dathwampeer said:
...why would "We're tampering in God's Domain" be a bad theme?".
Well..... for one thing its been done to death.
Every movie about a scientist who touches on one of the so called 'taboo's' ends up being a ridiculously pseudo moralistic piece of trash, aimed at getting a cheap reaction.
Remember things such as blood transfusion, stem cell research, abortions heck even basic understanding of human anatomy was considered to be (and still is in some cases) a taboo subject, or not for us to tamper with.
If it wasn't for scientists willing to push the boundaries of social and moral acceptance then we would still be living in the dark ages praying to some sky father to heal the sick and solve all our woes. (well some people still do that) but for the rest of us, the people who are willing to step on gods toes have made life a hell of a lot more liveable.
While I do agree with you on the "done to death" portion, you are confusing religion with rationality, or maybe you're just making the purely religious association for the sake of a convenient dismissal. Saying "god's domain" outside of a purely religious context can also just refer to the fact that we typically can't foresee all possible outcomes. (Which if you want to be particularly tactless about it could also be restated as "The only way to foresee all possible outcomes would be as an omniscient being and since such an being does not exist, it's 'god's domain')
If we don't know spit about something, then make a single breakthrough and push on ahead without taking the time to consider alternatives, overlooking the "How it can work" with "How it will work now", acting purely on the desire to achieve what has not been achieved before, those unknown consequences could very well bite us in the asterisk. Using your examples, early blood transfusions would have carried the risks of acting as a vector for known or unknown diseases, among other complications, proving fatal. Stem cells are more complicated, since that is still something that is just dawning on the medical community. Less than a decade has made the difference between cells from a fetus and sperm or umbilical cord blood for example. I would be of the opinion that an abortion is more of a procedural development than a technological development however, unless you are referring to it from a purely religious standpoint.
Another good example:
MovieBob said:
However many hundreds of thousand of years ago, this individual who's name is lost to history said "No, Fluffy. Instead of mating with whatever sheep you wish like every other sheep in sheep history; you're going to mate with Puffy here, because two extra-wooly sheep parents probably means more extra-wooly sheep babies." This would've been a moment on-par with the decision to take command of FIRE. In that moment, we (humans) ripped the lightning from Zeus' hand and became manipulators of life itself.
Sadly, Fluffy and Puffy also harbored double-recessive genetic traits which increased their chances of uterine deformations, or decreased immune responses to certain diseases. Shit happened and sheep died. Or another similar train of thought: Feeding cows material from other cows will make better cows. (Yes it's a stretch, but someone thought it made sense at some point)
Point being, science is about knowing the answers, and it's a lot more informative to have a patient than just a cadaver. Not that there isn't some merit in what you're saying, I'm just advising that you not dismiss or misinterpret the concept of thorough vs theatrical scientific progress.