LOGO
General Discussion Undecided where to post - do it here.

Reply to Thread New Thread
Old 03-02-2009, 08:40 PM   #1
stoneeZef

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
478
Senior Member
Default Designer babies are here.
stoneeZef is offline


Old 03-02-2009, 08:42 PM   #2
Tam04xa

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
561
Senior Member
Default
This is disgusting.
Tam04xa is offline


Old 03-02-2009, 09:18 PM   #3
Xibizopt

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
520
Senior Member
Default
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)
Xibizopt is offline


Old 03-02-2009, 09:55 PM   #4
JNancy46

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
384
Senior Member
Default
Good. Now we can finally get rid of the gays.
Yup. Gays and stupid people. As soon as we find the relevant genes.
JNancy46 is offline


Old 03-02-2009, 10:03 PM   #5
idertedype

Join Date
Nov 2005
Posts
376
Senior Member
Default
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?
As I said there are limits. The traits you listed are probably ok. (attractiveness is subjective and as stated, it's not a sure bet) And yes, at first it would be the rich, but eventually it would come down in price. And maybe this would slow down the population growth if kids were more expensive at the beginning.
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.
idertedype is offline


Old 03-02-2009, 11:16 PM   #6
Sheelldaw

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
432
Senior Member
Default
As I said there are limits.
It would be a challenge to come up with any non-arbitrary limits, if you do it your way.
Sheelldaw is offline


Old 03-02-2009, 11:36 PM   #7
Lypepuddyu

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
613
Senior Member
Default
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.
Lypepuddyu is offline


Old 03-03-2009, 01:23 AM   #8
haudraufwienix

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
460
Senior Member
Default
I don't like the idea when it is regarding traits that are completely trivial, and stinks of "master race" quite frankly. If we are trying to enhance meaningful human traits such as intelligence or avoid genetic disorders, that is fine, but we're certainly not at that point yet.
haudraufwienix is offline


Old 03-03-2009, 01:35 AM   #9
Boveosteors

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
374
Senior Member
Default
My main issue is that eventually a specific set of traits will become the most desirable for parents, and then some disease comes along that wipes out 99.99999% of the human race.
Boveosteors is offline


Old 03-03-2009, 01:50 AM   #10
WUlcN1Rz

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
488
Senior Member
Default
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)?
WUlcN1Rz is offline


Old 03-03-2009, 02:06 AM   #11
LarryG1978

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
435
Senior Member
Default
Mr. Huxley is either laughing his ass off or turning in his grave.
LarryG1978 is offline


Old 03-03-2009, 02:54 AM   #12
Frannypaync

Join Date
Nov 2005
Posts
402
Senior Member
Default
It's not even that. All you need to do to object to this is look at popular trends in interior design from 1960 to now. You look at that and then tell me it's a good idea to let the same sort of people design human beings.
Frannypaync is offline


Old 03-03-2009, 03:42 AM   #13
Glamyclitlemi

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
466
Senior Member
Default
That wasn't US that said that. I think it might have been Hitler. Should have clarified. When discussing this idea, we are arguing that the idea states that disabled people are not fit to live.
Glamyclitlemi is offline


Old 03-03-2009, 04:36 AM   #14
longrema

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
361
Senior Member
Default
I hope a genocidal dictator stops this madness
longrema is offline


Old 03-03-2009, 02:59 PM   #15
gogona

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
420
Senior Member
Default
Don't feed the bears. Didn't you read the signs.

Of course, if the bears get worked up, they may eat all the disabled children and that would solve all our problems.
gogona is offline


Old 03-03-2009, 03:27 PM   #16
FuXA8nQM

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
586
Senior Member
Default
There's a big difference between killing after the fact and avoidence. I don't think you can compare the two.
If you carry that arguement out, birth control does the same thing. It just doesn't make sense.
FuXA8nQM is offline


Old 03-03-2009, 04:08 PM   #17
erepsysoulpfbs

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
455
Senior Member
Default
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.
erepsysoulpfbs is offline


Old 03-03-2009, 08:54 PM   #18
iceleliewBync

Join Date
Nov 2005
Posts
605
Senior Member
Default
...although, the OP article is kind of the anti-Darwin.

Under Darwin, the rule is survival of the fittest: The best and brightest live to procreate and the weak and diseased die out.

With genetic manipulation, we can repair genes that would otherwise cause people to be blind, or deaf, or lawyers.
iceleliewBync is offline


Old 03-03-2009, 08:58 PM   #19
Njxatsbf

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
507
Senior Member
Default
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.
Njxatsbf is offline


Old 03-03-2009, 09:16 PM   #20
byncnombmub

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
489
Senior Member
Default
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.
byncnombmub is offline



Reply to Thread New Thread

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:07 AM.
Copyright ©2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
Design & Developed by Amodity.com
Copyright© Amodity