Designer babies Lords give thumbs up - Page 2

**Maggy** · 28-04-2005, 20:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xaccers

So you'd object to me giving blood or bone marrow or some other genetic tissue to save my sister then?
__________________

Would you have a child for the only purpose of saving your current child?
No, I don't believe you would, you'd have another child because you want another child and you'd hope that child would be able to help your current child.

But we are talking of people having babies to only save their current child..the child required will have to have a certain tissue type and thus they can't trust to luck and hope the resultant child WILL have the required matching tissue..That's not what this article is stating.It is about actually selecting ONLY those embryos that have the correct tissue type..and any that don't have the necessary matching tissue type? What happens to them?

allieyoung666 · 28-04-2005, 20:19

I thought we had been over this before, It is gods way, stop playing with our genes!!

28-04-2005, 20:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diamond

You should never meddle with nature.

But we do that all the time, even if you never eat a GM product, almost nothing that you consume is strictly natural.
__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russ D

I object to life being used in this way. Regardless of what you say now, this is the first step on the way to actual 'designer' babies.

I personally don't find even genuine "designer" babies to be a bad thing. We're not talking about something like eugenics where we are killing off people already born, we're just ensuring that those that are born are improved. I'm perfectly happy for humans to be engineered to me more intelligent, stronger, capable of surviving in adverse environments, etc.

allieyoung666 · 28-04-2005, 20:51

I am sorry but if that is what god chooses for your child then so be it, I have a son who has an emotional disorder, but it does not mean I will play god with him, it is a crime against humanity. What did they do years ago when there wasnt things such as gene research? They got on with it, so I am sorry we have to as well.

Russ · 28-04-2005, 20:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Is that a yes then?

You know better than that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dr wadd

I personally don't find even genuine "designer" babies to be a bad thing. We're not talking about something like eugenics where we are killing off people already born, we're just ensuring that those that are born are improved. I'm perfectly happy for humans to be engineered to me more intelligent, stronger, capable of surviving in adverse environments, etc.

Didn't Hitler have a similar idea?

What happened to loving a child no matter how it turns out?

28-04-2005, 21:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xaccers

I don't believe you guys!!!!
Ignore the misnomer "designer babies" as there is nothing designer about it!
That is an emotive term made up by people who are against this proceedure and perpetrated by the media because they know the majority of people won't understand.[...]
That is not what this allows dammit!

What he said!

I would have written all this but Xaccers beat me to it.

Tezcatlipoca · 28-04-2005, 21:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by allieyoung666

I thought we had been over this before, It is gods way, stop playing with our genes!!

No-one is playing with our genes.

This is about pre-implantation tissue-typing of IVF embryos, to select ones which can be a donor for the parents' existing child.

No messing with genes. No eugenics. Just parents who want to help save their kid's life.

28-04-2005, 21:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russ D

Didn't Hitler have a similar idea?

What happened to loving a child no matter how it turns out?

No, because I`m making it quite clear that I`m not proposing that we wipe out those that we deem imperfect by mass slaughter. I see there being a vast gulf between the actions of Hitler and merely ensuring that future generations are improved, no detrimental action is being taken against the current generations.

As for your second point, this isn't a case of making a children more loveable, engineering humans to survive in adverse environments certainly doesn't fit into my idea of factors that define loveability, for want of a better word. It is an issue of taking evolution into our own hands and guiding the development of the human race as a whole.

Evolution is, at a base level, survival of the fittest. That can be through strength, intelligence, suitability for the environment, other factors. This is merely a case of applying intelligence to improve fitness.

28-04-2005, 21:25

Oh dear, it seems that now the red herring of eugenics is being dragged across this topic.

We're talking about processes that *already* exist, that of producing IVF babies and of organ/ tissue/ cell donation from relatives.

Does anyone have any objection to these?

IVF involves some fertilzed eggs not being used already, all that is happening is that a particular one is being chosen as the best possible match for donation to a sibling instead of the process being random.

This is *not* the same as wanting to produce a blonde, blue eyed "Aryan Master Race", it is nothing like that.

If the chosen embryo comes to term and then turns out not to be a perfect match or the transplant or whatever doesn't work properly, do you really think the parents are going to love that baby any less?

Russ · 28-04-2005, 21:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by dr wadd

Evolution is, at a base level, survival of the fittest. That can be through strength, intelligence, suitability for the environment, other factors.

That's on the assumption of one agreeing with evolution.

28-04-2005, 22:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt D

No-one is playing with our genes.

This is about pre-implantation tissue-typing of IVF embryos, to select ones which can be a donor for the parents' existing child.

No messing with genes. No eugenics. Just parents who want to help save their kid's life.

all true

the only moral issue is the one of discarding the 'rejects', which is the same one that has existed since IVF treatments were introduced.

personally I have a problem with IVF - but I have a healthy son and presumably could have had more children, I concede I might feel entirely different, were that not so...

Flubflow · 28-04-2005, 22:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by allieyoung666

I thought we had been over this before, It is gods way, stop playing with our genes!!

What if you don't believe in a god?
__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by allieyoung666

I am sorry but if that is what god chooses for your child then so be it, I have a son who has an emotional disorder, but it does not mean I will play god with him, it is a crime against humanity. What did they do years ago when there wasnt things such as gene research? They got on with it, so I am sorry we have to as well.

You currently enjoy the benefit of many drugs and other products (some of them not essential) that are the result of playing with your god. This assumes that you still believe that your god created animals too.

Xaccers · 28-04-2005, 22:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by allieyoung666

I am sorry but if that is what god chooses for your child then so be it, I have a son who has an emotional disorder, but it does not mean I will play god with him, it is a crime against humanity. What did they do years ago when there wasnt things such as gene research? They got on with it, so I am sorry we have to as well.

I take it your son hasn't had any vaccines, never been given antibiotics, wouldn't be given treatment if they had cancer etc?

29-04-2005, 00:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russ D

Quote:

Originally Posted by dr wadd

Evolution is, at a base level, survival of the fittest. That can be through strength, intelligence, suitability for the environment, other factors.

That's on the assumption of one agreeing with evolution.

Oh gods, *DON'T* start that one again!

**Maggy** · 29-04-2005, 00:25

I just want there to be more discussion about this before such issues become the accepted thing.Once we push open certain doors it is difficult to close and bolt them again.

I'm not concerned about playing God I'm concerned about not thinking every part of the issue ALL the way through..I also would want to approach it in a more pragmatic manner and to try and keep the emotive angle to a minimum although I understand that genetic disease in young children IS an emotive issue.However I feel that the discussion should be along the lines of what is best for the proposed resultant children who are people too eventually.

What will it be like if we go further along this road to cloned individuals?What sort of society will we be forming?What certain legalities will there be for cloned people?This is what needs discussing.Of course we could do the usual and just accept it a bit at a time but then the laws will never really catch up.

Let's just think the consequences through a little more thoroughly than we are at the moment..please.