|
Custom Baby
Link |
by
on 2008-06-01 17:30:08 (edited 2008-06-02 10:41:20)
|
So just reading around and I noticed that some people are making a fuss about now you can kind of "customize" your baby. If you have enough money doctors now can put in the right genes in your baby so you can have it with green or blue eyes, what color hair you want, etc. So people are mad about it and saying it goes against God's plan. I see it as if we continue this we can continue to further human life. Maybe look for the genes that cause certain genetic disorders and take them out. So what do you think about all this?  
"It's better to be used, then to be useless." |
|
Re: Custom Baby
Link |
by
on 2008-06-01 17:59:12 |
|
@z wkakakkaakkakk ROFL LMAO wew, i can't get the funny idea out of my mind coordinator.. big boss... wakakkaka well, just one thing though and it might not be coherent with the topic... if they can do genes manipulation to that extent it just weird to see the lack of technologies to make our world preserve...... i wonder anyway, if it make your kid healthier why not cut the bad genes but for customization, well i think people this day missed the fun of getting present that still wrapped. The nervous and excited feeling of "what do i get" ^^ 
 |
|
Re: Custom Baby
Link |
by zparticus27
on 2008-06-01 20:02:00
|
|
@ key hahaha well every time i hear genetics,it always reminds me of Metal Gear Solid hahaha nicely put,genetics can indeed save or break mankind... as for it being against God's plan..i dont think it is since as i've said..we have given the freedom to use our lives as we see fit |
|
Re: Custom Baby
|
|
I don't think it's going against G-d, simply because there's nothing, as far as I can see, about it (it would be hard to talk about genetics thousands of years ago). The objections to such procedures comes from doctrinal constructions, which aren't that binding. Though I find it not prohibited I find it very dangerous. No matter how strong the laws on that matter might come, there's always gonna be some way out of it simply because the legislator can't foresee the advances of science nor the possibilities that might derive from some discovery. All that leads to the terrible conclusion that we gonna depend on the will of the practioner of such techniques, which is bad since self discipline isn't something so common among men and women, so abuses are quite possible T-T. |
|
Re: Custom Baby
|
|
If there's anything that anime has taught me, it's that neo-eugenics is COOL! In any case, if there is a God, and he disagrees, he can send us a message to let us know. Anyway, I'm not a Christian, but there is a such thing as Christian Transhumanism. |
|
Re: Custom Baby
|
I think it is pretty cool. I don't know about God, but humans definitely have earned this right to manipulate their genetic structure to advance forward. They are manipulating their own system, not God's! But I don't think some people would be happy if 'customizing' babies is made a legal law.  |
|
Re: Custom Baby
Link |
by
 
on 2008-06-02 07:48:01 (edited 2008-06-02 07:49:12)
|
|
Funny you mention about this. I was reading up an article about a couple paying female college students to donate some eggs to create a "super genius child". You can read more about it here. Free will.  |
|
Re: Custom Baby
|
|
First of all, there is no way in hell there's a God out there. Coming to the main point, I don't think there'll ever be a time when progresses in genetics and eugenics will not be disputed. But I say to you: who do you think objects to such stuff? Surely not the common people, who'll probably find it more of a boon. Nope, it's actually those overblown 'defenders of public opinion', the politicians. I mean, if there was a plan to create super-politicians or to create immortal beings, these b******* would probably be first in line. And I'm not even talking about what would happen if their own children were born mutated or deformed. Therefore, I believe it's best to let science take its own path. Yes, there are risks, but that's also why discussion boards like this exist!  --> |
|
Re: Custom Baby
Link |
by
on 2008-06-02 10:40:30 (edited 2008-06-02 10:44:22)
|
|
There exists no god the creator of life. The human race and every other species of life evolved WITHOUT any intentioned design. As far as I know, the premise of this thread is entirely speculative because customizable genes in a babies is NOT yet commercial available. Such a technology would certainly be possible, and likely will be in the future, but it is false to say it has arrived! I take issue with the phrase, "advancing humans". Making intentional changes to our collective genetic code cannot justifiably be called "advancement". The notion that humans are more advanced then any other life form is fallacious. We are unique, no doubt, in our ability to effect huge genetic changes in a single generation. The real question is do we want to edit our own genome, and if so, to what extent? I see every reason to use genetic technology for the prevention of terrible genetic disease. Interestingly, I would NOT recommend the REMOVAL of genes that can lead to these diseases. Instead, the selection without suffering and death of healthy babies above unhealthy babies can be accomplished. This does NOT change the paradigm of natural selection at all! It simply changes the definition of fitness while at the same time hugely removing human suffering. You see, many genes that lead to disease, take the gene for sickle-cell anemia, for example, are GOOD. They are adaptations for survival, in this case, resistance to malaria. In regions where malaria is prevalent, the sickle-cell gene is prevalent, too. Some babies are born with one copy of the gene (remember, we have two copies of each gene). Other babies are born with two copies of the disease-causing gene, and get sick, because it is a recessive disease. Many other diseases follow this paradigm. Getting rid of these genes altogether would reduce the genetic diversity of our species, which is VERY BAD. Instead, we can perform in-vitro fertilization using a lab-tested zygote that has been screened for having two pairs of the diseased gene, along with many other screenings. This is no different, from an evolutionary point of view, from having many babies, most of which die from disease, and then finally having one healthy baby. Sadly, this happens quite often, most often in poor countries. I don't know about you, but the promise of lowering infant mortality and reducing human sicknesses such as sickle-cell anemia, autism, cardiovascular disease, cancer, obesity, schizophrenia, etc. is a wonderful thing. The problem of this technology being made available only to those who can afford it is NOT A NEW PROBLEM. All advances in technology come with a price tag. This is no argument at all AGAINST the proposed technology at all! The tendency people have to talk nonsense like god and politics when confronted by their own ignorance sickens me. Everyone agrees that it's a good idea to reduce human suffering. Doing so with only a price tag as consequence is inarguably good. 
|
|
Re: Custom Baby
|
|
Well said, Gendou! I take umbrage at the fact that certain people accuse scientists of 'playing God'. They may well do so; in fact, in the absence of any real Creator, it these 'intelligencers of nature' (Bacon's term) who stand closest. I forgot to mention the fact that you so kindly mentioned in my previous post. All of these arguments about cleaning up diseases is just poppycock. The common cold is probably the best benefactor we have, because of a symbiotic process going back millions of years. Instead, we should be concentrating more on diseases which are not beneficial or vital to our existence, such as cancer, AIDS or Alzheimer's. Also, you are correct in the fact in the fact that removing every disease-carrying gene would reduce the genetic diversity. In addition to that, however, I would like to point out that this will have several social ramifications as well. This point can be summed in a line I remember from The Incredibles: "When everyone is a superhero, no one is." (I quote from memory.) That statement about politics. Is it directed at me? If it is, I would like to point out that I am in no way, shape or definition a supporter of legislation against genetic modification. I was just pointing out that politics does get in the way of science, because politicians are motivated by self-interested reasons, and thus want votes on issues that they think will harm the public, as we saw in the anti-cloning legislation ban in the US and UK. --> |