The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
I think they should design babies to never cry, poo themsleves or make slobber like that dog in Turner and Hooch.
Then everyone would want one.
Then everyone would want one.
Insane Bartender wrote:
> If I'd lived a previous life, I'd know about it. Either that, or I'd
> have no access to that knowledge, making my previous life redundant.
Not if, as many have suggested, previous lives are supressed in memory which explains why only deep hypnosis can recall them.
> What is the point of having more than one lifetime if you cannot learn
> from them?
And that is the great question, if past lives can be proven. Why ? Don't you find it a bit intriguing ?
~~Belldandy~~
> If I'd lived a previous life, I'd know about it. Either that, or I'd
> have no access to that knowledge, making my previous life redundant.
Not if, as many have suggested, previous lives are supressed in memory which explains why only deep hypnosis can recall them.
> What is the point of having more than one lifetime if you cannot learn
> from them?
And that is the great question, if past lives can be proven. Why ? Don't you find it a bit intriguing ?
~~Belldandy~~
What a crock of shít.
If I'd lived a previous life, I'd know about it. Either that, or I'd have no access to that knowledge, making my previous life redundant.
What is the point of having more than one lifetime if you cannot learn from them?
If I'd lived a previous life, I'd know about it. Either that, or I'd have no access to that knowledge, making my previous life redundant.
What is the point of having more than one lifetime if you cannot learn from them?
Insane Bartender wrote:
> However, human rights arguments will be used to ensure it DOES get
> spread evenly, to all who want it.
I wouldn't place any bets on that. Human rights do not buy technology, and if the sale is restricted, like many commodities are, then they may as well whistle for it. It's basically meddling with nature, so human rights arguments may flounder on this one.
> They're still homosexual. Still uninterested in the natural course of
> events. Of course, they are still people, and I have nothing against
> them on an individual basis, but the very nature of their sexual
> preferences is completely removed from the natural order.
Depends how you look at it really. As you say, they are people, and who actually defined natural order ? Sure, man and woman have sex and have a baby. It's natural because it works like that. So are we saying that natural relationships are only those that can potentially produce offspring ? As far as I'm concerned the only nature there is in relationships is that two people love and like each other.
> Evidence? What, like thousands of people claiming they were Cleopatra
> in a previous life? The woman must have been a record breaking
> schitzophrenic.
That's just the stupid examples, there are far more serious ones, and less headline grabbing than that one, as you well know...
> Someone's personality is composed of experiences in this life, not
> imaginary experiences from a dozen other mythical ones.
Prove it :)
~~Belldandy~~
> However, human rights arguments will be used to ensure it DOES get
> spread evenly, to all who want it.
I wouldn't place any bets on that. Human rights do not buy technology, and if the sale is restricted, like many commodities are, then they may as well whistle for it. It's basically meddling with nature, so human rights arguments may flounder on this one.
> They're still homosexual. Still uninterested in the natural course of
> events. Of course, they are still people, and I have nothing against
> them on an individual basis, but the very nature of their sexual
> preferences is completely removed from the natural order.
Depends how you look at it really. As you say, they are people, and who actually defined natural order ? Sure, man and woman have sex and have a baby. It's natural because it works like that. So are we saying that natural relationships are only those that can potentially produce offspring ? As far as I'm concerned the only nature there is in relationships is that two people love and like each other.
> Evidence? What, like thousands of people claiming they were Cleopatra
> in a previous life? The woman must have been a record breaking
> schitzophrenic.
That's just the stupid examples, there are far more serious ones, and less headline grabbing than that one, as you well know...
> Someone's personality is composed of experiences in this life, not
> imaginary experiences from a dozen other mythical ones.
Prove it :)
~~Belldandy~~
Stranger In Paradise wrote:
> It may not be in the interest of the main western powers to allow this
> technology into developing countries though... nucleartechnology has
> cheapened over time but it is still necessary to ensure that some
> countries do not acquire it.
However, human rights arguments will be used to ensure it DOES get spread evenly, to all who want it.
> Yes, but I don't think the reasons are as simple as less women=more
> gay men. Sure, in rats it may do, but people tend to live a lot less
> complicated livers than people and form less complex relations. Also,
> I'm pretty sure that a recent survey - which I'll try find tonight -
> showed the biggest increase in the proportion of the population that's
> gay is amongst women.
They're still homosexual. Still uninterested in the natural course of events. Of course, they are still people, and I have nothing against them on an individual basis, but the very nature of their sexual preferences is completely removed from the natural order.
> Ah, but thats the most interesting part of this. What if souls are not
> gendered, but it's just our biological bodies which are ? People with
> past life regression experience often report mixed gender experiences
> from different times. Every year evidence for past lives mounts
Evidence? What, like thousands of people claiming they were Cleopatra in a previous life? The woman must have been a record breaking schitzophrenic.
Someone's personality is composed of experiences in this life, not imaginary experiences from a dozen other mythical ones.
Ooh, I'm Genghis Khan, Sun-Tzu and Hitler.
How many people have had past lives as diseased, leperous peasants?
> It may not be in the interest of the main western powers to allow this
> technology into developing countries though... nucleartechnology has
> cheapened over time but it is still necessary to ensure that some
> countries do not acquire it.
However, human rights arguments will be used to ensure it DOES get spread evenly, to all who want it.
> Yes, but I don't think the reasons are as simple as less women=more
> gay men. Sure, in rats it may do, but people tend to live a lot less
> complicated livers than people and form less complex relations. Also,
> I'm pretty sure that a recent survey - which I'll try find tonight -
> showed the biggest increase in the proportion of the population that's
> gay is amongst women.
They're still homosexual. Still uninterested in the natural course of events. Of course, they are still people, and I have nothing against them on an individual basis, but the very nature of their sexual preferences is completely removed from the natural order.
> Ah, but thats the most interesting part of this. What if souls are not
> gendered, but it's just our biological bodies which are ? People with
> past life regression experience often report mixed gender experiences
> from different times. Every year evidence for past lives mounts
Evidence? What, like thousands of people claiming they were Cleopatra in a previous life? The woman must have been a record breaking schitzophrenic.
Someone's personality is composed of experiences in this life, not imaginary experiences from a dozen other mythical ones.
Ooh, I'm Genghis Khan, Sun-Tzu and Hitler.
How many people have had past lives as diseased, leperous peasants?
Insane Bartender wrote:
> Not necessarilly. All technology cheapens with age. In time, it will
> be available to everyone. In 10 years time, cosmetic surgery will be
> as available as fast food, and performed almost as quickly.
It may not be in the interest of the main western powers to allow this technology into developing countries though... nucleartechnology has cheapened over time but it is still necessary to ensure that some countries do not acquire it.
> Why counter it? The earth can barely take the population we have now,
> maintaing a growth rate will eventually lead to ecological collapse.
> Male sperm counts are probably dropping for a good reason.
People said the same thing in 1900, and here we all still are. Technology advances and allows us to continue growing. In America, and most of Europe and Japan, population rates are decreasing, the growth rates are elsewhere and a result of out of control population growth. Drops in sperm counts are being attributed to many many reasons - stress, chemicals, water supply, radiation e.t.c.
> And personally, I don't think the world needs more gay men.
Personally I can't say as I care.
> Do you not find it interesting that as the population grows, there is
> an increasing proportion of people not interested in natural forms of
> reproduction?
Yes, but I don't think the reasons are as simple as less women=more gay men. Sure, in rats it may do, but people tend to live a lot less complicated livers than people and form less complex relations. Also, I'm pretty sure that a recent survey - which I'll try find tonight - showed the biggest increase in the proportion of the population that's gay is amongst women.
> Soul? Don't even go there.
Ah, but thats the most interesting part of this. What if souls are not gendered, but it's just our biological bodies which are ? People with past life regression experience often report mixed gender experiences from different times. Every year evidence for past lives mounts, though admittedly there is increasing research showing how memories can be falsified by people - especially in the field of UFOlogy. A program a couple of weeks ago on, I think, BBC Choice, showed how psychologist in America found some people created false memories involving little grey people and abduction scenarios when they came into contact with certain things and experiences.
Anybody else see it ?
~~Belldandy~~
> Not necessarilly. All technology cheapens with age. In time, it will
> be available to everyone. In 10 years time, cosmetic surgery will be
> as available as fast food, and performed almost as quickly.
It may not be in the interest of the main western powers to allow this technology into developing countries though... nucleartechnology has cheapened over time but it is still necessary to ensure that some countries do not acquire it.
> Why counter it? The earth can barely take the population we have now,
> maintaing a growth rate will eventually lead to ecological collapse.
> Male sperm counts are probably dropping for a good reason.
People said the same thing in 1900, and here we all still are. Technology advances and allows us to continue growing. In America, and most of Europe and Japan, population rates are decreasing, the growth rates are elsewhere and a result of out of control population growth. Drops in sperm counts are being attributed to many many reasons - stress, chemicals, water supply, radiation e.t.c.
> And personally, I don't think the world needs more gay men.
Personally I can't say as I care.
> Do you not find it interesting that as the population grows, there is
> an increasing proportion of people not interested in natural forms of
> reproduction?
Yes, but I don't think the reasons are as simple as less women=more gay men. Sure, in rats it may do, but people tend to live a lot less complicated livers than people and form less complex relations. Also, I'm pretty sure that a recent survey - which I'll try find tonight - showed the biggest increase in the proportion of the population that's gay is amongst women.
> Soul? Don't even go there.
Ah, but thats the most interesting part of this. What if souls are not gendered, but it's just our biological bodies which are ? People with past life regression experience often report mixed gender experiences from different times. Every year evidence for past lives mounts, though admittedly there is increasing research showing how memories can be falsified by people - especially in the field of UFOlogy. A program a couple of weeks ago on, I think, BBC Choice, showed how psychologist in America found some people created false memories involving little grey people and abduction scenarios when they came into contact with certain things and experiences.
Anybody else see it ?
~~Belldandy~~
And I have evolved to such an extent that I no longer use the word "be".
True. People often have an intolerance to anyone they regard as superior. Being shunned from "general society" for being "better" than people in general society, would difficult to accept.
My extreme level of good looks and intelligence has always made me a target for others. So I do speak from experience.
My extreme level of good looks and intelligence has always made me a target for others. So I do speak from experience.
I think it would be okay to use genetics to ensure a baby does not inherit a life-threatening disorder, but I think using genetics to create a 'designer baby' with desirable features such as intelligence, looks, height, etc. etc. even going so far as hair colour and the like is wrong... I agree with the previous post about the two tier society. Ultimately it would create more hatred and more intolerance. Those who are genetically enhanced may well feel themselves above the rest of humankind, and others will resent them for it...
Bad example I know, but I'm sure some of you have seen the X-Men film...? Okay, we're not talking super powers here, but it did show an 'us VS. them' mentality which such genetic enhancements could well provoke.
Bad example I know, but I'm sure some of you have seen the X-Men film...? Okay, we're not talking super powers here, but it did show an 'us VS. them' mentality which such genetic enhancements could well provoke.
Page: