Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(BBC)   Medical ethicists say baby-making with 2 women and 1 man is just dandy   (bbc.co.uk) divider line 202
    More: Spiffy, IVF, Wellcome Trust, bioethics, human culture, mitochondrial disorder, mitochondrial DNA, social benefits, Newcastle University  
•       •       •

20237 clicks; posted to Main » on 12 Jun 2012 at 2:39 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



202 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-06-12 06:56:46 PM  
The real tragedy I see is the doctors are starting to make the plot to Twins valid. To make it worse, I heard a rumor that a sequel is in the works called Triplets adding Eddie Murphy to the cast. I am all for science stopping diseases and improving life not making it worse by supporting bad movie plots.

/Burn it with fire.
//The movies that is.
 
2012-06-12 06:59:38 PM  

que.guero: Mugato: God's trying to give you a hint. We have too many people here already. Adopt.

If only someone could come up with a modest proposal...


Well maybe there's a happy medium between eating babies and defying the laws of nature to create more we don't need.
 
2012-06-12 07:12:50 PM  

lack of warmth: The real tragedy I see is the doctors are starting to make the plot to Twins valid. To make it worse, I heard a rumor that a sequel is in the works called Triplets adding Eddie Murphy to the cast. I am all for science stopping diseases and improving life not making it worse by supporting bad movie plots.

/Burn it with fire.
//The movies that is.


Well to be fair, Arnold's running out of options when it comes to revisiting his movies. Predator, Conan and Terminator are played out. They're already rebooting Total Recall with someone else. James Cameron said he's only doing Avatar from now on so no True Lies sequel. Another Running Man would look like a Hunger Games ripoff. Another Commando could work but it'd have to be Alyssa Milano rescuing him from something this time. And naked (Alyssa, not Arnold). Maybe Kindergarten Cop 2: It was a Tumor Afterall.

/no but seriously, another Twins sounds horrible
 
2012-06-12 07:16:34 PM  

serial_crusher: I object to fertility science in general.
If you have some biological fault that prevents you from producing healthy children, just go adopt some of the perfectly fine ones that need homes. Yes, even the black ones.


I once saw an interview with black people who were totally not ok with whites adopting blacks. Not sure how widespread that sentiment is
 
2012-06-12 07:28:30 PM  

ciberido: TheShavingofOccam123: Utah and Florida are among the states that historically imposed more stringent restrictions of LGBT adoption.

The book Steven Petrow's Complete Gay & Lesbian Manners: The Definitive Guide to LGBT Life has a chapter dedicated to LBGT people looking to have kids (including by adoption). It's pretty helpful if it's something you're concerned about.


Thanks for the info. I hope someone who needs the link takes advantage of it.

I just think of this guy and all the others who have given the ultimate sacrifice in combat to a country many of whose citizens think he wasn't good enough to foster or adopt a child. Or marry his SO.

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2012-06-12 07:28:47 PM  

Somacandra: dletter: Of course... two women is hot and two guys is icky.

A chick and two dudes? Fine with me. As long as who ever didn't get to be the daddy didn't feel left out. That's the difference. One situation has everyone play a role. But you don't get viable babbys with two sperms and and a single ovum.


Sure, but you could go for DP sex as a threesome. Then the woman could have fraternal twins. A doctor and a lawyer.
 
2012-06-12 07:37:44 PM  

way south: FloydA: CrispFlows:

Isn't what's wrong with eugenics the concept of racial purity? THAT's the ethical flaw, not the 'controlled breeding' .

Historically, that's what caused it to lose favor among the general public. It had already fallen out of favor among biologists about 20 years earlier, because it is abject nonsense.

It fell out of favor because Hitler.
The basic tenants of the practice require you to treat people like dogs but would probably work. The idea is Something Europeans never had a problem with. Then one of their leaders got serious about it.

The Germans wanted to be a superior people up until Hitler showed them, and everyone else, what it takes to make the sausage.
It's social madness that was considered acceptable for a long time. He made it unfashionable.

/He also ruined a mustache.


Fun fact: the nazis studied how eugenics was implemented in the US before they implemented it in Germany.
 
2012-06-12 07:39:36 PM  

Colin O'Scopy: You'd change your mind if you were diagnosed with the fault yourself, believe me.


I'm agreed with this. The attitude the childless couples should just suck it is tainted with smell of unearned moral superiority.
 
2012-06-12 07:41:42 PM  
4.bp.blogspot.com

BIOLOGICALLY.
 
2012-06-12 07:44:07 PM  

MemeSlave: lazyguineapig33: ph0rk: Mostly makes sense to me, with one minor question:

If you have bad DNA, why the fark do you need to procreate anyway? No shortage of humans, people.

in this case they were replacing the mitocondria. mitocondria are actually highly highly evolved symbiotic organisms. they have their own DNA and reproduce on their own inside your cells. What they did here is more like a transplant than replacing genes.

Charles Wallace?

/obscure?
//paging Dr. Colubra


Oh, good god, everyone has read "A Wind In the Door."
 
2012-06-12 07:45:13 PM  
Survival of the species!

humans
 
2012-06-12 07:53:59 PM  
Why we should let people do this:

Genetic diseases suck. I mean it really sucks to have one. I know, because I have to live with one. Unfortunately, before I knew how inheritable it was, I passed it on. I don't think the solution is don't have kids, or for my kid not to have kids. I think the solution is to learn to cure the problems.

Okay, so here we have this 3-parent treatment for cases where the woman in the primary couple has mitochondrial disease---that's when you'd need this treatment. What you're doing is letting her have another woman donate part of an egg instead of the whole egg.

So fine, the various couples who can benefit from this treatment pay to have the treatment done so they can have their own kids. Terrific.

The gain is not that the couples have their own kids. The gain is that in perfecting the surgical techniques and the knowledge to bring the techniques into availability for use on humans, the state of genetic and fertility medicine has advanced substantially. Then, in actually using those techniques to help make healthy babies, the state of the art of human knowledge and practice has advanced even farther.

And that gets us closer to the days when people like my daughter, if she someday decides to have children, can go with her husband to an IVF clinic and say, "We want to have a baby of our own, but we don't want our child to have bipolar disorder."

And the doctors to say, "We can do that. No problem."

And that would be awfully damned nice.

So if they want to make babies in a genetic 3-way in the UK, I'm all for it. Full steam ahead.
 
2012-06-12 08:32:50 PM  

MoronLessOff: gja: WOW! You could have the frank AND bean worked at the same time, and only have to buy 1 dinner!

I'm laughing. I shouldn't be, but I am.


This.
memeorama.com
 
2012-06-12 08:40:39 PM  

Braindeath: I'm against IVF bullshiat but support raising children in triads.

/unsure what to do here


Why would you let Chinese gangsters raise a kid? Sure it would make a great action movie, but this is real life.
 
2012-06-12 08:46:52 PM  
Dr David King, the director of Human Genetics Alert, said: "Just as Frankenstein's creation was produced by sticking together bits from many different bodies, it seems that there is no grotesquerie, no violation of the norms of nature or human culture at which scientists and their bioethical helpers will balk.

Oh horse shiat. This is the usual pointing to a few and saying it's everyone crap we see in politics every day - weird medicine happens (mostly for the money) but if you can't tell your family/friends what you do most medical personnel/scientists will stay away. Life isn't really the scifi world of Weyland-Yutani I wish it was. :(

Look, people are largely people and that's all you can ever ask for. Just expect ethical behavior out of the majority and STFU and tolerate the weird fringe that will always be there.

"The proposed techniques are both unnecessary, and highly dangerous in the medium term, since they set a precedent for allowing the creation of genetically modified designer babies."

Un... what? Unnecessary? Did you not... I... what the hell. Look Dr King, whatever you're a Doctor of does it come with a free understanding of what a mutation is?
 
2012-06-12 08:47:50 PM  

gja: WOW! You could have the frank AND bean worked at the same time, and only have to buy 1 dinner!



Beans.
 
2012-06-12 08:48:11 PM  
charlestonstage.com

Two ladies, and I'm ze only man, ja!
They like it,
I like it,
This two for one.
 
2012-06-12 09:00:55 PM  
Lt. Cheese Weasel: [t0.gstatic.com image 278x181]
Doctor, you mentioned the ratio of ten women to each man. Now, wouldn't that necessitate the abandonment of the so-called monogamous sexual relationship, I mean, as far as men were concerned?
[jenniferlynn612.files.wordpress.com image 512x416]

Regrettably, yes. But it is, you know, a sacrifice required for the future of the human race. I hasten to add that since each man will be required to do prodigious... service along these lines, the women will have to be selected for their sexual characteristics which will have to be of a highly stimulating nature.


Ambassador de Sadesky: I must confess, you have an astonishingly good idea there, Doctor.


As long as I'm one of the 10% that gets to go in hte bunker for the forced breeding I'm fine with it.

I'm tall, of above average IQ, cancer doesn't run in the family, so I guess I would technically be superior breeding stock.
 
2012-06-12 09:06:17 PM  

serial_crusher: I object to fertility science in general.
If you have some biological fault that prevents you from producing healthy children, just go adopt some of the perfectly fine ones that need homes. Yes, even the black ones.


I was adopted
So was my wife
We tried doing the adoption thing in California - it was INSANE (I sorta thought it was ok to pay her medical expenses, it was NOT ok that she could rescind at ANY point and I still had to pay)

// worked out ok the natural way, but fark adopting in California
 
2012-06-12 09:15:44 PM  

Slartibartfaster: serial_crusher: I object to fertility science in general.
If you have some biological fault that prevents you from producing healthy children, just go adopt some of the perfectly fine ones that need homes. Yes, even the black ones.

I was adopted
So was my wife
We tried doing the adoption thing in California - it was INSANE (I sorta thought it was ok to pay her medical expenses, it was NOT ok that she could rescind at ANY point and I still had to pay)

// worked out ok the natural way, but fark adopting in California


Any two fools can screw and make a baby; what we make hard is for people to pick up after them.

Glad you had your Slartibartfastest.
 
2012-06-12 09:33:55 PM  

DrWhy: /Approves


www.seriessub.com

You forgot the binnaum, Einstein.
 
2012-06-12 09:52:23 PM  
giggity.gif
 
2012-06-12 09:57:28 PM  

Gyrfalcon: Glad you had your Slartibartfastest


:)
 
2012-06-12 10:04:25 PM  

MomUdLikeToFark: I strongly feel that screwing with natural selection is a big no no.
There is a REASON that those people cannot get pregnant, there is a reason that those children are handicapped.


Yes, the REASON is a genetic or other biological abnormality -- one that we can get around.
Or do you mean that there is some "higher", overarching reason somehow orchestrated willfully to fulfill some sort of big-picture plan?
... Because if that's what you mean then, no, I don't think there is a reason.


xen0blue: I think it's pretty farked up and should be outlawed...seems like these scientists say it's 'ethically' ok just because they want to get away with practicing their unethical science experiments


Yeah, unethical like those damned in-vitro test tube baby abominations, amiright?
 
2012-06-12 10:23:12 PM  

Julie Cochrane: Why we should let people do this:

Genetic diseases suck. I mean it really sucks to have one. I know, because I have to live with one. Unfortunately, before I knew how inheritable it was, I passed it on. I don't think the solution is don't have kids, or for my kid not to have kids. I think the solution is to learn to cure the problems.

Okay, so here we have this 3-parent treatment for cases where the woman in the primary couple has mitochondrial disease---that's when you'd need this treatment. What you're doing is letting her have another woman donate part of an egg instead of the whole egg.

So fine, the various couples who can benefit from this treatment pay to have the treatment done so they can have their own kids. Terrific.

The gain is not that the couples have their own kids. The gain is that in perfecting the surgical techniques and the knowledge to bring the techniques into availability for use on humans, the state of genetic and fertility medicine has advanced substantially. Then, in actually using those techniques to help make healthy babies, the state of the art of human knowledge and practice has advanced even farther.

And that gets us closer to the days when people like my daughter, if she someday decides to have children, can go with her husband to an IVF clinic and say, "We want to have a baby of our own, but we don't want our child to have bipolar disorder."

And the doctors to say, "We can do that. No problem."

And that would be awfully damned nice.

So if they want to make babies in a genetic 3-way in the UK, I'm all for it. Full steam ahead.


lol fark off. go get a REAL genetic disorder. when they figure out how to manipulate our genes well enough im sure yours is TOP priority. you can either take a pill or be depressed? oh no the horror! come find me when your disorder has you on dialysis.
 
2012-06-12 11:10:50 PM  

fozziewazzi: Illegal in the U.S.? No problem...


Who's to stop the lawmakers making it illegal to do medical tourism? It's done the same way for sex tourism. I'm actually surprised that there isn't more laws making it illegal for US citizens to do anything abroad that would've been considered illegal within the states.
 
2012-06-12 11:28:25 PM  

FloydA: Something about your anecdote doesn't quite add up.


Apparently you don't realize you can get food stamps and other things while employed. Not all the "girlfriends" live with him either and have their own draw on the system.
 
2012-06-12 11:36:23 PM  

FloydA: What a medical ethicist might look like.


I farking love you.
 
2012-06-12 11:44:41 PM  
My Google Fu haz failed. I no can find the song from Dr. Demento, "Test Tube Babies". Closest I get is:

♫Test tube babies, test tube babies, we're the new sensation
When you're born in test tubes, there's no need for procreation
Test tube babies, test tube babies, we are so Utopian
Test tube babies, test tube babies, we are not Fallopian!♫

I turn it over to the power of Fark, with head hung in shame. :(

/alas
 
2012-06-13 03:05:53 AM  

gja: HumbertoEcho: [www.eatnineghost.com image 450x341]
You guys are slipping. They are legal since a few years already.... :-)


If she's masturbating, is that also incest?

/puzzled
 
2012-06-13 05:17:49 AM  

universebetween: lol fark off. go get a REAL genetic disorder. when they figure out how to manipulate our genes well enough im sure yours is TOP priority. you can either take a pill or be depressed? oh no the horror! come find me when your disorder has you on dialysis.


The door is over there, douchebag. Feel free to leave any time.
 
2012-06-13 06:58:42 AM  

FloydA: So you're correct that it became "unfashionable" due to the revelations of the Nazi atrocities, but it was already largely abandoned by scientists a couple of decades before the rise of the Nazis.


Maybe I'm misunderstanding how they planed to go about it in practice, but the underpinnings don't sound like anything different to what farmers do with animal husbandry. Artificial selection by removing the undesirable and forcing the desirable to multiply.
Careful choices should bear results.

Offhand I would think that the scientists in question simply recognized the social disaster this would eventually cause when you treat humans like livestock. With direct genetic manipulation removing the whole "pack Jews in boxcars" phase of things, its going to sneak right back into modern society as a viable alternative to genetic chaos.
With people spending big money to make their kids superior people, will they turn down a doctor who says he can make it happen?
 
2012-06-13 09:23:08 AM  
Those pottery classes are worth their weight in gold aren't they. Everyone should make babies in one.
 
2012-06-13 11:51:31 AM  

holdeestrufs: gja: HumbertoEcho: [www.eatnineghost.com image 450x341]
You guys are slipping. They are legal since a few years already.... :-)

If she's masturbating, is that also incest?

/puzzled


This is waaay more thought provoking than it has any right to be.
 
2012-06-13 02:27:09 PM  

Gawdzila: MomUdLikeToFark: I strongly feel that screwing with natural selection is a big no no.
There is a REASON that those people cannot get pregnant, there is a reason that those children are handicapped.

Yes, the REASON is a genetic or other biological abnormality -- one that we can get around.
Or do you mean that there is some "higher", overarching reason somehow orchestrated willfully to fulfill some sort of big-picture plan?
... Because if that's what you mean then, no, I don't think there is a reason.


Welp! then we disagree.

 
2012-06-13 03:52:25 PM  

MomUdLikeToFark: Gawdzila: MomUdLikeToFark: I strongly feel that screwing with natural selection is a big no no.
There is a REASON that those people cannot get pregnant, there is a reason that those children are handicapped.

Yes, the REASON is a genetic or other biological abnormality -- one that we can get around.
Or do you mean that there is some "higher", overarching reason somehow orchestrated willfully to fulfill some sort of big-picture plan?
... Because if that's what you mean then, no, I don't think there is a reason.

Welp! then we disagree.


Are you a Christian Scientist, or just a cruel biatch?
 
2012-06-13 04:17:42 PM  

MomUdLikeToFark: Gawdzila: MomUdLikeToFark: I strongly feel that screwing with natural selection is a big no no.
There is a REASON that those people cannot get pregnant, there is a reason that those children are handicapped.

Yes, the REASON is a genetic or other biological abnormality -- one that we can get around.
Or do you mean that there is some "higher", overarching reason somehow orchestrated willfully to fulfill some sort of big-picture plan?
... Because if that's what you mean then, no, I don't think there is a reason.


Welp! then we disagree.


Since there isn't any objective evidence for your entirely speculative and rather vague "hunch", I hope we can at least agree that your opinion is not a very good reason to actually create legislation or deny cures to genetic disorders to people who don't share your view?
 
2012-06-13 05:28:32 PM  

way south:

Maybe I'm misunderstanding how they planed to go about it in practice, but the underpinnings don't sound like anything different to what farmers do with animal husbandry. Artificial selection by removing the undesirable and forcing the desirable to multiply.
Careful choices should bear results.



It's not markedly different from selective breeding, but that's the problem. (Farming is actually much more fragile than most people realize.)

Consider the Irish potato famine. Potatoes were introduced to Ireland in the 1600s, and initially there was a great deal of variety, but by the 1800s, nearly all of the variety had been eliminated, and everyone was growing the "lumper" variety, which was well-suited to the lower quality soil that was available to peasants. Other varieties of potato were less productive in that type of soil. The genetic homogeneity was great for production, but it put the entire harvest at risk- if one plant is susceptible, they all are. If they had grown a variety of potatoes, some plants would have been resistant to the blight, even though they were less productive. Crop homogeneity is great for productivity, but it leaves you at risk of total collapse. Maintaining crop diversity leads to lower productivity on a year to year basis, but protects against catastrophe.

Unfortunately for the Irish, they removed the "undesirable" variants and kept only the most desirable ones (the ones with the greatest productivity), which was fine as long as there was no blight. The problem is that the environment is not a fixed, stable quantity; environments are constantly in a state of flux. Maintenance of variation in a population is a way to protect against environmental changes.

The same would happen if we reduced the range of variation among humans.

Besides, who is qualified to decide what counts as a "desirable" trait?




Offhand I would think that the scientists in question simply recognized the social disaster this would eventually cause when you treat humans like livestock.



Historically speaking, that's exactly why eugenics fell out of favor among the general public. It fell out of favor among scientists about 20 years earlier, when they realized that it would not achieve the ends they desired.

With direct genetic manipulation removing the whole "pack Jews in boxcars" phase of things, its going to sneak right back into modern society as a viable alternative to genetic chaos.
With people spending big money to make their kids superior people, will they turn down a doctor who says he can make it happen?


Probably will, to some extent. If so, that might be the first step towards human extinction, for the same reason that homogeneity wiped out the Irish potato crop.

I have no kids and I will be long dead by the time that happens though, so I'm not going to stay up worrying about it.
 
2012-06-14 02:46:59 PM  
Leeds:Are you a Christian Scientist, or just a cruel biatch?

Neither. I just feel that changing people prior to birth is unethical, people are born the way they are suppose to be and they serve a purpose for being that way. It could be to teach a parent compassion for that disease and then that parent turns into an advocate that helps create programs for those people where they get what they need. It could be the person with the disease creates a charity or grant program for others dealing with it. I don't think that people should get to change the way another person is by screwing with their genetics.

Gawdzila--My opinion is not a 'hunch', a hunch is an assumption about something. and i'm not assuming that people shouldn't screw with natural selection. my opinion is just as valid as yours is, I have not chastised you for your opinion even though i do not agree. Once we allow science to start messing with things like this, they are just going to start messing with other things. clones, super humans blah blah blah. they will just turn into hitlers trying to create a perfect race and i think that's very dangerous territory.
 
2012-06-14 05:01:29 PM  

MomUdLikeToFark: Leeds:Are you a Christian Scientist, or just a cruel biatch?

Neither. I just feel that changing people prior to birth is unethical, people are born the way they are suppose to be and they serve a purpose for being that way. It could be to teach a parent compassion for that disease and then that parent turns into an advocate that helps create programs for those people where they get what they need. It could be the person with the disease creates a charity or grant program for others dealing with it. I don't think that people should get to change the way another person is by screwing with their genetics.


So... instead of curing an affliction we make the unlucky ones that come before "suffer" with it to "raise awareness" so that later generations don't have to have it? And what do you think those later generations are eventually going to turn to, if not some form of genetic modification? Happy thoughts? I reject my offspring suffering (if I have the power to prevent it) so that theoretical future children won't, because as a parent, I don't care as much about someone that's not born yet as much as I car about someone whom I'm responsible for raising.
 
2012-06-14 05:57:13 PM  

MomUdLikeToFark: Neither. I just feel that changing people prior to birth is unethical, people are born the way they are suppose to be and they serve a purpose for being that way. It could be to teach a parent compassion for that disease and then that parent turns into an advocate that helps create programs for those people where they get what they need. It could be the person with the disease creates a charity or grant program for others dealing with it. I don't think that people should get to change the way another person is by screwing with their genetics.


My deafness is cause only by a genetic defect known as a Waardenburg syndrome. It's entirely genetic. How do you propose to fix this without touching the genetic code at all?
 
2012-06-14 06:26:41 PM  

MomUdLikeToFark: I just feel that changing people prior to birth is unethical, people are born the way they are suppose to be and they serve a purpose for being that way


That's easy for you to say. You apparently weren't born retarded or twisting in agony for the entirety of their short life. What you call "purpose", rational people call very poor design by God, if there is one.
 
2012-06-14 09:14:08 PM  

MomUdLikeToFark: Gawdzila--My opinion is not a 'hunch', a hunch is an assumption about something.


No, a hunch is a guess based on a feeling or other non-specific reasoning.


MomUdLikeToFark: and i'm not assuming that people shouldn't screw with natural selection.


Well yes, you kind of did say that.
What you ARE assuming is that there is some mysterious, overarching, big-picture "reason" behind why certain genetic abnormalities happen that is beyond simply their causes. That view of yours IS no more than unsupported speculation -- a "hunch" if you will. Unless, of course, you didn't actually mean what you said when you said.


MomUdLikeToFark: my opinion is just as valid as yours is


What opinion do you mean? All I did was point out that your assumption of some manipulative force at work behind genetic disorders is entirely unsupported. So actually no, your opinion isn't as valid as mine.

My opinion -- no... my explanation -- is that there is no such force at work beyond simply genetics as we know them. Since your explanation doesn't work any better, my explanation is to be preferred on the grounds of parsimony. Unless, as I said before, you don't actually mean what you wrote before. In which case I simply disagree with you because your conclusion is based on wild-arsed speculation.


MomUdLikeToFark: Once we allow science to start messing with things like this, they are just going to start messing with other things. clones, super humans blah blah blah. they will just turn into hitlers trying to create a perfect race and i think that's very dangerous territory.


Ah yes, the vague and tired old slippery slope argument.
People spouted those same sort of raving lunatic-type cautionary scenarios about in-vitro fertilization techniques, but we haven't exactly turned into the Brave New World, have we?


MomUdLikeToFark: Neither. I just feel that changing people prior to birth is unethical, people are born the way they are suppose to be


The phrase "supposed to" implicitly assumes that something like an intelligent motivation is behind it.
This is essentially the same as saying "God wants it this way". Clearly this is unconvincing for many people.


MomUdLikeToFark: they serve a purpose for being that way. It could be to teach a parent compassion for that disease and then that parent turns into an advocate that helps create programs for those people where they get what they need.


People aren't created with or given purpose by some external force, we FIND purpose in whatever life we have.

It seems the absolute height of cruelty to willfully subject someone to a painful life under the onslaught of muscular dystrophy, or the slow, frightening, painful wasting from Huntington's disease just because you have some vague notion about their "destiny" or "purpose" (that you conveniently don't have to share with them), rather than cure them.

Refusing to eradicate a genetic disorder based on these sort of platitudes is no less callous than refusing to give someone readily available antibiotics to save their life, except perhaps easier because you don't have to look a sick person in the eye when you deny them their cure. But the reasoning is exactly the same; after all, maybe they're "supposed" to die that way. Maybe their kids will learn independence, or start a charity in their dad's name. That must have been their purpose, right?
 
2012-06-15 10:51:46 AM  

Mugato: MomUdLikeToFark: I just feel that changing people prior to birth is unethical, people are born the way they are suppose to be and they serve a purpose for being that way

That's easy for you to say. You apparently weren't born retarded or twisting in agony for the entirety of their short life. What you call "purpose", rational people call very poor design by God, if there is one.


Retarded no, thank god. Twisting in agony that will continue to progress and get worse as I get older and probably live a LONG life, yes. I still have my purpose.

Gawdzila- invitro led to the topic that's published today (or rather still being discussed). So yes, there is a slippery slope. And i don't need scientific proof for everything in my life to be validated, apparently you do. I used to be that way and it was stressful for me. You are apparently handling it better than i. But just because there is a science experiment that you agree with, doesn't make your opinion correct OR more valid than mine and it doesn't make the experiment a good idea.

CrispFlows: you are correct, your affliction probably cannot be corrected w/o messing with the genetic code. I'm sorry if you are upset or bitter or just unhappy with your affliction. But i've met PLENTY members of the Deaf Community that pity the hearing and wouldn't hear if they had the choice.
 
2012-06-15 11:01:39 AM  

MomUdLikeToFark: CrispFlows: you are correct, your affliction probably cannot be corrected w/o messing with the genetic code. I'm sorry if you are upset or bitter or just unhappy with your affliction. But i've met PLENTY members of the Deaf Community that pity the hearing and wouldn't hear if they had the choice.


So, I'm supposed to love and accept a medical condition that, by the procedure mentioned in the article, would be entirely preventable?

I'm good with what I got but did you ever ask these in the deaf community you've met, "Would you wish another person to be deaf if you have the means to prevent it?"

It's one thing to accept something you would have to live with, it's another to allow it upon another being if it can be prevented.
 
2012-06-15 11:48:04 AM  
CrispFlows: I'm good with what I got but did you ever ask these in the deaf community you've met, "Would you wish another person to be deaf if you have the means to prevent it?"

I have spoken to hearing children of Deaf families and it was not uncommon for them to state that they were treated differently (less nicely), or even shunned because they were hearing where the rest of the family was not. Upon conversing with several adults, some were parents and some were not yet, several actually preferred having Deaf children. many DO in fact want their Deafness passed on as they commonly feel it's an asset and the hearing community is a suffering community BECAUSE of their ability to hear. I'm not generalizing that all members of Deaf community think and feel this way. I'm speaking only from the conversation and interactions that i've had personally.
 
2012-06-15 01:11:20 PM  

MomUdLikeToFark: Leeds:Are you a Christian Scientist, or just a cruel biatch?

Neither. I just feel that changing people prior to birth is unethical, people are born the way they are suppose to be and they serve a purpose for being that way. It could be to teach a parent compassion for that disease and then that parent turns into an advocate that helps create programs for those people where they get what they need. It could be the person with the disease creates a charity or grant program for others dealing with it. I don't think that people should get to change the way another person is by screwing with their genetics.


Do you consider yourself a sadist? It would appear from your comments that you believe that needless suffering is a good thing.

People with certain genetic disorders have to choose whether or not to have children because they know that their children would have miserable, shortened, agonizing lives just like theirs. And you believe for some reason that when given an opportunity to completely eliminate the cause of this defect- they should choose to have their children suffer? And for no reason except you want them to suffer?

If I believed in the concept of Satan, I would suggest that he has possessed you. No human being should be as cruel and evil as you appear to be.
 
2012-06-15 01:13:46 PM  

MomUdLikeToFark: CrispFlows: I'm good with what I got but did you ever ask these in the deaf community you've met, "Would you wish another person to be deaf if you have the means to prevent it?"

I have spoken to hearing children of Deaf families and it was not uncommon for them to state that they were treated differently (less nicely), or even shunned because they were hearing where the rest of the family was not. Upon conversing with several adults, some were parents and some were not yet, several actually preferred having Deaf children. many DO in fact want their Deafness passed on as they commonly feel it's an asset and the hearing community is a suffering community BECAUSE of their ability to hear. I'm not generalizing that all members of Deaf community think and feel this way. I'm speaking only from the conversation and interactions that i've had personally.


So you would ban voluntary treatments for the deaf because you believe that a few of them wouldn't want to be cured?

Do you have horns and cloven feet?
 
2012-06-15 01:16:13 PM  

Leeds: MomUdLikeToFark: Leeds:Are you a Christian Scientist, or just a cruel biatch?

Neither. I just feel that changing people prior to birth is unethical, people are born the way they are suppose to be and they serve a purpose for being that way. It could be to teach a parent compassion for that disease and then that parent turns into an advocate that helps create programs for those people where they get what they need. It could be the person with the disease creates a charity or grant program for others dealing with it. I don't think that people should get to change the way another person is by screwing with their genetics.

Do you consider yourself a sadist? It would appear from your comments that you believe that needless suffering is a good thing.


Worked for Mother Teresa. She honestly believed that those that suffered on Earth were closest to God. Why do you think her hospitals didn't cure anything, only provided enough care to keep the afflicted alive as long as reasonably possible?
 
2012-06-15 04:15:59 PM  

Leeds:
So you would ban voluntary treatments for the deaf because you believe that a few of them wouldn't want to be cured?

Do you have horns and cloven feet?


That was certainly never said Leeds. so not only are you putting words in my mouth but you're shooting for immature name calling in response to something that was not said.
I'm not saying to ban anything, i'm not saying to mandate anything. i certainly have zero say in whether that happens or not. But i sure don't have to agree with science messing with my child before it's born. I'll take what I am given because that's how I feel it should be. i certainly understand the 'why' behind people seeing this as a good thing from a health standpoint. but there are so many other things that can stem off of this and make the world uglier than it is. (i.e. the perfect race thing i mentioned earlier, over populating the world when a chunk is already starving, screwed up paternity cases from the donor of the extra egg...you know some ambulance chaser is going to make it happen) i think the science is interesting and i'm fascinated by it, but i personally would not use it in MY life. Do what you will with your own.
 
Displayed 50 of 202 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report