Designer babies Lords give thumbs up

Originally Posted by Salu

A slight aside but whenever there is a debate about morals I seem to always see your name against taking a moral stance and leaning towards ultra permissive.

The word I prefer is libertarian (note, that's with a small "l" to distinguish it from American Libertarians who mostly seem to want to be able to own lots of guns!)

Is there anything that you feel is morally wrong (without getting into a debate about the meaning of the phrase)?

The problem is that it *is* the meaning (and/ or usage) of the word that causes me difficulties!

As I've mentioned in other threads, some people act as if morals are graven in stone when they're really nothing more than bits of tribal ethos which have "seniority" because they've been around for a long time.

The point is that there *are* no real hard and fast rules, only the ones we make for ourselves eg you can argue that killing is wrong, but then there's the exception of not if you do it in a war or in self-defence.

It's possible to create all sorts of "moral dilemmas" that are not easy to answer or even to do the same but with loaded questions if someone's trying to make (or force) a point, however real life is never that simple.

Or are you morally "flaccid"?

Maybe someone should slip me some Moral Viagra?!

But seriously even that question is loaded in its way because it implies (although I'm sure not deliberately) "weakness", in the same sort of way that the Tories and Labour accuse each other of being "soft on crime" (a nice soundbite, but usually inaccurate).

If there are any principles to which I think people should hold they might be "An it harm no other, do what thou wilt", although it could also be "To thine own self be true" or "judge not others lest ye also be judged" or possibly several others that haven't sprung to mind at the moment.

The point is, though, that I think the world would be a better place if everyone minded their *own* business and stopped trying to mind everyone else's if nobody's getting hurt by it.

I hope this doesn't come across as incisive. I am just interested.....

Not at all. It's a fair question.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Graham

The point is, though, that I think the world would be a better place if everyone minded their *own* business and stopped trying to mind everyone else's if nobody's getting hurt by it.

But what if the 'everyone else' (or perhaps 'someone else' would be more appropriate) you refer to are too naive or immature to know any better?

Originally Posted by Russ D

But what if the 'everyone else' (or perhaps 'someone else' would be more appropriate) you refer to are too naive or immature to know any better?

I was trying not to be drawn into this, but I think 'everyone' is appropriate, in this case - the "nobody getting hurt" being the key phrase..

I think Graham was replying to the question about his "libertarian" ethos, rather than the absolute question posed by the thread??

I have already offered an opinion that the rejection of fertilised eggs during IVF is my concern - I feel it does constitute 'getting hurt' for a potential life to be destroyed.

So, the 'extra' screening for a desired characteristic, can't be worse than that - if you see what I mean.

- so I'm not arguing, but who is going to judge which is immature & which is just driven by the 'biological clock', you & I both have children, we can't imagine what it is like to want a child & not be able to have one - or to know that to have one has a probability of that child being disabled.

this is one of those subjects that can only be dealt with on an individual basis, in my opinion

Originally Posted by Russ D

But what if the 'everyone else' (or perhaps 'someone else' would be more appropriate) you refer to are too naive or immature to know any better?

I'm not sure which part you're referring to here.

Do you mean they're too naiive or immature not to know better than to leave their noses out of someone else's business or too naiive or immature to be able to mind their *own* business?
__________________

Originally Posted by homealone

I think Graham was replying to the question about his "libertarian" ethos, rather than the absolute question posed by the thread??

I was, but I presumed Russ' response was in relation to that, not the main topic of the thread.

Now I'm not so sure...!

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Graham

I'm not sure which part you're referring to here.

Do you mean they're too naiive or immature not to know better than to leave their noses out of someone else's business or too naiive or immature to be able to mind their *own* business?

A 12 year old boy may think that having sex with animals is "his own business" - do you mind your own and avoid telling him how wrong it is?

A man having sex with underage girls may consider doing so to be his "own business" - do you just walk on by?

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Russ D

A 12 year old boy may think that having sex with animals is "his own business" - do you mind your own and avoid telling him how wrong it is?

A man having sex with underage girls may consider doing so to be his "own business" - do you just walk on by?

Very going points, perhaps good enough to warrent their own thread, but can we keep this one on topic as it appears to be heading off at a "what are morals" type tangent


PS I think Graham sort of addressed child type issues near the end of the current civil liberties thread

[paulyoung666]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Very going points, perhaps good enough to warrent their own thread, but can we keep this one on topic as it appears to be heading off at a "what are morals" type tangent


PS I think Graham sort of addressed child type issues near the end of the current civil liberties thread

, you have just modded a mod , btw , i dont think you are far wrong there russ

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by paulyoung666

, you have just modded a mod

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Originally Posted by Russ D

A 12 year old boy may think that having sex with animals is "his own business" - do you mind your own and avoid telling him how wrong it is?

A man having sex with underage girls may consider doing so to be his "own business" - do you just walk on by?

No, because in both of these cases you are referring to minors who cannot be expected to know what is or isn't legal and in one of them there is an adult who *should* know better.

As I said in my original comment: "if nobody's getting hurt by it."

Also in both cases, I'd ask "where are their parents and what have they failed to do/ teach their children?"

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Graham

No, because in both of these cases you are referring to minors who cannot be expected to know what is or isn't legal and in one of them there is an adult who *should* know better.

Thank you! So how do you decide if someone should know better or not? How can you be sure that that person cannot make the decision for themselves? Someone has to make that decision for the good of the individual.

Originally Posted by Graham

As I said in my original comment: "if nobody's getting hurt by it."

So who are you to decide that "nobody's getting hurt"?

Originally Posted by Russ D

[ So how do you decide if someone should know better or not? How can you be sure that that person cannot make the decision for themselves? Someone has to make that decision for the good of the individual.

Err, excuse me???

You do not "decide if someone should know better or not" as a sort of pro-active decision!

We don't have (nor should we have) competency tests to decide if someone is capable of making a decision or not on a "moral" (or whatever) issue, we *presume* their "innocence" ie that they are capable of doing so.

Or would you prefer we have a sort of "Department of Pre-Crime" putting people on a lie detector and asking them "do you want to have sex with a child?" and locking up anyone who failed??

So who are you to decide that "nobody's getting hurt"?

Where did *I* say that *I* was the one to make this decision??

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Graham

You do not "decide if someone should know better or not" as a sort of pro-active decision!

You said....

Originally Posted by Graham

and in one of them there is an adult who *should* know better.

Originally Posted by Graham

Where did *I* say that *I* was the one to make this decision??

You said...

Originally Posted by Graham

As I said in my original comment: "if nobody's getting hurt by it."

So who makes that decision?

[Xaccers]

And I said that's going off topic, so please, either bring it back on topic or start another thread
Bad boys, both of you!

[allieyoung666]

Originally Posted by ZrByte

They also died from the common cold years ago, times change.
And we dont all believe in your god, or god at all for that matter so your going to have to come up with a better arguement then that. Your beliefs are not enough to force someone not to do something. If you could come up with a good reason that actually relies on facts then that can help move the discussion forward.

I dont find the twin comments amusing neither does my twin, it just shows how immature so people are, she thought you were all a pack of Jackass's. If you go to the BMA journals Oct 02, they give the pros and cons of designer babies long before they went to the lords. Oh I forgot you people do not have access sorry!!
It has also been mentioned in various other nursing journals. Oh no I forgot you lot have probally worked in the research.
I cannot carry baby girls and I have lost 3, and this type of research would help me, but I am not interested and Paul would agree with me on this. The daily newspapers or gutter trash only give a brief inside of this type of research, and half the stuff they print really is trash.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by allieyoung666

I dont find the twin comments amusing neither does my twin, it just shows how immature so people are, she thought you were all a pack of Jackass's. If you go to the BMA journals Oct 02, they give the pros and cons of designer babies long before they went to the lords. Oh I forgot you people do not have access sorry!!
It has also been mentioned in various other nursing journals. Oh no I forgot you lot have probally worked in the research.
I cannot carry baby girls and I have lost 3, and this type of research would help me, but I am not interested and Paul would agree with me on this. The daily newspapers or gutter trash only give a brief inside of this type of research, and half the stuff they print really is trash.

How would this proceedure help you?
I'm assuming you're not confusing this proceedure with something that isn't being suggested, such as genetic manipulation...

Actually, can we have the topic name changed to something that is acurate to what this proceedure is?