Screening Embryos for Genetic defects...
 

That is scary!:eek:

The world will be doomed. It's like another evil plot to rule the world. On the Hitler part I mean . What about the little Saddam Hussein? Stalin?

Re: Screening Embryos for Genetic defects...
 

You already know my feelings on this strand of your beliefs, so I won't repeat them...

I wouldn't be too worried about that. I mean, the child of somebody rich enough to afford genetic screening wouldn't exactly be likely to die even if they did have birth defects...

Everything's "Opening the door" to you, isn't it? Cloning, Stem Cell Research, and now Genetic Screening...

Having said that, I feel that Genetic Screening should be restricted strictly to Medical screening, not Cosmetic screening, for exactly that reason: Since only the mega-rich will be able to afford this screening, we will start to see fashions emerging for babies, and eventually you will be able to tell how rich a person's parents were by what they look like, since they will be Designer Babies...

Once we go down that slippery road, we lose all hope of equality - the best jobs will go to those who are not only well off now, but who have well off parents, and so those from poor backgrounds will be unable to rise up and succeed in life because it will be instantly evident to the world that they are from a poor background...

Opening doors? Cloning can be a problem.

I think it's a great idea.

We can sterilize all people with genetic defects to prevent them from further contaminating the gene pool and encourage the reproduction of attractive, disease-free people.

I think its good. I personally am worried about having a disabled kid. I know this will sound callous and malicious but i would not be able to love it as much. Im gonna be one of those Dads that would take their kids shopping and bond with them on every level, i dont believe i could do that with a mentally/physically crippled child etc. If i had two - three kids prior then it would be easier for me to except the child. I hope i grow out of this though...

AAwww, you monster how can you think of a thing like that? You should love a kid no matter what the circumstances are. What kind of father are you! You can still do things with a kid who is disabled (depends on what he/she has)

I think it's a good idea. Prevents any diseases given to people. No one wants a disease. Can their be a disadvantage though to this technique?

I was joking by the way.

Jacob, how could you not love your child if he/she was disabled? I know a woman who has a sixteen year old daughter with the brain capacity of a three year old. This woman is the kindest and most warm person I've ever encountered. Maybe having a disabled child can make you a better person with a heightened sense of compassion.

I know really. Having a disabled child might be able to change your hard ways.

I know, i know!! I feel immensly ashamed but it would be the hard work that goes with it...I have a half brother who has a syndrome called Williams-syndrome (I dont see how this is relevant cos i never see him) and i also have a distant cousin who cannot walk...I just believe it would be hard work and i want to be the sort of Dad who walks around with his kids in shops and buys them alkohol and their 1st cars and Gucci watches etc. You cant do that with a disabled child...

Pinky...i am not a monster....lol

Silly me...I should have posted this at the start. Here is the article that inspired me to start this topic:

http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/l...ion020813.html

Special Report:
Embryos: Developing Human Beings or just another way of getting lots of replies to a topic?

ODDWORLD FORUMS, 14th Aug: AFTER yet another topic on the subject of human embryos ("Screening Embryos for Genetic defects...") went from no replies to 8 replies in the space of half an hour, members first began to realise that Embryos are being used by today's society as a cruel and cheap way of getting lots of replies, fast.

The topic was posted by Rachel [last name witheld], a member using the name of Sl'askia. "I felt it would be a good topic to discuss," she told reporters later, "I saw it in an article on a website, and thought that maybe people might want to talk about it..." Claiming that she was unaware of the power of Embryos to produce controversy, she remains adamant that she did not intend it as a cheap reply-grabber.

When asked for his opinions on the development, fellow member Eddie Tugwell, known on the forums as "Dark Hood", replied "I need coke with lemon", showcasing his remarkably short attention span, as well as his capacity for saying things that nobody else even understands, let alone is interested in.

Over the same time period, another topic posted by Rachel, "Roleplaying: Good, Bad, or just a good time" got only 3 replies. Experts remain baffled as to the reasons for this sharp difference, although it has been speculated that talking about roleplaying is mind-numbingly dull, whereas Embryos have been shown time and again to be steeped in controversy.

For whatever reason, it is clear that the Embryo debate is far from over, although what exactly it is about embryos we will be debating next time it anybody's guess.

Further bulletins as events warrant.

(Yes, as you may have guessed, I am very bored right now...)

I guess that GATTACA wasn't too far off the mark, then.

Re: Screening Embryos for Genetic defects...
 

Now how do you start by saying 'I want genetic purity' and end up by saying 'don't want a Hitler wannabe'? Genetic 'puirty' is exactly what Hitler wanted and he got it by means not dissimilar to looking at embryos and choosing which were blond and tall and throwing the others away.


Anyway, screening for genetic diseases: Good - the child is likely to have a better quality of life.
Designer babies: Bad.
Genetic 'purity': Bad. Very, vey bad.

Hmmm...I dunno...if they'd screened my brother and found his disability he might have never have been born and I don't like that idea because he is a nice likeable person (I think, judging by his social interactions and what I know about him). I know quite a few nice people with disabilitys and if they'd screened them they might have never exsisted. I suppose it could potentilly improve the quality of life for those who are criticly impaired but otherwise...I can't say I really like the idea. Can we really do better than nature?

Are you saying humans aren't part of nature?

Are you saying that we are?

Edit: I don't think he's talking about the nature you are talking about.

1. Yes.

2. Seems likely.

Pinkhaired, I'm a girl.
What I meant by doing better than nature is that we are doing somthing not occuring through nature (if that makes sense.)
It is through artificial means.

Whats 'Gattaca' !?

If my child was disabled i would want the best for him/her. This basically means euthanasia if they wanted it...Think about it, if your paralysed and have to be bathed by your parents etc would you want to be alive or dead? I know i'd rather be dead. This may seem a bastard thing to say but disabled people who are mentally crippled, paralysed etc dont have any dignity...I dont think i phrased that right, somehow. But...i'll allow people to flame me before i correct myself...

REMEMBER THE GATTACA!!!

Wow, sucks to be you. That's a awful thing to say.

It makes sense.
And back to your original point:
Selecting offspring to invest in is not at all new and it certainly isn't unique to humans. Other animals do this sort of thing all the time.
"I shall invest the most in offspring X because it seems to have the highest fecundity (reproductive expectancy). I shall invest the least in offspring Y as it is a weak little bugger and it would take a lot more investment to make them as strong and fit as offspring X."
That's what genes are doing all the time, they're making their survival machine put the most parental investment into the offspring with the highest fecundity.

The only difference between the above example and genetic screening of embryos is that, using genetic screening, a much lower amount has been invested in the offspring.

..Nerd. ;)

That survival of the fittest, phenotype and genotype genetics yadda yadda.

You have a valid point there Jacob. Appart from saying that mentally and physicly crippled people have no dignity..that was most definatly not phased right. But what would you consider to be "disabled"? To me that means that the probblem is something that seriously hampers the persons abilty to be independant e.i having to be constatly on life support.

Yeah, if you were glasses, you are kinda disabled of seeing.

1. That's me!

2. Yep, all that evolution stuff...

Kill them...*Looks at Tom and Danny*

I mean not able to feed themselves, walk etc. I wouldn't be able to cope if they were deaf or blind...i would be a shit dad to the disabled and the minority children...*Sigh*

Okay, so your crippled your can't drink? Your blind, you can hear. Your deaf, you can see. There are ways.