I came across this story on 60 minutes last night. What does everyone think about it?
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/04/13/60II/main611618.shtml">http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/04/ ... 1618.shtml</a><!-- m -->
I'm really not sure what to think...I can see wanting to have a balanced family, but the process seems so risky. IVF is generally rather pricey, and I don't think it's something that should be done just to select the sex of your child. When I'm ready to have kids, I know I'll be thrilled no matter what. People should count their blessings, rather than mess with things like unneccessary medical procedures. I think it would be better to leave appointments open for couples who are having trouble conceiving, rather than playing with genetics.
-Jenna
I agree, but the fact that they can pick out the embryos with a disease is a good thing.
can i make a baby that's both a boy and a girl?
cratch:
This is simply the next step in the evolution of a species. After we adapted to our environment to the point where we no longer rely on it, the only logical conclusion for the next step would be to change ourselves for the better. One day everyone will be geniuses, everyone will have perfect health and muscle-tone and art will die. It comes with the territory. Welcome to the madhouse...
In my opinion the drug is ready.
That, and if I were PM, I'd ban this stuff outright. It's the first step to the devolution of the species. Too slippery a slope IMO.
did you say...
DEVILUTION! :twisted:
The Darkest Canuck Wrote:did you say...
DEVILUTION! :twisted:
Lemme guess, a death metal act?
Stephen Dame Wrote:In my opinion the drug is ready.
That, and if I were PM, I'd ban this stuff outright. It's the first step to the devolution of the species. Too slippery a slope IMO.
So if you were albe to find out in advance that your child would have cystic fibrosis and suffer all their life, insted of getting it taken out..you wouldn't want it?
Thehip21 Wrote:Stephen Dame Wrote:In my opinion the drug is ready.
That, and if I were PM, I'd ban this stuff outright. It's the first step to the devolution of the species. Too slippery a slope IMO.
So if you were albe to find out in advance that your child would have cystic fibrosis and suffer all their life, insted of getting it taken out..you wouldn't want it?
I'd want to concentrate the funding, research and development into finding a cure and preventative measures for CF.
This stuff is self centred and short sighted in my opinion. It focuses on individual improvements over broad and sweeping betterment for mankind. "Cure my kid: I've got money." In forty years this could mean that disabilities and treatable diseases are the plague of the poor and disadvantged.
The moral questions may come when you get parents who don't like characteristics or imperfections and decide to abort, (On a larger scale than what happens already of course) or when the gene pool becomes so altered and "perfected" that our immunities, genetic developments and natural evolution are interupted and tampered with.
I'm not well schooled enough in geneology, anthropology or kineseology to know how humans and our bodies have developed over time, yet I'm pretty sure that we've never been able to so drastically alter the development of a human fetus, nor do we know the consequences... I wouldn't want my kid to be that Guinea Pig.
Stephen Dame Wrote:The Darkest Canuck Wrote:did you say...
DEVILUTION! :twisted:
Lemme guess, a death metal act?
actually, a death metal song by my good friend's progressive death metal band:
BEYOND WITHIN!
beyondwithin.cjb.net
The Darkest Canuck Wrote:Stephen Dame Wrote:The Darkest Canuck Wrote:did you say...
DEVILUTION! :twisted:
Lemme guess, a death metal act?
actually, a death metal song by my good friend's progressive death metal band:
BEYOND WITHIN!
beyondwithin.cjb.net
Also the name of a thrash metal album from M.O.D. :thumb:
I dont know what this world is coming to. It sickens me when people try to override nature.
Stephen Dame Wrote:The moral questions may come when you get parents who don't like characteristics or imperfections and decide to abort, (On a larger scale than what happens already of course) or when the gene pool becomes so altered and "perfected" that our immunities, genetic developments and natural evolution are interupted and tampered with.
Yet how do you know if in the "natural" evolution of a species that the "natural" part inevitably becomes "enduced" evolution? I have actually read alot on evolution and we are at a point where we are evolving for our technology not the environment. Ask any naturalist or pessimist.
lord brazle Wrote:Stephen Dame Wrote:The moral questions may come when you get parents who don't like characteristics or imperfections and decide to abort, (On a larger scale than what happens already of course) or when the gene pool becomes so altered and "perfected" that our immunities, genetic developments and natural evolution are interupted and tampered with.
Yet how do you know if in the "natural" evolution of a species that the "natural" part inevitably becomes "enduced" evolution? I have actually read alot on evolution and we are at a point where we are evolving for our technology not the environment. Ask any naturalist or pessimist.
Technology has played a part in evolution for thousands of years, Brazle. One of Darwin's observations found that a type of bird which could crack a nut with its beak(that was sharper and more pointed than its counterparts) thrived and passed its genes down. Then when that type of nut disappeared from the enviroment, that bird died out over time because the tools it had were obsolete. I agree with Stephen that the money and brainpower should be directed towards curing diseases like CF rather than removing embryos with CF cause not everyone could afford these tests and nobody is going to want government to support funding for these tests for everybody.