General Discussion Undecided where to post - do it here. |
Reply to Thread New Thread |
![]() |
#3 |
|
Up to a point, I don't have a problem with this.
While a bias might happen. (males in china) This could prevent a lot of babies from being murdered. If they go overboard on males, eventually females would increase in value. Removing certain deseases no problem. Hair color and eye colors can be changed anyway so I don't have a problem with that either. If we can identify the stupid gene and can screen for it, no problem with that either. A healthier baby, no problem with that either. That parent that has had 6 kid of the same sex that just kept having kids trying for one of the other sex. No problem with that either. I see this as a new toy for rich people. And I'm sure there's a wacko out there that will use this technology in a way that I wouldn't approve, but the concept in general doesn't disturb me too greatly. (there are limits though) |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
|
Eventually we might be able to select for height, physical strength, agility. co-ordination, attractiveness, and intelligence. Would it be OK with you if the rich could select for super-progeny, leaving the rest of us to muddle on with what we've got? ![]() And this still wouldn't stop all the spontaneous procreation going on out there. Ask any special needs parent if, if they could have prevented it, would they have chosen to, I believe you know what the answer would be. |
![]() |
![]() |
#7 |
|
Ask any special needs parent if, if they could have prevented it, would they have chosen to, I believe you know what the answer would be I have to agree with rah here. I'm sure my parents would rather have kids who could hear. The problem is the extension. What we are saying is that anyone with a disability isn't fit to live.
|
![]() |
![]() |
#8 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#9 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#10 |
|
So...The Master Race after all?
![]() meh...this is really a "so what?" kind of thing. The rich already can provide better nutrition, living conditions, education, and access to opportunity. What difference does it really matter if they are all blond hair and blue eyes (or black hair and brown eyes for that matter)? |
![]() |
![]() |
#11 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#12 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#13 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#17 |
|
That's twice you've asked that, and no where, does anyone even come close to inferring that. So either you're simply trolling or you believe that. But stop saying that's what people mean in this discussion because that's simply not the case. But then why am I not suprised that your statement followed no real logic. I am making the argument that the one is an extension of the other.
Let me find the quote from Darwin. This is from the Descent of Man. "We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man itself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed." I don't think there is any question. |
![]() |
![]() |
#18 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#19 |
|
I am making the argument that the one is an extension of the other. Ok so that is your opinion and you can believe what you want, but I never said that ,and I don't believe it, so don't say/infer that I did.
Which is why they had coercive sterilization for disabled people. Bad enough they are alive, but worse that they be permitted to propagate. I don't agree with sterilization of disabled people, and never said it. I said if you can select prior to eliminate negative traits, I don't have a problem with it. That's a far cry from a call of sterilization. You're the one saying these things so I can only assume that's what you believe. |
![]() |
![]() |
#20 |
|
With genetic manipulation, we can repair genes that would otherwise cause people to be blind, or deaf, or lawyers. That is true, but at the same time you are saying that if you are blind or deaf, that you are less of a person and need to be fixed.
I don't have a problem with say, laser surgery. A person can choose for themselves whether they wish to go under the knife. Genetic engineering where you toss out everyone who doesn't measure up? That's something else entirely. One is a therapy, the other eugenics. I don't know if folks are aware that 95 percent of Down's syndrome babies are aborted. These are kids that have a full life ahead of them, even if they are disabled. Am I to think that it's merely a coincidence? I know you and I don't see eye to eye on where the train is headed, but that's ok. ![]() |
![]() |
Reply to Thread New Thread |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|