It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

DNA Recombination Reproduction

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 26 2006 @ 02:10 PM
link   
As are genetic research and biotech and engineering becomes more advanced, eventually (10-40 years time from now) we'll have the technology to take DNA samples from two (or more) individuals, mix the samples together, and use a kind of modified cloning process to create new life, which is basically the same thing as sexual reproduction, minus the physical pregnancie.

Now, this process will be of great benefit to people, that is by allowing people who previously could'nt have biological off-spring because of biology, such as impotence, or a woman having something needed removed and especially in the case of two people of the same gender.

So, as we cans ee this will be, when it becomes possible a definate hot button issue.

What I'm curious to know is the thoughts of people now, assuming it's safe, and there's no multiple attmepts, do you think it's a good thing or not and why.
Also, who do you think should be eligible and why?
And how many people should be allowed to participate, and why?


I myself think any two or more (but ten being the to limit) should be able to use such a process.
Why, well it would allow people, who for whatever reason could'nt have children before, to have children.
It would also allow some people who can have children the biologic way, who just don't want to go through it, to have children.


So, what do you think?




posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 11:04 PM
link   
*BuMp*

Perhaps I should have put this in the Social Issues section.


I can't believe no one has an opinion on this, even if it's just
to call me a blasphemer or something.



posted on Oct, 30 2006 @ 09:27 PM
link   
IK.. I think it is a marvelous idea. Anyone who can afford to raise a child without public assistance should be eligible (just because it is not fair to expect taxpayers to pay for raising such a child)and insurance companies should be required to pay for the procedure if the couple is infertile or otherwise in poor health. I think the dna should be from 2 people only (too messy if more than 2 people.. custody fights etc)... a male and a female (unnatural for 2 men or 2 women). It will someday be possible. By the way, good topic!



posted on Nov, 4 2006 @ 12:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by angelofmercy
IK.. I think it is a marvelous idea. Anyone who can afford to raise a child without public assistance should be eligible (just because it is not fair to expect taxpayers to pay for raising such a child)and insurance companies should be required to pay for the procedure if the couple is infertile or otherwise in poor health.

I agree with you on the above.



I think the dna should be from 2 people only (too messy if more than 2 people.. custody fights etc)... a male and a female (unnatural for 2 men or 2 women). It will someday be possible. By the way, good topic!


I think that having larger family groupings, hence the multiple donors,
could keep families together, true it's not a traditional family, but really
as long as the family is providing and loving the child, I really don't see
the problem with it.
Another interesting idea to, which I admit is very 'Brave New Worldish',
is the idea of special government programs, where there are genetic
samples from everyone, and a computer randomly selects the amount
it has decided to use, than checks that they are not genetically similiar,
that is atleast three times removed from eachother genetically, than for
loss of a better term 'creates' the child.
They could be adopted, or brought up in communal settings with other
children like them, sorta like in Brave New World, just minus the uber
government control over life, and the brainwashing of believing in one
class being better than another.

I figure anyone who can prove they can provide for the child, even if
they have no partner, and the other genetic sample is taken at random,
than they should be allowed to do it.



posted on Nov, 20 2006 @ 09:20 PM
link   
It's good for some uses. I have always thought that reproduction is a path to doomsday to an overpopulated and starving world.



posted on Nov, 30 2006 @ 01:02 AM
link   
Highly immoral, unethical, and unnatural. The problem is that you only took this to the first step, which is to see the benefiticial side of it. You didn't look into this further to see where it could lead to.

First they will create a child for a couple who could not naturally have one instead of having them adopt a child. A woman doesn't want to go through childbirth, and has this process done instead.

Now the government and politicians start to step in. They could start to think since this is possible, we can make it illegal for people to have a child if their genetics are too similar.

What about polotical wacks stepping in and saying it would be healither for the children if they were born/created through this process instead of being born naturally?

Then they could require all people wanting a child to have to go through this process for the "child's" future health. Next thing you know they will require mandatory parenting classes. Mandatory visits from social services.

Science advances...

The next thing is that the baby has to be modified genetically to take out any "genetic" genes that are known to create various health problems such as obesity, addictions, heart problems, altzimers, and etc. Then scientists could slip in certain enhanser genes to the child without the parent knowing.

At first genetically modified people will not have much of an impact. As more and more are created, eventually it will get to the point where the genetically modified people out perform naturally born people. In essence will create another class rift where the modified people would get the better jobs, insurance rates, and etc. Then as the law passes that all of the new children have to be genetically motified, it will become harder and harder for the naturally born to find a job let alone a decent job.

Even if all of this could be done, I wonder about the psichological impact genetically modified children would have. Would they have normal emotions, or will there be something lacking? Will the scientists be able to brainwash them so to speak through genetics?

Also just because something can be done, doesn't mean it should be done.

There is too much potential evil known and unthought of that can come about with playing god like this. Heck, this could even be used as the begining story of X-men with the how and why people started to mutate.



posted on Nov, 30 2006 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mystery_Lady
Highly immoral, unethical, and unnatural. The problem is that you only took this to the first step, which is to see the benefiticial side of it. You didn't look into this further to see where it could lead to.


I realize the possible negatives, that's just why you have
to regulate it.




First they will create a child for a couple who could not naturally have one instead of having them adopt a child. A woman doesn't want to go through childbirth, and has this process done instead.


Yes, the whole idea basically.




Now the government and politicians start to step in. They could start to think since this is possible, we can make it illegal for people to have a child if their genetics are too similar.


That's already illegal, if you're genetics put you at first cousins,
it's illegal since it's incest.



What about polotical wacks stepping in and saying it would be healither for the children if they were born/created through this process instead of being born naturally?

Then they could require all people wanting a child to have to go through this process for the "child's" future health.


They could say all thbey want, people would'nt give up having
children naturally, there will always be a significant amount
of people who would want to do it naturally.

And no law banning normal reproduction would ever be passed,
simply because the people would'nt let it.




Next thing you know they will require mandatory parenting classes.
Mandatory visits from social services.


I fail to see how mandatory parenting classes would be
a bad thing.

Mandatory social services visitts would never fly with
the public.




The next thing is that the baby has to be modified genetically to take out any "genetic" genes that are known to create various health problems such as obesity, addictions, heart problems, altzimers, and etc.


Only if the parents agreed, this to is something would'nt
become mandatory, though there would be public debate
over whether it should be or not.
In the end it would would end up fifty-fity, and a halfway
point would be reached.




Then scientists could slip in certain enhanser genes to the child without the parent knowing.


Firstly, it would be doctors, not scientists, doing the proceedures.
Secondly, why would they, I mean I could understand if the
parents payed them to add them, but they would'nt just add
them for no reason without the parents knowing.




At first genetically modified people will not have much of an impact. As more and more are created, eventually it will get to the point where the genetically modified people out perform naturally born people. In essence will create another class rift where the modified people would get the better jobs, insurance rates, and etc. Then as the law passes that all of the new children have to be genetically motified, it will become harder and harder for the naturally born to find a job let alone a decent job.


Would'nt happen, nondiscrimination laws would be altered to
include non modified people, so that kind of stuff would be illegal.

The unmodified people would eventually phase out, as everyone
would be born with modifications.




Even if all of this could be done, I wonder about the psychological impact genetically modified children would have. Would they have normal emotions, or will there be something lacking? Will the scientists be able to brainwash them so to speak through genetics?


They would be normal, genetics don't play any part in personality
or emotional development, those are developed based on the
environment they are in.

Brainswashing applies to using psychological methods and
memetics to change a persons outer personality, and since
genetics don't play a role in that, they could'nt.



Also just because something can be done, doesn't mean it should be done.


I disagree for the most part.




There is too much potential evil known and unthought of that can come about with playing god like this.


People say that about every new technology.




Heck, this could even be used as the begining story of X-men with the how and why people started to mutate.


Not really, the 'powers' that are shown in the X-men are
impossible without extremely advanced implantable technology,
you could'nt just natually be able to shoot lasers oput of
your eyes, regardless of how great your genes are.



posted on Nov, 30 2006 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by iori_komei
As are genetic research and biotech and engineering becomes more advanced, eventually (10-40 years time from now) we'll have the technology to take DNA samples from two (or more) individuals, mix the samples together, and use a kind of modified cloning process to create new life, which is basically the same thing as sexual reproduction, minus the physical pregnancie.


Question: Is this something like in that movie "Twins" where Arnold Schwarzenegger and Danny DeVito acted? If I recall correctly They had 11 fathers and one mother.



posted on Nov, 30 2006 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Beachcoma
Question: Is this something like in that movie "Twins" where Arnold Schwarzenegger and Danny DeVito acted? If I recall correctly They had 11 fathers and one mother.


I've never seen that movie, but yean it could be used in
such a way, though I think ten should be the maximum
of how many people could contribute.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join