Kiberiti Science: Tampering With Dna To Weak Resemblance

Kiberiti Science: Tampering with DNA to weak resemblance

The myth says that if the wife intends to take part in infidelity and gets pregnant in the run, she can use a matchstick head to weaken the resemblance of a child with the cheating partner. “You take the particles of say three matchsticks. You place them at the circumference of the genital area three hours before coitus. The Kiberiti particles have Sulphur that will alternate with the Y chromosome. It neutralizes the sperm identity, thus weakening the resemblance of the father resulting in much activeness of the other’s gene,” said the fallacy. Experts have, however, come out to dispute the above tale saying it has no scientific background.

According to Dr Njoki Fernandes, a Nairobi-based gynaecologist, the looks and traits of a child cannot be altered using such means as match sticks. She added that such means are not safe and could lead to the woman contracting serious infections and burns in her private area. “The looks of a child are genetic. It is not something you can alter using matchboxes. Tampering with DNA is not a simple science that involves kiberiti,” Njoki told TV 47.This nonesense has been trending yet its just garbage.

Tampering with DNA to weaken a child’s resemblance raises significant ethical, moral, and practical concerns. While advancements in genetic engineering, such as CRISPR-Cas9, have opened doors to manipulate genes, doing so solely for altering physical appearance presents a host of ethical dilemmas.

Firstly, altering a child’s DNA solely for cosmetic purposes perpetuates a harmful societal emphasis on physical appearance over intrinsic value. It sends the message that superficial traits hold more importance than a child’s health, personality, or unique attributes. This mindset can contribute to the objectification and devaluation of individuals based on their looks, fostering a culture of discrimination and inequality.

Moreover, genetic manipulation for cosmetic purposes raises questions about consent and autonomy. Children have a fundamental right to self-determination and bodily integrity. Making irreversible genetic alterations without their informed consent deprives them of the opportunity to make decisions about their own bodies and identities. It undermines their autonomy and may lead to feelings of resentment or alienation later in life.

Beyond ethical considerations, tampering with DNA to weaken resemblance poses significant technical challenges and risks. The genetic code is incredibly complex, with numerous genes influencing various traits. Attempting to alter specific genes to weaken resemblance could have unintended consequences, potentially causing unforeseen health problems or genetic disorders in the child. Genetic engineering is still in its infancy, and our understanding of the long-term effects of manipulating DNA is limited.

Furthermore, genetic manipulation for cosmetic purposes could exacerbate existing inequalities and discrimination. Wealthier individuals or countries with advanced biotechnological capabilities may have greater access to these technologies, widening the gap between the privileged and the marginalized. This could lead to a future where physical appearance is further stratified along socioeconomic lines, reinforcing patterns of oppression and injustice.

From a psychological perspective, tampering with a child’s DNA to weaken resemblance may also have detrimental effects on familial relationships and self-identity. Family dynamics and bonds are often built on shared physical traits and resemblances. Intentionally altering these characteristics could disrupt the natural parent-child bond and create feelings of detachment or confusion within the family unit. Additionally, it may impact the child’s sense of self-identity and belonging, as physical resemblance often plays a role in shaping one’s sense of familial and cultural heritage.

In conclusion, tampering with DNA to weaken a child’s resemblance raises profound ethical, moral, and practical concerns. It perpetuates harmful societal norms, undermines individual autonomy, poses technical risks, exacerbates inequalities, and may disrupt familial relationships and self-identity. As we navigate the complexities of genetic engineering, it’s essential to prioritize ethical considerations and uphold the dignity and rights of all individuals, regardless of their physical appearance.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *