The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Insane Bartender wrote:
> though it is a useful technology, it is all too easilly abused. For
> example, in India, this could too often be used to give more and more
> couples a son (since daughters are notoriously expensive). A one time
> payment eventually saves the family a fortune and increases the
> household income after about 12 years.
What has to be considered here is that, unless India finds oil or something like that, it will never be able to allow all of it's population access to this kind of technology.
> That is what people will become. Investments. Pay a little for deep
> blue eyes and high cheek bones to make a model face which can be sold
> later in life.
You can design somebody like that, but you cannot design what they will want to be in their life. Not everyone who looks like a model is one, and if all those born in the future could be like that then would there be any need for models anyway ?
> And what of the consequences of choosing gender outside of nature? A
> gender misbalance could easilly lead to a dramatic increase in the gay
> population, or some other side-effect.
But even without this, sperm counts in males are dropping all across the West anyway, this technology could counter that. There could well be a gender misbalance, but of what consequence is a dramatic increase in the gay population ?
It's the 21st century you know.... people find people they love, and just because there are less/more of the opposite sex will not make people love someone they do not.
> Sure, we could make better looking and smarter human beings, but we
> could also screw up the balance of the entire race.
Probably not all that balanced anyway. Ideas of creating something akin to the Nazi Herrenvolk are scaremongering at best, as are ideas of cloning dead people to create copies.
Essentially this technology changes who we see, adn their health, but not who they are, their soul is theirs and cannot be engineered or altered.
~~Belldandy~~
> though it is a useful technology, it is all too easilly abused. For
> example, in India, this could too often be used to give more and more
> couples a son (since daughters are notoriously expensive). A one time
> payment eventually saves the family a fortune and increases the
> household income after about 12 years.
What has to be considered here is that, unless India finds oil or something like that, it will never be able to allow all of it's population access to this kind of technology.
> That is what people will become. Investments. Pay a little for deep
> blue eyes and high cheek bones to make a model face which can be sold
> later in life.
You can design somebody like that, but you cannot design what they will want to be in their life. Not everyone who looks like a model is one, and if all those born in the future could be like that then would there be any need for models anyway ?
> And what of the consequences of choosing gender outside of nature? A
> gender misbalance could easilly lead to a dramatic increase in the gay
> population, or some other side-effect.
But even without this, sperm counts in males are dropping all across the West anyway, this technology could counter that. There could well be a gender misbalance, but of what consequence is a dramatic increase in the gay population ?
It's the 21st century you know.... people find people they love, and just because there are less/more of the opposite sex will not make people love someone they do not.
> Sure, we could make better looking and smarter human beings, but we
> could also screw up the balance of the entire race.
Probably not all that balanced anyway. Ideas of creating something akin to the Nazi Herrenvolk are scaremongering at best, as are ideas of cloning dead people to create copies.
Essentially this technology changes who we see, adn their health, but not who they are, their soul is theirs and cannot be engineered or altered.
~~Belldandy~~
though it is a useful technology, it is all too easilly abused. For example, in India, this could too often be used to give more and more couples a son (since daughters are notoriously expensive). A one time payment eventually saves the family a fortune and increases the household income after about 12 years. A great investment.
That is what people will become. Investments. Pay a little for deep blue eyes and high cheek bones to make a model face which can be sold later in life.
Market humans.
And what of the consequences of choosing gender outside of nature? A gender misbalance could easilly lead to a dramatic increase in the gay population, or some other side-effect.
Sure, we could make better looking and smarter human beings, but we could also screw up the balance of the entire race.
That is what people will become. Investments. Pay a little for deep blue eyes and high cheek bones to make a model face which can be sold later in life.
Market humans.
And what of the consequences of choosing gender outside of nature? A gender misbalance could easilly lead to a dramatic increase in the gay population, or some other side-effect.
Sure, we could make better looking and smarter human beings, but we could also screw up the balance of the entire race.
Rosalind wrote:
> Some people think that we should be allowed to go as far as
> genetically manipulating our offspring to produce babies free from
> genetic defects,
I don't have a problem with this. We could speed up human evolution in a matter of years. (The goal of evolution is perfection after all). In fact, I almost think it would be immoral not to utilize such a technology.
> and expressing desirable genes, like 'tall' genes or
> 'blue eye' genes.
The "blonde hair and blue eyes" line is always used as if such a technology would signal the start of some Nazi master race. People of all races and creeds would be able to choose their "ideal", and this would be very diverse (if the process was available to all equally).
> 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.
This is where it begins to get slightly sinister, for obvious reasons.
> Some people think that we should be allowed to go as far as
> genetically manipulating our offspring to produce babies free from
> genetic defects,
I don't have a problem with this. We could speed up human evolution in a matter of years. (The goal of evolution is perfection after all). In fact, I almost think it would be immoral not to utilize such a technology.
> and expressing desirable genes, like 'tall' genes or
> 'blue eye' genes.
The "blonde hair and blue eyes" line is always used as if such a technology would signal the start of some Nazi master race. People of all races and creeds would be able to choose their "ideal", and this would be very diverse (if the process was available to all equally).
> 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.
This is where it begins to get slightly sinister, for obvious reasons.
I want my baby to grow into a giant Henry Kelly whenever he eats marmite, and destroy Liverpool with the power of making them buy their own sodding hubcaps.
Yes, I'll have fries with that.
Yes, I'll have fries with that.
Though I don't believe in the power it gives, as power is always abused, I believe in the research. Progress and development of this species should be foremost on the agenda of everyone.
Therefore historians can whistle.
:)
Therefore historians can whistle.
:)
Whilst I know stuff all about the science of this, in detail anyway - I have a basic idea of how it's done, I do think this;
For the first time, ever, we have the ability to determine a child's features, possible health, sex, and so much more. We can do it, and know it works, so why not ? How many couples have a baby and would like a certain gender, or would like them to have certain hair colour or something like that, probably a lot. We can do it. It's not making children items, it's giving people a choice. No one is forcing people to sue this technology.
If people dislike it then don't use it, but let others make their own decisions.
~~Belldandy~~
For the first time, ever, we have the ability to determine a child's features, possible health, sex, and so much more. We can do it, and know it works, so why not ? How many couples have a baby and would like a certain gender, or would like them to have certain hair colour or something like that, probably a lot. We can do it. It's not making children items, it's giving people a choice. No one is forcing people to sue this technology.
If people dislike it then don't use it, but let others make their own decisions.
~~Belldandy~~
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: