View Full Version : VERY VERY worrying
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3025416.stm
Am I alone in thinking this is immoral, disgusting and very disturbing?
TigaSefi
27-06-2003, 12:48
Saw her on GMTV this morning... medically it is within "reason", cosmetically is a no-no.....
How can chosing the sex of your child ever be 'medically reasonable'?
Now this is getting a bit to far into the 'playing god' way of things.
Unless there is a medical reason things should just be left to nature.
The Diplomat
27-06-2003, 13:09
Whilst I am not in favour of this, you have to consider the point the lady makes -
"How can we say that is OK to choose the gender of your child, which is perfectly fine in Britain up to 24 weeks gestation, but we can't have gender choice at the four to five-day stage. "
It opens a whole can of worms regarding abortion etc.
That is so wrong unless it is for medical reasons
I don't see why be able to 'plan' your family is a problem ? Surely it will lead to a happier more stable family unit ?
It's not as if this will become the 'norm' with long queues outside fertility clinics !!
Tests are available now to check gestating mothers for genetic faults in unborns, not a giant leap to testing for gender.
Lets face it, it's probably about 50/50 what gender child parents wish for, so I don't envisage an unbalancing in the gender balance. This perhaps can't be said of countries such as China (heard of the killing rooms where female babies are left to starve to death ??) and Italy where I understand females are in short supply !
If you don't believe in God then surely you can appreciate the dangers of interefering with "Mother Nature". Who on earth are we to mess with a power MUCH great than us, and which we could never understand?
Hi...I think it is something to do with a free world?? and freedom of choice..IMHO it only concerns the Lady and her family..If they are happy with THEIR decision then be happy that they are happy..
*takes to the shelters and waits for the flack*
Originally posted by tabatha
Hi...I think it is something to do with a free world?? and freedom of choice..IMHO it only concerns the Lady and her family..If they are happy with THEIR decision then be happy that they are happy..
*takes to the shelters and waits for the flack*
Free world? So am I free to walk in to a car showroom and just drive off in a brand new car? Yes it's a free world to a point - but there are limits to every society. Children are a gift - from who depends on your beliefs. God, Mother Nature etc. So what is this woman saying? Oh thank you for the gift, only this time, I'll decide on how it comes out.
Receipe for disaster IMO. There WILL be repercussions.
Originally posted by Russ D
How can chosing the sex of your child ever be 'medically reasonable'?
God chose the sex of his only begotten Son didn't he so if it's good enough for Him it's good enough for the rest of us mere mortals :D
The Diplomat
27-06-2003, 13:46
I can see where Russ is comong from, today you can choose the sex - tomorrow who knows what, colour of eyes/hair, left/right handed or even sexual orientation ( if you believe that that is something you are born with ;) ) :eek:
Enterian
27-06-2003, 13:46
But where does it end? Do we start selecting on the basis of colour of hair/eyes? Height? Maybe we'd like a page three girl who can support us in luxury in our twilight years?
"I'll have a blonde green-eyed girl with a 38D bust please!"
The world's gone mad.
Enterian
(Who's wife is pregnant with a child of unknown sex - we don't know, we don't want to know and we'll be happy either way!)
Originally posted by fraz
God chose the sex of his only begotten Son didn't he so if it's good enough for Him it's good enough for the rest of us mere mortals :D
:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:
<basa dives behind same wall as fraz !!!! >
The Diplomat
27-06-2003, 13:50
Originally posted by Enterian
<snip>
Enterian
(Who's wife is pregnant with a child of unknown sex - we don't know, we don't want to know and we'll be happy either way!)
Congratulations. :D
When is the "nappy" event? :)
Originally posted by Russ D
If you don't believe in God then surely you can appreciate the dangers of interefering with "Mother Nature". Who on earth are we to mess with a power MUCH great than us, and which we could never understand?
Who provided Adam and Eve with the tree of knowledge? And who exactly are you to say what is or isn't God's will? Seen any talking burning bushes in the back garden recently?
;)
Enterian
27-06-2003, 13:53
Originally posted by The Diplomat
Congratulations. :D
When is the "nappy" event? :)
Sept. 20th
Originally posted by cjll3
Who provided Adam and Eve with the tree of knowledge? And who exactly are you to say what is or isn't God's will? Seen any talking burning bushes in the back garden recently?
;)
And speaking of Adam & Eve wasn't Eve the first genetically modifed person having been created from Adams rib ?
See, all the way through the Bible there are references to revolutionary medical practices ergo it must be ok for science to interven if it can.
Originally posted by fraz
And speaking of Adam & Eve wasn't Eve the first genetically modifed person having been created from Adams rib ?
I'd have thought that would have made her the first ever clone. :cool:
Originally posted by cjll3
I'd have thought that would have made her the first ever clone. :cool:
Proof if proof werre needed, cloning is sanctioned by the Bible !!!
:cool:
Enterian
27-06-2003, 14:13
Originally posted by cjll3
I'd have thought that would have made her the first ever clone. :cool:
Impossible, clones have to be the same sex!
TigaSefi
27-06-2003, 14:17
not necessarily ;) heheh.... whether we'll like it or not, it bound to go down this road. Why ? Money ? Doctors are greedy!!
Free world? So am I free to walk in to a car showroom and just drive off in a brand new car?
No,thats called stealing,cant see who this Lady has stolen from?,and I am sure there are thousands of parents who would have loved the chance to be sure their children would be born without any impediment..or is that part of the `gift`?..
and to think most of you were whineing over at the .com site because i posted something similar but under diffarent circumstances i told you all it would happen
http://www.nthellworld.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=43457
Originally posted by Enterian
Impossible, clones have to be the same sex!
No, clones have to be of the same genetic material.
Originally posted by Russ D
If you don't believe in God then surely you can appreciate the dangers of interefering with "Mother Nature". Who on earth are we to mess with a power MUCH great than us, and which we could never understand?
indeed russ and i think your against it so i side with you on this one its totally wrong to mess with mother nature huge implications for the baby can arise in the future
Originally posted by kronas
indeed russ and i think your against it so i side with you on this one its totally wrong to mess with mother nature huge implications for the baby can arise in the future
But wasn't it Mother Nature that endowed us with our brains so therefore anything we do must be a natural progression.
Hmmmm....this threads gone very quiet ??
Didn't see any lightning :D
Originally posted by basa
Hmmmm....this threads gone very quiet ??
Didn't see any lightning :D
Speaking of which, saw Bruce Almighty last weekend, cracking film :)
paulyoung666
27-06-2003, 16:56
sorry but i cant see what is wrong with it , at the end of the day you choose to do what you want to do , if it hadnt come to light no one would have known about it , whats to say that your next door neighbours little girl wasnt created the same way ????????? , do you know are you certain ???????? , storm in a teacup i reckon , im gonna hide now and put my flameproofs on for when russ comes back :Peace:
Originally posted by cjll3
Who provided Adam and Eve with the tree of knowledge? And who exactly are you to say what is or isn't God's will?
;)
Well seeing as the Bible states God is the creator of all things, that give me pretty good grounds to say we are not the entities who have control over life in this way.
We have our place in the grand scheme and creator/controller of life is not on our CV. Or at least is shouldn't be.
If God wants to 'clone' as Fraz puts it, that's up to Him. The day we can be put on the same terms as the Boss is the day I'll agree with all this. :)
Mantastic
27-06-2003, 17:33
Originally posted by fraz
And speaking of Adam & Eve wasn't Eve the first genetically modifed person having been created from Adams rib ?
Just think what we could of had for an 'Arm and a Leg'!:)
Originally posted by fraz
But wasn't it Mother Nature that endowed us with our brains so therefore anything we do must be a natural progression.
thats utter stupidity just because we kill others does that mean its right in my mind no or is that natural progression ?
patrickp
27-06-2003, 18:14
The thing is, whether it's "right" or not, it's possible, and we are going to have to learn to deal with it. I would much rather see genetic modification done responsibly than see it run rampant because it's driven underground. This is one of the many instances where prohibition just won't work.
And, in case you're worrying about super beings taking over, forget it. Being able to do some small degree of genetic modification is the present state of affairs; being able to do it to a greater extent than removing genes for diseases or selecting sex: i.e. trying to produce greater intelligence, athleticism, beauty or anything like that is still no nearer. They would involve combinations of genetic material that we're not going to be able to work out for a long time yet, let alone execute them correctly.
And, to get back to my original point, I think it's much better we learn to deal with them at this early stage than bury our heads in the sand until we have real genetic manipulation to deal with and no idea how to.
Originally posted by Russ D
Well seeing as the Bible states God is the creator of all things, that give me pretty good grounds to say we are not the entities who have control over life in this way.
God gave us freedom, Most people dont believe in god anyhow... Who cares?
Surely this will only bring the family closer together, More love.. and overall a better thing! Life's there to be enjoyed, we dont last long, we might as well enjoy it whilst we can imo.
Originally posted by fraz
And speaking of Adam & Eve wasn't Eve the first genetically modifed person having been created from Adams rib ?
See, all the way through the Bible there are references to revolutionary medical practices ergo it must be ok for science to interven if it can.
Fraz, your not with the O.U. by any chance are you?
Originally posted by Russ D
Well seeing as the Bible states God is the creator of all things, that give me pretty good grounds to say we are not the entities who have control over life in this way.
Russ .. little hint .. your mother is not the virgin Mary ;)
Originally posted by Steve_NTL
God gave us freedom, Most people dont believe in god anyhow... Who cares?
Surely this will only bring the family closer together, More love.. and overall a better thing! Life's there to be enjoyed, we dont last long, we might as well enjoy it whilst we can imo.
so what if some people dont believe in god i agree we should be happy but i thought when having children you would be happy to have a child rather then custom produced baby and the big possibility of it dyng at anytime...............
The only problem I can foresee is Asian family's. Its well known that allot off them prefer son's as they value them more. This of course is wrong but on the other side their are family's which say have three girl's and just wont a son or vice versa and I don't see a problem with that
Originally posted by kronas
so what if some people dont believe in god i agree we should be happy but i thought when having children you would be happy to have a child rather then custom produced baby and the big possibility of it dyng at anytime...............
Havnt really read the whole thread.. The baby should lead a complete normal life.. Just like conceiving naturally, there's no health implications.
Originally posted by Steve_NTL
Havnt really read the whole thread.. The baby should lead a complete normal life.. Just like conceiving naturally, there's no health implications.
if this is a 'genetic' modification which i think its then there are risks significant ones at that of future problems
Its not really altering genetics, Its Just Choosing the XX XY chromasomes, and using IVF treatment to implant them in the egg.
Originally posted by Steve_NTL
God gave us freedom, Most people dont believe in god anyhow... Who cares?
Surely this will only bring the family closer together, More love.. and overall a better thing! Life's there to be enjoyed, we dont last long, we might as well enjoy it whilst we can imo.
So you don't even believe in 'mother nature' or anything like that?
Originally posted by Russ D
So you don't even believe in 'mother nature' or anything like that?
Well of course there's something that created us.. and the universe.. But I dont see how this relates to the thread tbh.. Lifes' there for the taking, there's no point worrying about something supernatural.
I'll use my pre-christian beliefs here to help with my point.....
In the view of a non-christian, life must have been created by a 'mother-nature'. 'She' continues to oversee life, and if you subscribe to the idea of 'evolution' then surely you must agree that she controls that, thus ensuring species evolve the right way. 'She' has laid down strict rules governing life, such as elephants only give birth to baby elephants, and canines give birth to puppies etc.
So anything which 'changes' this natural process is going to be encroaching in uncharted land. This can only be described as foolish behaviour IMO.
Humans are slaves to this process, NOT the other way around.
Originally posted by Russ D
Snip
Yeah, Your post makes sense.. But that goes against Christian Beliefs....
Originally posted by Russ D
Humans are slaves to this process, NOT the other way around.
How can we be slaves, when We have freedom?.. Im actually a christian, But I prefer to take a broader view on life.
paulyoung666
27-06-2003, 19:12
Originally posted by Russ D
I'll use my pre-christian beliefs here to help with my point.....
In the view of a non-christian, life must have been created by a 'mother-nature'. 'She' continues to oversee life, and if you subscribe to the idea of 'evolution' then surely you must agree that she controls that, thus ensuring species evolve the right way. 'She' has laid down strict rules governing life, such as elephants only give birth to baby elephants, and canines give birth to puppies etc.
So anything which 'changes' this natural process is going to be encroaching in uncharted land. This can only be described as foolish behaviour IMO.
Humans are slaves to this process, NOT the other way around.
and if that is your belief then fine , i am not going to get into an argument about it , i still say it is upto the individual to choose as they see fit , although i reckon the line should be drawn at creating super beings , if i had the need to create a baby in the hope of saving another child then i would do it , no probs , i suppose it depends on your beliefs after all
Erm, I did say that those were my pre Christian beliefs ie this is what I believed before I became a Christian :)
paulyoung666
27-06-2003, 19:14
whoops for russ i reckon :p :p :p
Originally posted by paulyoung666
and if that is your belief then fine , i am not going to get into an argument about it , i still say it is upto the individual to choose as they see fit , although i reckon the line should be drawn at creating super beings , if i had the need to create a baby in the hope of saving another child then i would do it , no probs , i suppose it depends on your beliefs after all
I think that sums it up pretty well.
Your idea of Super Beings Could strike something different into the subject though - We defiently need Strict laws with this.. Though I fear things like this have been going on for a long time now, Area 51 such an example.
Originally posted by Russ D
Erm, I did say that those were my pre Christian beliefs ie this is what I believed before I became a Christian :)
I know, but I couldnt think of anything else to say :D
Originally posted by Russ D
Well seeing as the Bible states God is the creator of all things,
But God didn't create modern cows, sheep, horses, roses, wheat and lots of other stuff. We did.
The "traditional" British landscape is largely man-made and not natural at all. We've been messing with nature for a few thousand years.
Not saying we always do a good job. Just that we've been doing it for a long time.
Originally posted by Russ D
'She' continues to oversee life, and if you subscribe to the idea of 'evolution' then surely you must agree that she controls that, thus ensuring species evolve the right way. 'She' has laid down strict rules governing life, such as elephants only give birth to baby elephants, and canines give birth to puppies etc.
So anything which 'changes' this natural process is going to be encroaching in uncharted land. This can only be described as foolish behaviour IMO.
Humans are slaves to this process, NOT the other way around.
See my previous reply. :)
Anyway, the only thing we can affect is us. There are LOTS of us - most of whom follow natural childbirth techniques (and most of whom will continue to do so for a very long time).
Also, variety within species is what powers evolution, not the sex of the individual. Unless I misunderstand my Darwin. (Which is always possible.) :)
And, just to scare you all a bit, we're probably a failed evolutionary line anyway, much like the horse - a little twig on the big tree of life. Lack of diversity, you see.
Bacteria rule. And always have.
Originally posted by Russ D
If you don't believe in God then surely you can appreciate the dangers of interefering with "Mother Nature". Who on earth are we to mess with a power MUCH great than us, and which we could never understand?
What if you don't believe in mother nature?
People already do various things to try and dictate the gender of their child, whether it be starving themselves to get a girl, or over eating for a boy, or doing it doggy style facing towards or away from the sun.
And there are many medical reasons for chosing the gender of your offspring.
Many genetic illnesses are gender specific.
homealone
27-06-2003, 21:52
while genetics & the associated research has a bearing on this case, as do religious beliefs and concerns about genderism in 3rd world countries - I think we are missing the point.
In my opinion the debate is about ethical issues - scientific research into IVF treatments and the treatments themselves, involve the "creation" of human embryo's. Many embryo's "die" during subsequent procedures.
Many partners have had children using these techniques, who otherwise would not have been able to have any - currently acceptable in the uk.
Using these techniques to add a gender specific child to an existing family is not acceptable in the uk, but can be done abroad.
Whatever the "meaning of life" I don't think we should get too blasÃÃâ€*’© about "creating" life to suit our whims. Where do we draw the line?
Originally posted by homealone
Whatever the "meaning of life" I don't think we should get too blasÃÃâ€*’© about "creating" life to suit our whims. Where do we draw the line?
I think the line should be drawn where you alter a variable thats dictated by your upbringing.
IE - Inteligence..Strength.. (Thats where these freaky movies come in play, with superbeings)..
Originally posted by homealone
In my opinion the debate is about ethical issues - scientific research into IVF treatments and the treatments themselves, involve the "creation" of human embryo's. Many embryo's "die" during subsequent procedures.
But are they "alive" to start with?
Ok. My view. They're potential lives. IMO, until you can ***** it with a pin and make it squeal it's not "alive" (this applies to humans only, BTW). {I see we still have the silly censor in action. You'll have to work out for yourselves what one usually does with a pin. I'm sure you can all do that without genetic modification.}
Whatever the "meaning of life" I don't think we should get too blasÃÃâ€*’© about "creating" life to suit our whims. Where do we draw the line?
But don't we do this already? People choose to have children. Ok, not all, but a lot of couples plan their families, having babies when they want to have them as suits their lives. So what's the difference?
Or do you mean "creating" as in specifying characteristics? Even this I don't have too much of a problem with.
All ethical arguements about us doiing this start from the premise that, in some way, there's a "plan" or we're "special". There isn't and we aren't. So where's the problem?
Will genetic modification of humans destroy the world or the universe? I don't think so. We have better methods of doing the former and are incapable of doing the latter.
Will it give us a better chance of survival as a species? Yes. I think it will.
Originally posted by Russ D
So anything which 'changes' this natural process is going to be encroaching in uncharted land. This can only be described as foolish behaviour IMO.
Humans are slaves to this process, NOT the other way around.
Well if the logical conclusion of genetic engineering means we all kill ourselves then so what?
Man as a species has developed to a point where the Earth is not capable of supporting them.
Can we stop going on about genetic engineering as it has nothing to do with this case.
All that happened was that the mother was given a say in the selection process of the embryos.
How do you know that all the embryos they developed, including those that weren't used, weren't all XX anyway?
homealone
27-06-2003, 23:15
originally posted by nogger <snip>Will it give us a better chance of survival as a species? Yes. I think it will.
:erm: imho no. sorry nogger I would prefer natural selection to be the determinant here - imo not being able to have children is "natures" way of saying you can't have children.
My bad, but I don't think we should mess with that?
Gaz
quote from Russ...'She' has laid down strict rules governing life, such as elephants only give birth to baby elephants, and canines give birth to puppies etc...
Am I missing something from the report of this happening??
I was of the impression that the Lady in question was to give birth to a baby girl..as in humans only give birth to humans..I respect the religious beliefs of everyone,will never argue about them,and am happy to live with what I believe is ok..
poolking
28-06-2003, 08:27
I think this mainly comes under moral implications, as Russ has sort of said, never toy with nature as it has a nasty habit of biting you in the ass.
I think morals in today's society are rare now unfortunately.
King Blimp
28-06-2003, 09:00
Personally I have no problem with the principle of genetic manipulation. If there is a process by which you can ensure a longer, heaththier life for your offspring then why shouldn't you want it for them.
As for interfering with the natural order, surely this happens every time we have a vaccination or operation allowing us to survive some medical catastrophy that a few centuries ago would have meant death.
patrickp
28-06-2003, 14:32
As I've already pointed out, using genetic manipulation to ensure a longer, healthier life is still a looong way from being possible, except in the few cases where we can remove a specific genetic disorder.
But it would be stupid to stick our heads in the sand and refuse to deal with it until it it _does_ become a possibility. And, as you said, KB, we accept the myriad of other medical benefits - in fact, we're probably much too ready to accept treatments that are sometimes more harmful than the malady.
Originally posted by Russ D
How can chosing the sex of your child ever be 'medically reasonable'?
Surely it is justified if there is a hereditary disease in your family that is only passed through the genes of one gender (be it boy or girl).
Having said that, it should ONLY be allowed for medical reasons. It should not be open to choice.
It would cause problems in the world's population (a lot of races favour one gender over the other).
The Diplomat
28-06-2003, 16:19
Just going back to the point the woman makes though, what is the difference between her choosing the sex of her child at 3-5 days - or someone else waiting for a 16 week scan, finding out the sex of the unborn child, then having a termination if the child is not of the desired sex? :confused:
Why don't people just let nature take it's course, we all know when you have a child it's going to be a boy or a girl, whatever sex it is just prey to god it's going to be ok.
Originally posted by King Blimp
Personally I have no problem with the principle of genetic manipulation. If there is a process by which you can ensure a longer, heaththier life for your offspring then why shouldn't you want it for them.
As for interfering with the natural order, surely this happens every time we have a vaccination or operation allowing us to survive some medical catastrophy that a few centuries ago would have meant death.
Manipulation of a life even before it has been created is IMO a far cry from vaccination after it came in to being. Although children are our responsibility, surely we do NOT have the right to make such a big decision on their behalf. We do not have the right or moral ability to interfere with God's natural/Mother Nature's plans for us.
Originally posted by dellwear
Fraz, your not with the O.U. by any chance are you?
ummmmm, nope :)
KingPhoenix
29-06-2003, 12:12
Originally posted by Russ D
Manipulation of a life even before it has been created is IMO a far cry from vaccination after it came in to being. Although children are our responsibility, surely we do NOT have the right to make such a big decision on their behalf. We do not have the right or moral ability to interfere with God's natural/Mother Nature's plans for us.
I dont believe in mother nature or god.... so.... hmmm... lol
Anywayz... If mother nature / god created life... why is sexual intercourse necessary to produce pregnant women? Why arent there hundreds of virgins walking around pregnant?
Doesnt that make it the produce of two peoples hard work????
If you were to go out into your garden and build a shed, why couldnt you choose what size you wanted it? Afterall it is you putting all the hard work in to create it........
I.e. She is carrying the unborn around, she put in the hardwork to create it, why shouldnt she be able to choose which sex it is?
I hope that makes sense......
Personally when it comes to my time for a child (which shouldnt be too long i hope... :D) i will not want to control anything about that child, unless medical reasons force otherwise. No matter what it is, i will love it as my creation... Not gods, not mother natures.... MINE!!!
So who/what do you think will 'give' you the child? Sex is a 'natural' act. Life is given to us through nature, it just depends on who you believe to be controlling that 'nature' - God, in my case.
KingPhoenix
29-06-2003, 14:23
i see your point russ, i really do....
I bet your one of those people that truly believes in fate?!?!? I'm not knocking anyone or anything if they do... that includes you russ.. :)
I.e. if your meant to get hit by a bus then you will type of thing?!?
See i believe i am in control of my life... if i want to stay in bed i do, if i want to go out and get hammered i do, if i want to buy a new CD i do.... I am in control of anything i choose to do... There maybe consequences for my actions, but that is still my choice!!!!
See my point to this? :cool:
Originally posted by Nidge
Why don't people just let nature take it's course, we all know when you have a child it's going to be a boy or a girl, whatever sex it is just prey to god it's going to be ok.
i agree with the above we should not mess around with lives
Originally posted by Russ D
Manipulation of a life even before it has been created is IMO a far cry from vaccination after it came in to being. Although children are our responsibility, surely we do NOT have the right to make such a big decision on their behalf. We do not have the right or moral ability to interfere with God's natural/Mother Nature's plans for us.
Did God not grant us freewill?
King Blimp
29-06-2003, 19:24
Originally posted by Russ D
Manipulation of a life even before it has been created is IMO a far cry from vaccination after it came in to being. Although children are our responsibility, surely we do NOT have the right to make such a big decision on their behalf. We do not have the right or moral ability to interfere with God's natural/Mother Nature's plans for us.
Sorry Russ, but I have to disagree with you on this one....
The success of genetic manipulation will result in a better quality of life for people. Nearly all diseases can potentially be cured. Cancer will be wiped out as cancer causing genetic defects will no longer be a problem.
As a result of genetic testing, risk prevention is also a benefit. If you find that you are genetically inclined to have a heart attack, You can reshape your habits around your genetic dispositions. Or, if you know that you have a recessive gene for a disease, You will know not to have a child by another person with that gene.
However, the fact that genetic information may one day become easily accessible leads to the scenario of genetic discrimination and violation of genetic privacy.
People may be judged and oppressed on the basis of genetic information as well as skin color. Why should I hire a man who has a genetic risk of developing heart disease? Why should I offer him insurance?
The potential for reward and for disaster are both great in this issue. I think that with sufficient regulation and responsibility, the benefits of genetic manipulation can far outweigh the drawbacks.
Originally posted by King Blimp
<snip>
I believe the problem with that way of thinking is the (IMO) foolish notion that just because we are the technologically dominant species, this give us the right to make up the rules as we go along.
The world is not ours. We are just tenants. Neither is the right to manipulate life. We do not control life, it is bigger than we ever will be. Whatever you believe in which created life, that is who/what makes such decisions.
Did God not grant us freewill?
Yes but he did not grant us the right to mess with HIS business.
Originally posted by Russ D
I believe the problem with that way of thinking is the (IMO) foolish notion that just because we are the technologically dominant species, this give us the right to make up the rules as we go along.
The world is not ours. We are just tenants. Neither is the right to manipulate life. We do not control life, it is bigger than we ever will be. Whatever you believe in which created life, that is who/what makes such decisions.
in escense i believe that and agree with you i may think it was all nature and not god related but i am certainly against the tampering/modification of this type
paulyoung666
29-06-2003, 20:28
but it is human nature to want to control life , as long as it is tempered with caution i dont see what the problem is :eek:
Originally posted by paulyoung666
but it is human nature to want to control life , as long as it is tempered with caution i dont see what the problem is :eek:
it wont through will it the ethical thing is let nature take its course you tamper you will pay the price maybe the death of whatever you tampered with but ultimately we have evolved through various species by nature taking its course and so the cycle should progress naturally
paulyoung666
29-06-2003, 20:32
Originally posted by kronas
it wont through will it the ethical thing is let nature take its course you tamper you will pay the price maybe the death of whatever you tampered with but ultimately we have evolved through various species by nature taking its course and so the cycle should progress naturally
back to the old argument then , say for instance you have a child with a problem and you are offered the chance to save its life by a tampered with baby are you going to take the offer or not , i know i would ;)
Originally posted by paulyoung666
back to the old argument then , say for instance you have a child with a problem and you are offered the chance to save its life by a tampered with baby are you going to take the offer or not , i know i would ;)
yeah but it depends how the problem can be solved
paulyoung666
29-06-2003, 20:39
Originally posted by kronas
yeah but it depends how the problem can be solved
by which you mean what , i am saying to you that the only way to save your child is to genetically engineer another one to save the first , how would you react to that ????? , this is of course nothing personal and i hope it never happens to anyone here :)
Originally posted by paulyoung666
by which you mean what , i am saying to you that the only way to save your child is to genetically engineer another one to save the first , how would you react to that ????? , this is of course nothing personal and i hope it never happens to anyone here :)
to create another to GE it no i would not also financal implications would be a major factor i understand your point but im afraid im deadset against the tampering of nature especially human nature it will lead to more unethical woes in the future
King Blimp
29-06-2003, 20:50
Originally posted by kronas
im afraid im deadset against the tampering of nature especially human nature it will lead to more unethical woes in the future
Russ and Kronas, I understand your concerns but this brings us back to something Nogger brought up earlier:
Originally posted by nogger
But God didn't create modern cows, sheep, horses, roses, wheat and lots of other stuff. We did.
The "traditional" British landscape is largely man-made and not natural at all. We've been messing with nature for a few thousand years.
If you are against any tampering of genetics you would have to live a pretty spartan life... The truth is our lives are full of examples of genetic manipulation
paulyoung666
29-06-2003, 20:54
Originally posted by kronas
to create another to GE it no i would not also financal implications would be a major factor i understand your point but im afraid im deadset against the tampering of nature especially human nature it will lead to more unethical woes in the future
so you would let your child die , and not even attempt to help it , forget about the money for a mo , dont forget this is nothing personal , i dont want or need a flame war ;)
Originally posted by King Blimp
Russ and Kronas, I understand your concerns but this brings us back to something Nogger brought up earlier:
If you are against any tampering of genetics you would have to live a pretty spartan life... The truth is our lives are full of examples of genetic manipulation
i dont know the ins and outs of evoloution but im sure nature played its part in those instances btw i am talking about human modification as the mmain focal point for my objection
Originally posted by paulyoung666
so you would let your child die , and not even attempt to help it , forget about the money for a mo , dont forget this is nothing personal , i dont want or need a flame war ;)
ofcourse i would do anything to protect my child even though i refuse to have any until i see fit interms of something to change my mind but i would not use GE
paulyoung666
29-06-2003, 22:11
sorry mate but i cannot see how you can say you would not use ge if you had the option to :confused:
Originally posted by paulyoung666
sorry mate but i cannot see how you can say you would not use ge if you had the option to :confused:
i just did didnt i things happen for a reason i will do anything almost to protect the child except that
patrickp
29-06-2003, 23:20
Originally posted by kronas
i dont know the ins and outs of evoloution but im sure nature played its part in those instances btw i am talking about human modification as the mmain focal point for my objection
Few if any of the domestic animals (dogs, cats, horses, cows, pigs, sheep, chickens etc etc) or domestic plants (eg most crops, garden flowers etc) would exist in anything like their current forms if humans had not bred them to it.
And, while humans may not be doing much in the way of deliberately altering themselves yet, we've already been considerably changed because we're a social animal. And we're still in the middle of it - the fact that humans are so prone to circulatory problems, back problems, hernia problems etc is because we're still adapting to being bipeds.
Our society and technology are changing us whether we want it or not. So, if it's going to happen to us anyway, why not try to direct it to some extent?
And, since it's something that people are going to start doing anyway, it would be wise to start developing ways to deal with it rather than deluding ourselves that it can't happen here.
If these people have their way it will be like going into a supermarket, what sort of baby do you want? Boy or a Girl, how high would you like it to grow? What colour would you like it's hair to be? It ought to be stopped before it gets out of hand.
timewarrior2001
30-06-2003, 13:58
I dont disagree with any of this, genetics happens, the more we learn the more help we can give other people.
Look at the stem cell technology being investigated atm. Look how that branch of genetics is going to benefit amputies, people with severed spinal cords etc. Who are we to deny that choice to these people?
Ok so maybe it is slightly worrying to know that people can have the child they always wanted, but hang on, why is that actually bad? surely giving someone the chance to fullfill their dreams is one of the best things humans can actually do for each other.
The only time a situation like this could become horrific is if it was not guided and controled by a select panel of experts.
To put it quite simply it will not be like walking into a supermarket etc. What it will do, is eliminate things like cystic fibrosis, downs syndrome, spina bifida and a whole other range of genetic defects that DESTROY the life of the child.
timewarrior2001
30-06-2003, 15:11
firstly apologies for second succesive post, but silly timed editing rule seems to have stuck here form old .com site.
Personally me and my partner would love to have a boy and a girl.
Now say we have two children both boys, and it is such our dream to have a daughter, why is it wrong to make certain our next child is female?
(it'll make the car sharing later in life easier as women simply cannot drive......I know bad bad joke, but its meant as a joke :))
In the process of defining the sex of the embryo, the scans could also reveal genetic defects that would change and destroy the life of the existing family members if they were present and left unchecked. (incidently my partner had an older brother who died of cystic fibrosis when he was 11 and she carries the recessive gene, I have yet to be tested).
As some of you who may have been through a similar thing can understand, that if the eventuality is that I carry the gene also we cannot have children. But if the gene can be repaired or eliminated with genetic screening we can have our family.
For me religion doesnt come into it, if it was against the things "god" allowed or wished for us, he would intervene and do something about it.......as a non believer in god nor any form of religion, I cant see this happeneing.
paulyoung666
30-06-2003, 15:34
As some of you who may have been through a similar thing can understand, that if the eventuality is that I carry the gene also we cannot have children. But if the gene can be repaired or eliminated with genetic screening we can have our family.
couldnt agree more ;) :D :D
A friend of mine's two brother's were both born with a genetic disorder. Are you trying to tell me that they had no right to exist? :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:
paulyoung666
30-06-2003, 15:48
Originally posted by cjll3
A friend of mine's two brother's were both born with a genetic disorder. Are you trying to tell me that they had no right to exist? :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:
excuse me my mate , no need for the attitude , the point is if people have the chance then why shouldnt they take it , i know i would rather have a healthy child rather one that i know is going to die , like a lad at work his son has cystic fibrosis and he wont last much longer :(
Originally posted by patrickp
Few if any of the domestic animals (dogs, cats, horses, cows, pigs, sheep, chickens etc etc) or domestic plants (eg most crops, garden flowers etc) would exist in anything like their current forms if humans had not bred them to it.
Bred. Exactly. There is a world of difference between selective breeding, which chooses between naturally-arising genes, and genetic manipulation, which introduces completely novel information into the genetic code. 'Hacking' DNA is fraught with difficulty and poses a terrible risk to all life.
Animals can be inbred with sad results (the Kennel Club has a lot to answer for in this regard) but a few generations of mongrel breeding restores genetic diversity and puts things right. However once a single piece of clumsy, defective man-made DNA gets into the environment, how is it to be stopped?
<snip>And we're still in the middle of it - the fact that humans are so prone to circulatory problems, back problems, hernia problems etc is because we're still adapting to being bipeds.
That's a pretty huge theory to be presenting to a discussion as if it were fact. Could you provide a link to some conclusive evidence in support of this?
Our society and technology are changing us whether we want it or not. So, if it's going to happen to us anyway, why not try to direct it to some extent?
'It'll happen anyway, we have no choice, best go along with it' has been used by people of every generation to defend their part in some of history's worst atrocities. It isn't a valid reason or excuse for anything. People have the right to do, or do not, but they should base it on solid reasons that actively back up their position, not a defeatist shrug of the shoulders.
And, since it's something that people are going to start doing anyway, it would be wise to start developing ways to deal with it rather than deluding ourselves that it can't happen here.
As above, IMO nothing's inevitable. I agree that we have to have laws/policies/procedures to help us deal with new challenges, and I think the UK's current position is illogical and indefensible.
First off, I recognise that there is a difference between genetic manipulation and gender selection by IVF (the original topic of this thread). Genes are not being modified, although they are arguably being scientifically selected as sex is genetically determined.
The UK's position is illogical because we allow selection under somecircumstances but not others. It gets all concerned about proper treatment of embryos in scientific research and then allows a woman to abort a child at 16 weeks for purely 'lifestyle' reasons.
IMO any debate on how we interfere with the reproductive process in the UK should start from the very beginning - the acceptability or otherwise of abortion - and go on from there, applying the same logic to all the questions that need to be answered, including the matter of sex selection that we're discussing now.
Unfortunately if we did that I fear we might be horrified at the answers we receive.
timewarrior2001
30-06-2003, 16:22
That's a pretty huge theory to be presenting to a discussion as if it were fact. Could you provide a link to some conclusive evidence in support of this?
I'd imagine that since evolution happens over milions of years and the fact that modern humans have been around for approx 50,000 years that it is indeed true.
Its noticible that humans now are taller, brow ridges in males are smaller, little toes are smaller too.
IMO any debate on how we interfere with the reproductive process in the UK should start from the very beginning - the acceptability or otherwise of abortion - and go on from there, applying the same logic to all the questions that need to be answered, including the matter of sex selection that we're discussing now.
i agree there.
Unfortunately if we did that I fear we might be horrified at the answers we receive.
I dont think we would be horrified, I think its just some people are too sensitive to the situation to be able to grasp the full impact. Hell the world has gone to ratsh*t recently anyway, why should'nt we try and help ourselves?
Originally posted by paulyoung666
excuse me my mate , no need for the attitude , the point is if people have the chance then why shouldnt they take it , i know i would rather have a healthy child rather one that i know is going to die , like a lad at work his son has cystic fibrosis and he wont last much longer :(
Probably because as a species we'll be a lot worse off without learning about compasion and care.
timewarrior2001
30-06-2003, 16:25
yeah but how will leaving people with a death sentence over them be called compassion?
"oh sorry, you are going to die before you are 16 years old, we could have done something about it, but we decided it wasnt right"
paulyoung666
30-06-2003, 16:28
Originally posted by timewarrior2001
yeah but how will leaving people with a death sentence over them be called compassion?
there cant be in that case , mummy and daddy why did you let me be born if you knew i was going to die and that sort of thing :mad: :mad: :mad:
Originally posted by timewarrior2001
yeah but how will leaving people with a death sentence over them be called compassion?
And you are going to live forever because?
timewarrior2001
30-06-2003, 16:49
Originally posted by cjll3
And you are going to live forever because?
I aint gonna live forever, but I also am not going to die as a child because of some genetic defect.
And I sure as hell would have anything done if I can ensure the genetic defect free life for my child, given the circumstances I am in, awaiting the test to find out if I carry the cystic fibrosis gene I think I have a right to feel the way I do.
Dont preach your ethics to me, or jump down my throat, I want children, "nature" may have made it so my children would die, if there is a way to "cure" this why the friggin hell shouldnt I?
and before someone gets all smart arsey, I want children, there is no question of not having children, its a matter of is it safe to do so, if not I'll have to adopt.
Originally posted by timewarrior2001
yeah but how will leaving people with a death sentence over them be called compassion?
Umm, the only thing that's certain in this life is that you're going to die sooner or later. :confused:
I am thankful for the time alloted for me and I think the vast majority of people are, whether that's 8 years or 80.
Maybe one or two people would say they would rather they had never been born, but you can't make a policy of killing every unborn child with a 'defect' because of that. That's called eugenics, and the Nazis were quite partial to it.
paulyoung666
30-06-2003, 16:52
no one is going to live forever , well maybe no one , i just cant get my head round the bringing a baby into this world knowing it has a major problem and doing nothing about it :confused:
timewarrior2001
30-06-2003, 16:53
But also you have to think of the quality of life that child will have
Granted. Certain genetic diseases/defects arent painfull, some are down right horrible, cystic fibrosis being one.
Would you say its better to put a child through that suffering or select certain embryos to not develop?
Originally posted by timewarrior2001
Would you say its better to put a child through that suffering or select certain embryos to not develop?
I think our frames of reference are too different for me to answer that in any way that would be meaningful to you. When you say 'select certain embryos not to develop' I hear 'kill certain unborn children.' I think our assumptions / understanding about where life starts and what rights or responsibilities we have to intervene in the process are very, very different.
timewarrior2001
30-06-2003, 16:59
kill certain unborn children or kill a child that you choose to bring to term, knowing that they wont live a full life and quite probably suffer a lot of pain, live in hospital and generally not have a decent life.
Make it any clearer, i still would prefer to "kill and unborn child"
Your comments may be very true, I beleive in euthanasia.
I beleive in capital punishment. but it also, and I know you havent accused me of being this, doesnt make me wrong.
Perhaps its just a reality I have had to wisen or maybe wake up too.
OK, I understand which you would prefer to do. Would it be excessively trite of me to invite everyone to list the names of extremely disabled people who have made a major contribution to the world, yet would never have been born if society had considered it right to kill them off to save them from their suffering?
timewarrior2001
30-06-2003, 17:12
and this list must not include people that have their disabilities, from things such as accidents, illness ie meningitis or MND, alzheimers etc etc. People that were born with their disability only.
Excuse me, but how many people do you all know that would actually like to design their babies?
Sure, most people I know would accept modifying/selecting their baby's genes in order to cure a genetic illness, but I don't know anyone who'd like to be able to have a 6`7, blonde, green eyed superfast running baby.
They just want a babies that are healthy.
timewarrior2001
30-06-2003, 17:15
yep true.
But if you listen to this woman, she says basically it was her dream to have a mother daughter relationship, after trying as hard as she did for a daughter, can you really blame her for what she has done? She has achieved one of her lifes dreams.
Originally posted by cjll3
A friend of mine's two brother's were both born with a genetic disorder. Are you trying to tell me that they had no right to exist? :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:
Who mentioned anything about saying people with genetic disorders have no right to live???
It's simply saying that if you know you have a high chance of creating children who will have this dissorder, then why shouldn't you choose not to have kids?
It's like saying that people are wrong to use contraception because it denies the life that could have been created.
As said before, if a couple know they carry the gene and it can be repaired then I believe that they should have the option to repair it in any children they produce.
If it can't be repaired, then they should have the choice not to have kids.
Atomic22
30-06-2003, 19:36
going through ivf is an ordeal on its own , all the "discarded" eggs will not have been destroyed they will have been frozen , maybe for some other couple that would give anything for the chance of a child.....morals and ethics dont even come into it when youve been there many times , the laws in england are outdated and if the technology is there it should be made available on the nhs , not just for rich people who can afford to go to spain for the ops
Argg, I just made a really long reply to this thread but I included too many smilies and the whole post had been deleted when I pressed back :(
i am saying to you that the only way to save your child is to genetically engineer another one to save the first
Basicly what I said was that if the second child had to die to save the first I would still not do it as I dont see how this is anybetter than the original scenario.
BTW first Post on NTHW.co.uk :D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D
paulyoung666
30-06-2003, 22:19
did you quote me there , i cant remember :spin: , if you did i reckon you are wrong if i am talking shite then i am sorry , i have had a very bad day , apologies to you if needed :eek:
timewarrior2001
01-07-2003, 09:05
Originally posted by ZrByte
Basicly what I said was that if the second child had to die to save the first I would still not do it as I dont see how this is anybetter than the original scenario.
Errrr where did the second child dying come into it?
*Wonders if towny's ever had a tug, and if he's sorry for killing those millions of unborn children if he has...*
Originally posted by zigatoh
*Wonders if towny's ever had a tug, and if he's sorry for killing those millions of unborn children if he has...*
Ev'ry sperm is sacred,
Ev'ry sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted
God gets quite irate...
The song is about Catholics and I aint one ...
I believe life begins at conception. Sperm aren't kids, they're just good swimmers with a head full of incomplete DNA.
Originally posted by towny
[B
I believe life begins at conception. Sperm aren't kids, they're just good swimmers with a head full of incomplete DNA. [/B]
So what problem have you got with messing with the sperm and the egg before they get jiggy with it?
And to everyone in the god squad, we were made with enough intelligence/resources to mess with DNA, so who's to say HE didn't mean for us to do it? (in the same way as computers can be programmed to design better computers for instance).
Originally posted by zigatoh
So what problem have you got with messing with the sperm and the egg before they get jiggy with it?
Correct, the egg and the sperm aren't alive, but the resulting child is alive. And that child's entire life is affected by whatever messing went on with the egg and sperm that made them.
And to everyone in the god squad, we were made with enough intelligence/resources to mess with DNA, so who's to say HE didn't mean for us to do it? (in the same way as computers can be programmed to design better computers for instance).
Since when was 'because I can' a sufficient reason to do anything?
Originally posted by towny
Correct, the egg and the sperm aren't alive, but the resulting child is alive. And that child's entire life is affected by whatever messing went on with the egg and sperm that made them.
Since when was 'because I can' a sufficient reason to do anything?
I agree, and once we know what we're doing it could be immeasurably improved.
I never said that at all, i was saying maybe HE wanted us to do it, or can you remind me of the bit in the bible that says genetic engineering is a sin?
HE's obviously an advanced genetic engineer, maybe part of this whole experiment of his (us) is to see what we can do with it...
Originally posted by zigatoh
I agree, and once we know what we're doing it could be immeasurably improved.
I never said that at all, i was saying maybe HE wanted us to do it, or can you remind me of the bit in the bible that says genetic engineering is a sin?
HE's obviously an advanced genetic engineer, maybe part of this whole experiment of his (us) is to see what we can do with it...
Naturally the Bible doesn't say anything about genetic engineering, seeing as it was written by people who lived between 2 and 4,000 years ago. But its principles for living are more important in this repect than its historical setting. I can post more fully on this once I'm home this evening with a copy of the Bible and more time to think ... currently sitting at a desk at work with a rapidly cooling baked potato.
Suffice it to say for now that I'm confident God does not want us to start genetically engineering people.
{FU}Fubar
01-07-2003, 13:59
If you think thats sick i suggest taking alook at this
http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1095519,00.html
Absolutley Bloody S I C K................ these people are should be bloody SHOT
Originally posted by {FU}Fubar
If you think thats sick i suggest taking alook at this
http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1095519,00.html
Absolutley Bloody S I C K................ these people are should be bloody SHOT
Just read this story in a couple of the national papers and on BBC News online.
I am absolutely staggered that people can sink as low as this. Has no-one stopped to ponder the utter futility of aborting a child 'cos he/she is unwanted, and then using that child's body to produce babies for people who want them?
We don't need amoral science to solve the problem of people wanting kids but not being able to have them. Society has had a solution for generations. It's called ADOPTION.
Instead of denying children their human rights firstly by killing them and secondly by causing them to have children of their own without their consent, why don't we replace abortion with adoption?
Human life is fundamentally devalued by this. We are being relegated to the status of worthless DNA to be cultured or destroyed on a whim.
why the hell dont you people see its wrong the whole idea of this type of tampering is morally incorrect no matter how useful or life saving it is and the link {FU}Fubar has posted shows that i did say it would get out of hand and yes its SICK
idi banashapan
01-07-2003, 17:40
I really don't see what the fuss is about!!!! The technology is there. It was her choice. Others were willing to help her reach a goal she longed for. Nobody has been forced to do anything they don't want to.
paulyoung666
01-07-2003, 18:48
Originally posted by kronas
why the hell dont you people see its wrong the whole idea of this type of tampering is morally incorrect no matter how useful or life saving it is and the link {FU}Fubar has posted shows that i did say it would get out of hand and yes its SICK
your opinion only of course , dont forget other people have theirs ;) , and i still reckon anyone who needed to would save a child with the help of a ge other ;)
Originally posted by paulyoung666
your opinion only of course , dont forget other people have theirs ;) , and i still reckon anyone who needed to would save a child with the help of a ge other ;)
ofcourse pauline :p
ill respect others opinions but i will voice mine as others do and i have mentioned my stance :)
paulyoung666
01-07-2003, 19:05
Originally posted by kronas
ofcourse pauline :p
ill respect others opinions but i will voice mine as others do and i have mentioned my stance :)
hahahahaaha fu**ing hilarious , good job you put the smilie there ;)
every ones opinions are valued , including yours ;) :D
King Blimp
01-07-2003, 19:40
Originally posted by kronas
why the hell dont you people see its wrong the whole idea of this type of tampering is morally incorrect no matter how useful or life saving it is
Glad to see you are looking at this calmly and rationally :rolleyes:
I think people will just have to respect each others opinions and agree to differ on this emotive issue.
Originally posted by King Blimp
Glad to see you are looking at this calmly and rationally :rolleyes:
I think people will just have to respect each others opinions and agree to differ on this emotive issue.
read my post above pauls last post says it all really :)
King Blimp
01-07-2003, 19:46
Originally posted by kronas
read my post above pauls last post says it all really :)
Apolgies..... :blush: No offence ment :)
Originally posted by King Blimp
Apolgies..... :blush: No offence ment :)
:)
a DOH moment we all have them :)
Originally posted by Bender
I really don't see what the fuss is about!!!! The technology is there. It was her choice. Others were willing to help her reach a goal she longed for. Nobody has been forced to do anything they don't want to.
Apart from the child of course, who had no say in the matter. :rolleyes:
paulyoung666
01-07-2003, 21:12
Originally posted by towny
Apart from the child of course, who had no say in the matter. :rolleyes:
now that is a new twist , but , how proud will that child be if it saves its siblings life , or how proud will it be if it tried but failed ??????????
Originally posted by paulyoung666
now that is a new twist , but , how proud will that child be if it saves its siblings life , or how proud will it be if it tried but failed ??????????
Or how clinically depressed might that child be, growing up thinking, 'mummy and daddy don't really love me, they only had me to save my brother. He's their favourite.' ?
We are not playing with ethically neutral bits of self-replicating chemicals here. Children are people with emotions, and the correct emotions are not so easy to engineer.
paulyoung666
01-07-2003, 21:30
Originally posted by towny
Or how clinically depressed might that child be, growing up thinking, 'mummy and daddy don't really love me, they only had me to save my brother. He's their favourite.' ?
We are not playing with ethically neutral bits of self-replicating chemicals here. Children are people with emotions, and the correct emotions are not so easy to engineer.
good point that :spin:
Originally posted by towny
Or how clinically depressed might that child be, growing up thinking, 'mummy and daddy don't really love me, they only had me to save my brother. He's their favourite.' ?
We are not playing with ethically neutral bits of self-replicating chemicals here. Children are people with emotions, and the correct emotions are not so easy to engineer.
ditto exactly what i was thinking
dieselking
01-07-2003, 23:17
Originally posted by towny
Or how clinically depressed might that child be, growing up thinking, 'mummy and daddy don't really love me, they only had me to save my brother. He's their favourite.' ?
We are not playing with ethically neutral bits of self-replicating chemicals here. Children are people with emotions, and the correct emotions are not so easy to engineer.
I agree with u on that statement. The child was created just to save the life of his/her brother, not out of love or because the couple really wanted another child
Originally posted by <snip> <snip> <snip>
/Me not used to being agreed with so much :blush:
I don't see aything wrong with this its her money her body and her family. We can't judge. If its safe and she wants to do it let her.
Originally posted by Mark15
I don't see aything wrong with this its her money her body and her family. We can't judge. If its safe and she wants to do it let her.
its morally and ethically wrong and you cant see that no wonder there is so much stupidity in this country
Originally posted by kronas
its morally and ethically wrong and you cant see that no wonder there is so much stupidity in this country
Steady on there Kronas.....
Originally posted by dieselking
I agree with u on that statement. The child was created just to save the life of his/her brother, not out of love or because the couple really wanted another child I seem to remember that the couple did want/were planning to have another child. So why not have one that can save their existing one?
Originally posted by Ramrod
Steady on there Kronas.....
wasent meant to be aggressive just telling it like it is
Originally posted by kronas
wasent meant to be aggressive just telling it like it is lol......there you go again:rofl: :D
According to the news many women are risking infertility by being promiscuous. If the trend continues, future children may be coming out of a test tube whether we like it or not.
Babies are born due to one night stands, or accidents all the time, So whats the problem with bringing a child into a happy family enviroment (Which will be loved & cared for), Just because theres a slight ulterior motive, being that he can save his little brother. If I was him, i'd feel like a hero.
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.