I aint gonna live forever, but I also am not going to die as a child because of some genetic defect.
And I sure as hell would have anything done if I can ensure the genetic defect free life for my child, given the circumstances I am in, awaiting the test to find out if I carry the cystic fibrosis gene I think I have a right to feel the way I do.

Dont preach your ethics to me, or jump down my throat, I want children, "nature" may have made it so my children would die, if there is a way to "cure" this why the friggin hell shouldnt I?
and before someone gets all smart arsey, I want children, there is no question of not having children, its a matter of is it safe to do so, if not I'll have to adopt.

Umm, the only thing that's certain in this life is that you're going to die sooner or later. :confused:

I am thankful for the time alloted for me and I think the vast majority of people are, whether that's 8 years or 80.

Maybe one or two people would say they would rather they had never been born, but you can't make a policy of killing every unborn child with a 'defect' because of that. That's called eugenics, and the Nazis were quite partial to it.

no one is going to live forever , well maybe no one , i just cant get my head round the bringing a baby into this world knowing it has a major problem and doing nothing about it :confused:

But also you have to think of the quality of life that child will have
Granted. Certain genetic diseases/defects arent painfull, some are down right horrible, cystic fibrosis being one.
Would you say its better to put a child through that suffering or select certain embryos to not develop?

I think our frames of reference are too different for me to answer that in any way that would be meaningful to you. When you say 'select certain embryos not to develop' I hear 'kill certain unborn children.' I think our assumptions / understanding about where life starts and what rights or responsibilities we have to intervene in the process are very, very different.

kill certain unborn children or kill a child that you choose to bring to term, knowing that they wont live a full life and quite probably suffer a lot of pain, live in hospital and generally not have a decent life.

Make it any clearer, i still would prefer to "kill and unborn child"

Your comments may be very true, I beleive in euthanasia.
I beleive in capital punishment. but it also, and I know you havent accused me of being this, doesnt make me wrong.
Perhaps its just a reality I have had to wisen or maybe wake up too.

OK, I understand which you would prefer to do. Would it be excessively trite of me to invite everyone to list the names of extremely disabled people who have made a major contribution to the world, yet would never have been born if society had considered it right to kill them off to save them from their suffering?

and this list must not include people that have their disabilities, from things such as accidents, illness ie meningitis or MND, alzheimers etc etc. People that were born with their disability only.

Excuse me, but how many people do you all know that would actually like to design their babies?

Sure, most people I know would accept modifying/selecting their baby's genes in order to cure a genetic illness, but I don't know anyone who'd like to be able to have a 6`7, blonde, green eyed superfast running baby.
They just want a babies that are healthy.

yep true.
But if you listen to this woman, she says basically it was her dream to have a mother daughter relationship, after trying as hard as she did for a daughter, can you really blame her for what she has done? She has achieved one of her lifes dreams.

Who mentioned anything about saying people with genetic disorders have no right to live???

It's simply saying that if you know you have a high chance of creating children who will have this dissorder, then why shouldn't you choose not to have kids?

It's like saying that people are wrong to use contraception because it denies the life that could have been created.

As said before, if a couple know they carry the gene and it can be repaired then I believe that they should have the option to repair it in any children they produce.
If it can't be repaired, then they should have the choice not to have kids.

going through ivf is an ordeal on its own , all the "discarded" eggs will not have been destroyed they will have been frozen , maybe for some other couple that would give anything for the chance of a child.....morals and ethics dont even come into it when youve been there many times , the laws in england are outdated and if the technology is there it should be made available on the nhs , not just for rich people who can afford to go to spain for the ops

Argg, I just made a really long reply to this thread but I included too many smilies and the whole post had been deleted when I pressed back :(

Basicly what I said was that if the second child had to die to save the first I would still not do it as I dont see how this is anybetter than the original scenario.

BTW first Post on NTHW.co.uk :D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

did you quote me there , i cant remember :spin: , if you did i reckon you are wrong if i am talking shite then i am sorry , i have had a very bad day , apologies to you if needed :eek:

Errrr where did the second child dying come into it?

*Wonders if towny's ever had a tug, and if he's sorry for killing those millions of unborn children if he has...*

[python]
Ev'ry sperm is sacred,
Ev'ry sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted
God gets quite irate...
[/python]

The song is about Catholics and I aint one ...

I believe life begins at conception. Sperm aren't kids, they're just good swimmers with a head full of incomplete DNA.

So what problem have you got with messing with the sperm and the egg before they get jiggy with it?


And to everyone in the god squad, we were made with enough intelligence/resources to mess with DNA, so who's to say HE didn't mean for us to do it? (in the same way as computers can be programmed to design better computers for instance).

Correct, the egg and the sperm aren't alive, but the resulting child is alive. And that child's entire life is affected by whatever messing went on with the egg and sperm that made them.

Since when was 'because I can' a sufficient reason to do anything?

I agree, and once we know what we're doing it could be immeasurably improved.


I never said that at all, i was saying maybe HE wanted us to do it, or can you remind me of the bit in the bible that says genetic engineering is a sin?
HE's obviously an advanced genetic engineer, maybe part of this whole experiment of his (us) is to see what we can do with it...

Naturally the Bible doesn't say anything about genetic engineering, seeing as it was written by people who lived between 2 and 4,000 years ago. But its principles for living are more important in this repect than its historical setting. I can post more fully on this once I'm home this evening with a copy of the Bible and more time to think ... currently sitting at a desk at work with a rapidly cooling baked potato.

Suffice it to say for now that I'm confident God does not want us to start genetically engineering people.

If you think thats sick i suggest taking alook at this

http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0...095519,00.html

Absolutley Bloody S I C K................ these people are should be bloody SHOT

Just read this story in a couple of the national papers and on BBC News online.

I am absolutely staggered that people can sink as low as this. Has no-one stopped to ponder the utter futility of aborting a child 'cos he/she is unwanted, and then using that child's body to produce babies for people who want them?

We don't need amoral science to solve the problem of people wanting kids but not being able to have them. Society has had a solution for generations. It's called ADOPTION.

Instead of denying children their human rights firstly by killing them and secondly by causing them to have children of their own without their consent, why don't we replace abortion with adoption?

Human life is fundamentally devalued by this. We are being relegated to the status of worthless DNA to be cultured or destroyed on a whim.

why the hell dont you people see its wrong the whole idea of this type of tampering is morally incorrect no matter how useful or life saving it is and the link {FU}Fubar has posted shows that i did say it would get out of hand and yes its SICK

I really don't see what the fuss is about!!!! The technology is there. It was her choice. Others were willing to help her reach a goal she longed for. Nobody has been forced to do anything they don't want to.

your opinion only of course , dont forget other people have theirs ;) , and i still reckon anyone who needed to would save a child with the help of a ge other ;)

ofcourse pauline :p

ill respect others opinions but i will voice mine as others do and i have mentioned my stance :)

hahahahaaha fu**ing hilarious , good job you put the smilie there ;)

every ones opinions are valued , including yours ;) :D

Glad to see you are looking at this calmly and rationally :rolleyes:

I think people will just have to respect each others opinions and agree to differ on this emotive issue.

read my post above pauls last post says it all really :)

Apolgies..... :blush: No offence ment :)

:)

a DOH moment we all have them :)

Apart from the child of course, who had no say in the matter. :rolleyes:

now that is a new twist , but , how proud will that child be if it saves its siblings life , or how proud will it be if it tried but failed ??????????

Or how clinically depressed might that child be, growing up thinking, 'mummy and daddy don't really love me, they only had me to save my brother. He's their favourite.' ?

We are not playing with ethically neutral bits of self-replicating chemicals here. Children are people with emotions, and the correct emotions are not so easy to engineer.

good point that :spin:

ditto exactly what i was thinking

I agree with u on that statement. The child was created just to save the life of his/her brother, not out of love or because the couple really wanted another child

/Me not used to being agreed with so much :blush:

I don't see aything wrong with this its her money her body and her family. We can't judge. If its safe and she wants to do it let her.

its morally and ethically wrong and you cant see that no wonder there is so much stupidity in this country

Steady on there Kronas.....

I seem to remember that the couple did want/were planning to have another child. So why not have one that can save their existing one?

wasent meant to be aggressive just telling it like it is

lol......there you go again:rofl: :D

According to the news many women are risking infertility by being promiscuous. If the trend continues, future children may be coming out of a test tube whether we like it or not.

Babies are born due to one night stands, or accidents all the time, So whats the problem with bringing a child into a happy family enviroment (Which will be loved & cared for), Just because theres a slight ulterior motive, being that he can save his little brother. If I was him, i'd feel like a hero.