The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
How far do you think the scientific community should be allowed to go? There are so many issues surrounding the area of fertility treatment and genetic manipulation of human embryos.
Some people think that if a couple is unable to have children 'naturally' then they should accept that. In my opinion, this is very close to saying that if there is something wrong with (for example) your heart, then you should accept this. But of course this isn't the case, people are given medicine, or if the condition is serious enough, surgery.
Why shouldn't they be allowed the same if there is a problem with their reproductive system?
Of course in some cases neither drugs nor surgery will overcome subfertility problems. It is a case of live without children or attempt in vitro fertilisation (IVF). How do you feel about IVF?
In some cases both sets of genes can come from the prospective 'parents'. But in many cases one or other of the parents cannot produce their gametes (sperm or egg), and a donor has to take the place of the 'parent'. Is this any worse than sperm donation of a more usual kind? How do you feel about egg donations? In women are being paid thousands of pounds to donate their eggs, just as long as they are suitable, which includes the way you look, how tall and slim etc. Your medical history, (they don't want any history of familial diseases). . In Britain it is illegal to be paid any more than expenses for this. How do you feel about egg donations?
Some people think that we should be allowed to go as far as genetically manipulating our offspring to produce babies free from genetic defects, and expressing desirable genes, like 'tall' genes or 'blue eye' genes. The technology is even there to produce an exact clone of somebody. Something like a Twin born much later than their sibling. Many people want to allow this in order to 'bring back lost children or loved ones' and for many other reasons.
In a society where scientific taboos are being broken, and the limits of what is acceptable are continually being stretched, do you know where you stand on these issues?
Thank you for reading
Ros
Some people think that if a couple is unable to have children 'naturally' then they should accept that. In my opinion, this is very close to saying that if there is something wrong with (for example) your heart, then you should accept this. But of course this isn't the case, people are given medicine, or if the condition is serious enough, surgery.
Why shouldn't they be allowed the same if there is a problem with their reproductive system?
Of course in some cases neither drugs nor surgery will overcome subfertility problems. It is a case of live without children or attempt in vitro fertilisation (IVF). How do you feel about IVF?
In some cases both sets of genes can come from the prospective 'parents'. But in many cases one or other of the parents cannot produce their gametes (sperm or egg), and a donor has to take the place of the 'parent'. Is this any worse than sperm donation of a more usual kind? How do you feel about egg donations? In women are being paid thousands of pounds to donate their eggs, just as long as they are suitable, which includes the way you look, how tall and slim etc. Your medical history, (they don't want any history of familial diseases). . In Britain it is illegal to be paid any more than expenses for this. How do you feel about egg donations?
Some people think that we should be allowed to go as far as genetically manipulating our offspring to produce babies free from genetic defects, and expressing desirable genes, like 'tall' genes or 'blue eye' genes. The technology is even there to produce an exact clone of somebody. Something like a Twin born much later than their sibling. Many people want to allow this in order to 'bring back lost children or loved ones' and for many other reasons.
In a society where scientific taboos are being broken, and the limits of what is acceptable are continually being stretched, do you know where you stand on these issues?
Thank you for reading
Ros
Page:
Belldandy wrote:
>
> Why do certain people experience ghosts, who does activity cluster at
> certain sites, why specific dates in some cases, why from certain time
> periods, why in certain spatial locations ? The theory doesn't really
> explain any of that... in the same ways the UFO theory can only
> explain certain scenarios and experiences.
>
> ~~Belldandy~~
Many people "see ghosts" in old, damp locations which are visualy "distressing". These places almost always have problems with maintaining the humidity and preventing the dampness from spreading. To combat this they use (fan based) humidifiers etc. Fans all run at a certain frequency and resonance but two identical fans rarely run at the same freq/res so the brain interprets the signals as being unusual, given the contrast between them. Certain freq/res have been proven to cause mild hallucinations to people and obvioulsy if you are wandering around in a damp, cold "historic" location you are more likely to imagine a ghost.
The visual impact is also considerable, as the brain is often uneasy in certain envionments and this also creates a feeling of fear, that a person will often interpret as a presense. Couple this with the above and you can see how people can think they have witnessed the apperance of an apparition.
Intruigingly many locations have high residual levels of silicon contained within the walls. Silicon can be used to record sounds and again it is possible that the brain is "hearing" things that have come to pass.
Given the specific nature of these locations, the cluster effect is thus explained.
>
> Why do certain people experience ghosts, who does activity cluster at
> certain sites, why specific dates in some cases, why from certain time
> periods, why in certain spatial locations ? The theory doesn't really
> explain any of that... in the same ways the UFO theory can only
> explain certain scenarios and experiences.
>
> ~~Belldandy~~
Many people "see ghosts" in old, damp locations which are visualy "distressing". These places almost always have problems with maintaining the humidity and preventing the dampness from spreading. To combat this they use (fan based) humidifiers etc. Fans all run at a certain frequency and resonance but two identical fans rarely run at the same freq/res so the brain interprets the signals as being unusual, given the contrast between them. Certain freq/res have been proven to cause mild hallucinations to people and obvioulsy if you are wandering around in a damp, cold "historic" location you are more likely to imagine a ghost.
The visual impact is also considerable, as the brain is often uneasy in certain envionments and this also creates a feeling of fear, that a person will often interpret as a presense. Couple this with the above and you can see how people can think they have witnessed the apperance of an apparition.
Intruigingly many locations have high residual levels of silicon contained within the walls. Silicon can be used to record sounds and again it is possible that the brain is "hearing" things that have come to pass.
Given the specific nature of these locations, the cluster effect is thus explained.
I have no problem with manipulating genes to ensure a baby does not inherit genetic diseases. What I do have a problem with is creating babies that have genes to give them greater intelligence, physical strength, etc. and to change their appearance as their parents see fit.
Eradicating genetic diseases probably won't cause any outrage, but if we get to a stage where the people who are willing to mess around with genes are creating 'super' babies with high intelligence, strength, etc. then it could easily lead to a two tier society.
Another point is that genetic manipulation and mapping of all the genes could lead to people having a much harder time getting health insurance and life insurance. If they start testing your DNA to see if you have genes that will make you susceptable to life threatening diseases then you're going to have to fork out a hell of a lot more for the insurance. I think DNA testing for things like insurance should be banned. It would just mean these insurance companies are running even less risk in covering you as if you are susceptable to diseases you will pay a great deal more...
Eradicating genetic diseases probably won't cause any outrage, but if we get to a stage where the people who are willing to mess around with genes are creating 'super' babies with high intelligence, strength, etc. then it could easily lead to a two tier society.
Another point is that genetic manipulation and mapping of all the genes could lead to people having a much harder time getting health insurance and life insurance. If they start testing your DNA to see if you have genes that will make you susceptable to life threatening diseases then you're going to have to fork out a hell of a lot more for the insurance. I think DNA testing for things like insurance should be banned. It would just mean these insurance companies are running even less risk in covering you as if you are susceptable to diseases you will pay a great deal more...
I dont really have an issue with designer babies. Surely if a parental unit is to raise a child for 18 years (at least) it should be to their liking, indeed is it not akin to owning a pet? Perhaps a slightly different comparison, but in effect the same thing. Verily if we were to manipulate the genes of babies we would be able to eradicate quite a few diseases, such as Cystic Fibrosis. And surely that is no bad thing.
The sagacious one wrote:
> Ghosts don't exist, it's just the brain interpreting environmental
> signals incorrectly. This phenomenon has been well documented and
> verified.
I've heard of the theory - similar to the one suggesting similar ideas for UFO experiences - but unfortunately it has major holes in it. Kind of like "big drop entire continents through" holes....
Why do certain people experience ghosts, who does activity cluster at certain sites, why specific dates in some cases, why from certain time periods, why in certain spatial locations ? The theory doesn't really explain any of that... in the same ways the UFO theory can only explain certain scenarios and experiences.
~~Belldandy~~
> Ghosts don't exist, it's just the brain interpreting environmental
> signals incorrectly. This phenomenon has been well documented and
> verified.
I've heard of the theory - similar to the one suggesting similar ideas for UFO experiences - but unfortunately it has major holes in it. Kind of like "big drop entire continents through" holes....
Why do certain people experience ghosts, who does activity cluster at certain sites, why specific dates in some cases, why from certain time periods, why in certain spatial locations ? The theory doesn't really explain any of that... in the same ways the UFO theory can only explain certain scenarios and experiences.
~~Belldandy~~
Ghosts don't exist, it's just the brain interpreting environmental signals incorrectly. This phenomenon has been well documented and verified.
Gangsta Hamsta wrote:
> Belldandy, do you actually believe in re-incarnation or are you just
> arguing it as a possibility?
I believe that when we die that it is not the end of life, that it somehow continues in another form, and I do believe that reincarnation is something that almost certainly exists.
> And do you believe in God, I have lost track of who believes what on
> here?
I also believe there is a god, of some form.
Also, I think evidence of ghosts, and other supernatural occurences, are too many and too frequent for us to say, you die and thats it. We know stuff all about the human mind and brain functions, and yet people are ready to rule out possibilities ? Ridiculous.
~~Belldandy~~
> Belldandy, do you actually believe in re-incarnation or are you just
> arguing it as a possibility?
I believe that when we die that it is not the end of life, that it somehow continues in another form, and I do believe that reincarnation is something that almost certainly exists.
> And do you believe in God, I have lost track of who believes what on
> here?
I also believe there is a god, of some form.
Also, I think evidence of ghosts, and other supernatural occurences, are too many and too frequent for us to say, you die and thats it. We know stuff all about the human mind and brain functions, and yet people are ready to rule out possibilities ? Ridiculous.
~~Belldandy~~
Gangsta Hamsta wrote:
> Thought you were trying to say the same thing IB thought you were
> saying
What I was saying is that "perhaps" there is an aspect of human consciousness or energy which retains memories in a similiar way to how genes retain memories, and that this energy doesn't die with the body.
Seeing that we don't really understand the ins-and-outs of human consciousness, I just think that it's a possibility.
> Thought you were trying to say the same thing IB thought you were
> saying
What I was saying is that "perhaps" there is an aspect of human consciousness or energy which retains memories in a similiar way to how genes retain memories, and that this energy doesn't die with the body.
Seeing that we don't really understand the ins-and-outs of human consciousness, I just think that it's a possibility.
I agree that we have inherent residual genetic memory and thus in theory we could "remember" ancestral skills.
Personally I'm disapointed that Ug the unlcean threw a rock at my head and I didn't know how to duck.
Personally I'm disapointed that Ug the unlcean threw a rock at my head and I didn't know how to duck.
Nomad Soul wrote:
> I was just making the point that genes have memory (so to speak). I
> wasn't saying that a spider knows how to build a web because it had
> lived before.
I see. It was your use of the word 'memory' which threw me. I agree instinct is in the genes.
Thought you were trying to say the same thing IB thought you were saying
> I was just making the point that genes have memory (so to speak). I
> wasn't saying that a spider knows how to build a web because it had
> lived before.
I see. It was your use of the word 'memory' which threw me. I agree instinct is in the genes.
Thought you were trying to say the same thing IB thought you were saying
Insane Bartender wrote:
> Genetic memory, also known as natural instinct, is a far cry from
> having a vivid memroy of a past life, so far as to not even be
> comparable.
I was just making the point that genes have memory (so to speak). I wasn't saying that a spider knows how to build a web because it had lived before.
> Genetic memory, also known as natural instinct, is a far cry from
> having a vivid memroy of a past life, so far as to not even be
> comparable.
I was just making the point that genes have memory (so to speak). I wasn't saying that a spider knows how to build a web because it had lived before.
Page: