  You shouldn't be able to harvest humans like potatoes for the sake of research.  Any way you look at it, it's wrong.  No ifs, ands, or buts.  I have a hard time figuring their reasoning.  What it boils down to is that they want to kill babies to cure old people.  End new life to save one that's already been lived.  For what?  To add another 10-15 years to a persons life?  Why?  Like you said, embryonic stem cell research has yielded no results, however, adult stem cell research has been the most promising so far.  I don't have an argument with these practices.  I don't even have an argument with using aborted embryos for research.  I don't believe in abortion, but the US Supreme Court says it is the right of a woman to decide.  If she decides to end her pregnancy, then I believe the embryo can be used for research.  Is this not a good enough compromise?  I have had a great grandmother die from one of those diseases stem cell research promises to cure.  I watched her suffer, held her hand as she passed, but I would never have signed anything that would have her better if I had to kill a baby.  So many people out there would love to be parents, but they can't because of medical or financial limitations.  Democrats want us to sign on for funded programs that allow babies to be killed for research to cure illnesses and diseases.  I don't see any of these people pushing for a federally funded program to help barren women conceive the children they so desparately want.  Are they really trying to help people?
94543
Against it.\n\nI think doctors have been playing "Frankenstein" for too long now.  Just because they "Can" does not mean they should!!!\n\nDoctors are working as hard as possible to delay death.  What is wrong with death???  I know our society is afraid of death and I think this is insane.  We have no problem murdering babies who are "in the womb" to save another life.  This life being saved  has experience life, and has had the opportunity to exercise their "Free Will", God‘s calling them.   The unborn baby has not has this chance, and we're robbing it of life for an old life who‘s ready to go home.  \n\nEven when an abortion is not necessary for "Stem Cell", I still think that we need to grow up and look death in its face.  We need to live our lives to its best potential.  I think we're insulting God by delaying death.  It's like me saying, hey Mom, give me five more minutes to play my video games... it seems harmless, but dinner got cold...we missed a joyful time with our family.\n\nWhat would I say to God and the unborn child if I were a recipient of Stem Cell?  Thanks for the life force duds…I used it to watch TV and play video games…plus I got to see my niece be born and graduate elementary school???  My conscience couldn’t handle that responsibility.\n\nIs it that we have done so much bad, that we’re afraid to face God?
662557
Well a lot of the people who will be shaping the technologies are talking about it.\n\nAs for the rest of the populus I suspect it is because those technologies haven't shown much ability yet so they just safely ignore them while a few idiots go out and protest against biotech, etc.\n\nWe also have a very big lack of knowledge of when it will happen and we have no idea what will be beyond the singularity so it probably seems like a vague concept to most people which wouldn't help awareness.
140260
Two commonly overlooked disadvantages could be a thinning out of the gene pool (as fads come into play, people start choosing very similar genetic structures for their children to have, resulting in loss of individualism as well as sexual reproduction of similar beings leading to abnormalities in the same way incest sometimes does), and overpopulation, as common genetic defects cause some people to be less likely to survive in our environment, it keeps population growth lower than it would if we averaged at a 150+ year life span.\n\nAlso, in the event of a change in environment, the concurrent views on how genes should be altered would be counterproductive to an adaptation by the human body in order to cope with that environmental change.
747471
Firstly the answer depends one whether you are referring to cloning on an individual cell basis or at the organism level (ie Dolly the sheep).\n\nThere are two main types of objection to the first type of cloning, those relating to pro-life arguments and those that are concerned with unethical manipulations of cells. \n\nThe pro-life debate argues that all cells are potential life, the decision of whether or not those cells are allowed to grow or are terminated lies with God, not a scientist. \n\nThe other argument argues that cloning may grow out of control and unethical experiments may be carried out. \n\nOn the organism level...\n\nWell human cloning finds itself facing similar arguments, pro-life is obviously going to find problems here as life is a privilege given only by God. \n\nFrom an ethical view its quite clear that complete human cloning is wrong, refer to the movie The Island!\n\nI think Christians object, not through fear as God will always be infinitely more powerful in their eyes, but purely because they believe the gift of life is precious and from their point of view cloning is a violation of that gift.\n \nPersonally I think the anti-cloning and stem cell research movements are damaging the potential of scientific and medical research.
49693
Well, I doubt many people want a full course on intelligent design. Rather, they are pushing for a brief (a few minutes) statement in bio classes along the lines of :\n\n"Not everyone agrees with evolution, and there are religious beliefs which conflict with it, as well as this intelligent design concept. Go read the Pandas and People book for more info if you want. Please don't sue us."
240837
there are plenty of sites on genetic engineering and i have listed one below but some things seem better with modification for instance pigs produce vast amount of phosphorous which screws up our environment with a modification they can be grown with a change in their saliva to prevent that which makes for a better greener world, we use plastic surgery to make changes for the better, some things need the change.
22799
I am for it. Esp if it can help cure diseases that we can not prevent with any other alternative method. Why wouldnt anyone want to spend more time with the ones they love. I do understand that stem cells come from aborted fetuses. But if we can use the stem cells that are collected to better help everyone then we should do what we can with what we have. But lets not start creating abortions to just harvest stem cell. I am healthy.
1146501
It is and will happen but to do it while maintaining a human form is unnecessary and to most highly objectionable.  each useful part could be "cloned" and maintained mechanically and never even be in human or embryonic form.
891811
I think there is a lot of confusion about this issue.  The radicalists shout  "We are people and there is nothing wrong with disability" ....OK fair enough.  I dont have a problem with disability or disabled people.  But why do others need to be born that way if there is a cure?  Its like saying Cancer is a fact of life, we have the drugs to treat it but we wont do it cos cancer sufferers are people too!  It is not logical.  Disbled people should be a real part of the community, REAL inclusion, not just lip service and to be able to fulfill their potential.  But if I had the choice of gene therapy and a child free of disablilites I would want to take the therapy.  There is surely no question that disabilty causes suffering whether that be physical, mental or emotional, and I would want to avoid that for any child of mine if I could.
608094
They are against evreything, including having pets. They believe all animals should run free & wild. I may be a vegetarian, but PETA is crazy.
808174
Genetic modification is a dangerous game until the technology is absolutely fool-proof. \n\nI think cloning technology is the future since curing many diseases could depend upon it. But there has to be strict regulation involved because guess what, obtaining anyone's DNA is easier than picking your nose. \n\nYou may find the movie 'The Island' very interesting.
917112
Have you ever wondered whether the advances in science and technology would provoke nature’s need for revenge? Have you ever thought of what might happen if we keep on the exploit what we have, our lands and our bodies? Because I have. I feel that what nature is preparing for us will come out of the blue, exactly when we least expect it. And the cause for this would lie in our actions. And why? Simply because we have no idea what we’re doing while polluting our planet, using chemicals in everything and we are even thinking about modifying our children’s looks and brains. We are pushing our luck with the advances in agriculture, genetics and medicine. \n\nFor a start, all humans are so used to using technology and taking antibiotics that I’m not even sure that we could survive without them. For example, children weren’t used to such strong pills ten years ago as they are now, since a very young age. The research that I’ve made into the media shows that genetically improved corn makes the danger of famine in many parts of the world a thing of the past, but do these people realize that such meals don’t provide enough vitamins and thus puts their health at risk? And do they know how a specific body would react to such things? My opinion is that people should consider their interference in agriculture if they don’t want to provoke nature to strike back. \n\nModifying plants is not the only business of nature with which people mess up. Knowing the way your child will look like when it grows up is to be no longer something extraordinary. But if it becomes a normal thing to take a picture of a star and say that your heir looks like him or her, imagine how simple the child’s life would be, there would be nothing interesting or surprising to happen to its looks. Not only that, imagine what life would be if we all looked like dolls in the Disney shop :). In addition, the smallest and simplest mistake could cause mutations or provoke long-lost inherited diseases in the family tree. It is the same thing with the organs that will be created in laboratories soon- the risk of health ‘problems’ is too high. My research shows that the average lifespan would soon be over eighty years of age. And what will happen if everyone lived up to a thousand years old? The world would be overpopulated and the people who would work wouldn’t be enough to feed those who wouldn’t. And that would be a disaster. \n\nHowever, medicine is well developed nowadays. A patient who had an organ transplanted is celebrating the tissue’s tenth year of normal function in his body, according to the media. Transplantations make people with an infected organ live normally, but that has its price. First of all, it is very risky to undertake such an operation, but the results might be tremendous. The second threat comes right after the end of the surgeon’s ‘masterpiece’- the danger of inheriting diseases from the owner of the organ. In addition, I don’t think it is ethically correct to allow people to literally sell parts of their bodies. At least not for such prices like $2000, which is how much a kidney costs in Turkey. What’s more, we all know what kinds of risks cosmetic surgery involves- for example, if you make your lips bigger, the substance might decide to change its position in a year and move to your cheek. \n\nTo sum up, scientists’ ability to make nature work for them has had clear benefits. Of course some people do question the ethics of certain experiments, and others demand to know just how far we are prepared to go with scientific changes. Nevertheless, the benefits to both individuals and the whole of society outweight these concerns, but can’t outweight what the future could bring to us as a revenge for playing with nature.
83841
Women are going to have abortions. Whether it's right or wrong to do so, they are going to do it.  Why shouldn't we as a society utilize this stem cell resource?  We're more than willing to destroy the rain forests and other resources for chemical "cures".  We'll pump ourselves full of chemicals and endure side effects worse than the disease we're trying to treat when stem cells offer cures, not just symptom cover ups.