Designer babies Lords give thumbs up - Page 5

allieyoung666 · 30-04-2005, 19:48

Erm no, I am doing a MA next yr, so I do think I know what I am talking about, and I am not publishing private infomation. Go and look at Google if you want to know more. People go on about claiming that they know what they are talking about. Half the time I am convinced they are just on here to rub people up the wrong way.

30-04-2005, 20:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xaccers

And I said that's going off topic, so please, either bring it back on topic or start another thread

Tell you what, please could you or a mod do us a favour and split the messages between me and Russ D off into a thread in Lifestyle called "Morals?"

(Yes, the question mark is to be included in the thread title

)

Russ · 30-04-2005, 20:26

Xac isn't on the team....

30-04-2005, 20:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russ D

Xac isn't on the team....

I don't know, I don't follow the transfer market...!

(Ok, could you do it please?)

30-04-2005, 20:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by allieyoung666

[Snippity snipped]........ 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!!
........[Snipped]

Are you referrring to the BMJ ? If you are then everyone has access...... for now anyway http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/contents-by-date.2002.shtml

So it would be good if you could share so that those who don't know, in your opinion, will know

Allie, i work in the medical research field and have access, so if you post the references that you're referring to, i can make them available to the people that you think need them. It's not really fair not to share if we can help

30-04-2005, 21:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by allieyoung666

Erm no, I am doing a MA next yr, so I do think I know what I am talking about, and I am not publishing private infomation. Go and look at Google if you want to know more. People go on about claiming that they know what they are talking about. Half the time I am convinced they are just on here to rub people up the wrong way.

You are going to come on here, start making all these claims, and then actively refuse to back them up with supportive evidence, I`m sure you'll excuse me if I don`t accord your arguments any weight.

allieyoung666 · 30-04-2005, 21:32

Erm I am actually assisting in research, and I feel that the infomation would be wasted on certain people as they are looking for an argument all the time.
Certain parts of the BMJ yes, I to have the relevent access that is required. I am working with a fellow that works for the BMJ and I think he would not be happy if I went handing out infomation willy nilly to people who do not understand. They would not understand some of the infomation the BMJ publishes. And I thought it was for students and healthcare professionals?? Well thats what I was told.

__________________

Well would you like to tell my boss that, he would blow half of your statements out of the water. Why?? There are only a few people on this forum would understand. I am sad to say.

Roy MM · 30-04-2005, 21:39

Hells bells i only posted a news item.

allieyoung666 · 30-04-2005, 21:40

See what us medical professionals are like

!!

30-04-2005, 21:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by allieyoung666

Erm I am actually assisting in research, and I feel that the infomation would be wasted on certain people as they are looking for an argument all the time.

Since you started this in PM, and then decided that you don`t want a PM reply I`ll just have to post one here.

This is the singularly most patronising comment I have *ever* seen on this forum. How dare you make presumptions about what people will understand. You have amply demonstrated that you are not worth debating with, and at the end of the day cannot actually engage in debate. I shall therefore not bother considering your posts in regard to this thread any more.

allieyoung666 · 30-04-2005, 21:53

Shows how arrogant Drs Actually are!!! I could not care less what you think and you continually patronise members of this forum. I can debate.
And yes I can thank you, I am not making presumptions as certain people I have talked to do not understand what I am doing. Oh I forgot we are below you arnt we??? Us nurses, dream on. Point of advice do that again and I will report you.

Russ · 30-04-2005, 21:56

Leave it please....

Xaccers · 30-04-2005, 22:43

Perhaps allie can actually explain then for us lowly people (heck I only studied astrophysics so I can't be that bright) how selecting embryoes with a genetic match to what is required involves actually manipulating genes then, perhaps with a comparison as to standard IVF proceedures?

Stuart · 30-04-2005, 23:00

I have to admit, I agree that in this case (see link in post 1), the technology is a good thing. As long as the technique is not misused (and there is no harm to the Donor which if I understand the article correctly, there won't be), then I don't object.

If the technique is adapted to allow selection based on physical attributes (unless those attributes are related to a medical condition), then the technique is wrong.

ZrByte · 30-04-2005, 23:35

Quote:

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.

Why did you quote me when nothing you said really responded to my post

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by scastle

I have to admit, I agree that in this case (see link in post 1), the technology is a good thing. As long as the technique is not misused (and there is no harm to the Donor which if I understand the article correctly, there won't be), then I don't object.

If the technique is adapted to allow selection based on physical attributes (unless those attributes are related to a medical condition), then the technique is wrong.

agree completeley