View Full Version : a disgrace in my view
more then 1 in 5 britons would pay £1,000 to choose the sex of there baby
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3136178.stm
personally i think we should let nature take its course i like things the natural way and i think tampering with the sex of a child is not a positive thing in my view what do you all think ?
TigaSefi
25-09-2003, 14:55
I rather pay to avoid more babies like you :D but yeah don't meddle with nature is my view.
I thought it was illegal in this country. I seen this being discussed on TV when it first hit the headlines and they reckon one of the biggest reasons was some Asian's prefer boys to girls which of course is wrong
aliferste
25-09-2003, 15:55
Originally posted by Defiant
I thought it was illegal in this country. I seen this being discussed on TV when it first hit the headlines and they reckon one of the biggest reasons was some Asian's prefer boys to girls which of course is wrong
Yes, it is illegal, although I doubt that the reason is because some Asian families want males.
In fact, you would probably find that Asians have nothing to do with it whatsoever......in policy making over gender of babies.
Well why not, I mean people want to play God all the time these days, so why stop there? Why not genetically engineer and breed humans so we all become tall, blonde, blue-eyed stunners, just like Hitler tried with his 'Airian race'? :rolleyes:
Oh dear, five messages into a thread and we're already in Godwin territory...!
Theodoric
25-09-2003, 18:36
Originally posted by kronas
more then 1 in 5 britons would pay £1,000 to choose the sex of there baby
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3136178.stm
personally i think we should let nature take its course i like things the natural way and i think tampering with the sex of a child is not a positive thing in my view what do you all think ?
On the other hand, it is a bit more humane than the traditional method of selecting the sex of your child, which was (and probably still is) infanticide. I believe that the Ancient Greek way of doing this was to expose the baby on a hillside.
Lord Nikon
25-09-2003, 18:47
Originally posted by Russ D
Well why not, I mean people want to play God all the time these days, so why stop there? Why not genetically engineer and breed humans so we all become tall, blonde, blue-eyed stunners, just like Hitler tried with his 'Airian race'? :rolleyes:
I still find it amusing that the idea of the perfect race being tall, blonde haired, blue eyed people from someone who was a short, dark haired idiot
Atomic22
25-09-2003, 19:01
sometimes tampering is necessary
Originally posted by Atomic22
sometimes tampering is necessary
no its not if you tamper you could create a genetic defect that may not first appear (doubtful) but could happen
darkangel
25-09-2003, 23:33
Originally posted by Russ D
Well why not, I mean people want to play God all the time these days, so why stop there? Why not genetically engineer and breed humans so we all become tall, blonde, blue-eyed stunners, just like Hitler tried with his 'Airian race'? :rolleyes: russ would god have made it so easy to tamper with things if he/she/it didn't want us to mess with the design
Originally posted by Lord Nikon
I still find it amusing that the idea of the perfect race being tall, blonde haired, blue eyed people from someone who was a short, dark haired idiot
LOL. Not to mention the moustache...
homealone
25-09-2003, 23:47
Originally posted by darkangel
russ would god have made it so easy to tamper with things if he/she/it didn't want us to mess with the design
- good question - but, ultimate choice - could there be a trap if it is too easy?
Originally posted by homealone
- good question - but, ultimate choice - could there be a trap if it is too easy?
if were not just exclusively talking about gender but actual physical changes hair colour etc then a serious defect is the trap in my view
Originally posted by darkangel
russ would god have made it so easy to tamper with things if he/she/it didn't want us to mess with the design
It's easy to murder someone, do you think He wants us to do that too?
LOL. Not to mention the moustache...
Fellas...(and maybe ladies too?)...have you noticed that when you've got a bit of a 'tache forming (Note: Kronas, you may have to wait a few years for this) and you come to shave it off, you always (ALWAYS) find it impossible to resist the urge just to trim the edges of it off so you can see what you'd look like with a Hitler 'tache???
Come on, there's not a man in the room who hasn't tried it!! :D
Originally posted by Russ D
Well why not, I mean people want to play God all the time these days, so why stop there? Why not genetically engineer and breed humans so we all become tall, blonde, blue-eyed stunners, just like Hitler tried with his 'Airian race'? :rolleyes:
Strictly speaking, what would be wrong with that in the context of genetic engineering?
The goal itself wasn`t the problem with Hitler, it was the methods that he used to try to achieve that goal, and they certainky weren`t genetic engineering in the context being discussed here. There is a vast gulf between tinkering with the genetic structure at the base pair level and the eugenics practiced by the Nazis. I don`t think a comparison between genetic engineering and Hitler is really valid.
If came to stay at your house and you told me to treat the place as my own, but when you came back I'd ripped up the lawn, knocked down a few walls and ripped up all your furniture purely because I thought it looked better that way, wouldn't you be a little narked off?
I`m obviously missing the point somewhere, as I totally fail to see the relevance of that last analogy.
philip.j.fry
26-09-2003, 11:03
Originally posted by Russ D
Come on, there's not a man in the room who hasn't tried it!! :D
I can honestly say that the thought had never crossed my mind...but it will now, everytime I shave damn you!!!! :p
Originally posted by dr wadd
I`m obviously missing the point somewhere, as I totally fail to see the relevance of that last analogy.
Your furniture, decoration etc isn't mine to play with - the fact you allowed me to use the place as my own indicates yes I can have just about free-reign to do what I want, but when I start to destroy your creation and things which do not belong to me, I'm then taking liberties.
The end result is that life is not ours to play with.
That argument is derived from a religious interpretation of the nature of life. I do not wish to attack your freedom to follow the religion of your choosing, nor do I have any right to. However, I perceive the universe from a scientific viewpoint, hence in my personal philosophy I do not have the need for a god concept (deliberately using a lower-case "g" here as I don`t want this to become a debate on comparative religion). By logical extension, I do not see a divine creator as being the "owner" of life, it simply is, and therefore available for our use and/or manipulation.
Your argument appears to be one derived from a fairly moderate view of creationism, in that a god had some hand in creating the Earth and all life on it. If that is the case (and correct me if I`m wrong, I do not wish to misrepresent you) then it could be argued that this god also has "ownership" of the Earth itself. Yet we tinker with the Earth on a daily basis. I`m not talking about extremes like destroying rain forests in their entirety, more mundane examples such as mining or land development. Is it the case that you have no issues with these aspects of altering the environment. And if this is the case, what is the difference between actively altering the landscape and actively altering the life on it?
First of all I've never ever told anyone what to believe or what the must believe. I get accused of preaching, ramming my views down peoples' throats, and the first person who can show me where I've done that will win a £100 cheque signed by myself :)
Yes God owned the earth but we are given permission to harvest it etc as much as we like, however the whole concept of life is different. It might be an idea to read the first few chapters of Genesis so you get a better idea of what we believe God intended for us.
I was not attempting to imply that you are trying to force your opinions from anyone. I was merely working on the basis that your signature makes it clear that you hold specific religious beliefs, and I was just trying to get it clear what concepts you were using in order to arrive at your conclusions. I apologise if I accidentally caused offence, that was not my intention. I don`t think I was too wide of the mark as you used phrases like "your creation", which would imply that animals are someone's creation, and since we don`t live on the Island of Dr Moreau I`m guessing here you believe the creator to be God.
I could read Genesis, but I don`t actually believe in any of the bible, so for me it is no different to reading a work of fiction, and I`m certainly not going to base my way of living around something that I personally do not believe to be grounded in fact.
Re-reading my post I went to great lengths not to insult your religion or you personally, even to go as far at the beginning to state that I didn`t want to attack your choice of religious freedom. I`m curious to know which parts you interpret as suggesting you ram your religious views down other people's throats.
The argument about harvesting the Earth as much as we like is interesting. What if, for example, the harvesting of mineral resources caused an entire species to go extinct? Are you suggesting that your interpretation of religious doctrine permits damaging nature in this manner. If there is constraint on the damage that can be done to animal life, this is at odds with the concept of having a freedom to harvest as much as is desired.
I was not attempting to imply that you are trying to force your opinions from anyone. I was merely working on the basis that your signature makes it clear that you hold specific religious beliefs, and I was just trying to get it clear what concepts you were using in order to arrive at your conclusions. I apologise if I accidentally caused offence, that was not my intention.
My bad - I was not aiming it at you :)
I could read Genesis, but I don`t actually believe in any of the bible, so for me it is no different to reading a work of fiction, and I`m certainly not going to base my way of living around something that I personally do not believe to be grounded in fact.
No, I wasn't suggesting that you believe it, merely to have a better understanding from where I'm coming from. When engaging in this kind of discussion, I tend to take more notice of those who reasearch christian beliefs, Xaccers is one person in particular who does this, despite not sharing my views.
What if, for example, the harvesting of mineral resources caused an entire species to go extinct? Are you suggesting that your interpretation of religious doctrine permits damaging nature in this manner. If there is constraint on the damage that can be done to animal life, this is at odds with the concept of having a freedom to harvest as much as is desired.
Animals certainly are creations of God. Whilst we were given dominion over the earth, we are still to be respectful of what He made.
Well I`m glad that we haven`t come to blows over that ;)
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.