That's It!!! Damn Us All...

There's nothing wrong with medicine because it fixes problems, which helps our human species.

Playing god with synthetic birth genetics will just create problems; birth defects, contaminated gene pool, etc.

We were given male sperm and female eggs for a reason you know. And it wasn't so that we could use science to p*ss about with them. That system has worked for our entire existence, we shouldn't try to take over mother nature's jobs and rules too much, eventually she will get angry and f**k our species up. Or rather the scientists will, and mother nature will stand by and watch.

Originally posted by malganis
There's nothing wrong with medicine because it fixes problems, which helps our human species.

That's what you think.

To each his own perception.

Originally posted by zeeon
I fail to see the relevance between synthetic drugs, food, and the altering of food to the possibility of making a child between two females.

I made the connection because many people within this thread are up in arms over something being 'against nature'. I included synthetic drugs, food and the rest because they are, by all standards not natural.

My point may have been lost in my long winded argument but it goes to say that if you are outraged over one thing being 'not natural' you shouldn't draw the line at just that one instance.

Furthermore, the connection would not have to have been made if people did not start to use 'it is not natural' as the basis for their outrage. If you cite it not being natural as the source of your outrage then my connection is apt.

Originally posted by zeeon
To me the two (altering food, drugs to better mankind and save lives) and messing with a biological process by which humans has lived since it's inception - are night and day. You can't compare the two, no matter how many similarities you might find between them. They aren't the same, and they never will be.

Since corn and rice have existed they have remained the same. The genetic makeup of these two plants has not changed since their inception. Their biological processes have been/are being tampered with on the genetic level. In fact, to take bring them one step closer, we are not only playing with their genetic makeup but playing with the way in which the plants seed and reproduce.

How does this not relate to the altering of the innate human process?

Originally posted by zeeon
You also took my words out of context. That paragraph about invetro - test tube babies were meant to be used as a whole - not cut up into sentences. And your pulling hairs about the process by which test tubes are completed, but you neglected to say anything about the point of the paragraph - which was that neither the sperm, nor the egg from either people were genetically altered.

Humans naturally reproduce by engaging in sexual intercourse. Test tube babies are reproduction by the way of egg extraction, sperm collection and injecting the latter into the former in a sterile enviroment. This seems to be very unnatural.

So, an entirely unnatural process of fertilization does not fall into the catagory of 'defying the natural way of things' beacuse the genetics are not altered? (And I believe that was the point of your original paragraph).

Once again I must say: If the main argument against this new development is that it is not within the natural way of things then one can not pick and chose what they are for/against.

The examples I gave, and my explination of test tube babies, were well within your argument as they are all against the natural way of things. If you are against one thing because it is non-natural then you should logically be against all that is not natural.

Please do not read my words as condescending or as attacks against you. I am only trying to show a flaw in the 'not-natural' argument. So far only one person in the not-natural camp has followed a logically sound argument.

Spine. Against nature how? Is it not us exploring and using nature for our benefits? Afterall drugs are used and combined from what nature as given us. Your view on this hole thing is a bit radical. Two chicks being able to impregnate one another doesnt seem just a lil (...) up to you? Thats pretty messed up if you ask me. And this is rediculous. Just look at nature. See any female crocodiles having sex with other female crocodiles? Same goes for any animal, humans included. ITS WRONG AND WONT WORK.

Thats just (...) up...

``````````````````````
Edited for vulgar language

1b.) Profanity: You will not use profanity in our forums, and will neither post with language or content that is obscene, sexually oriented, or sexually suggestive nor link to sites that contain such content.

T&C;'s

[edit on 13/4/07 by masqua]

Originally posted by malganis
There's nothing wrong with medicine because it fixes problems, which helps our human species.

To be picky: The early stages of drug development hurt individuals and made some new problems. I do not feel, however, that this should impede or hinder drug/science development.

Originally posted by malganis
Playing god with synthetic birth genetics will just create problems; birth defects, contaminated gene pool, etc.

We have been 'playing god' for quite some time now. I ask you to present me with some evidence of birth defects within humans or a contaminated gene pool.

Furthermore, we do not need to alter genetics to play god. Keeping people alive on life support systems is simple prolonging and preventing what could be argued as the natural state of things (to die).

Originally posted by malganis
We were given male sperm and female eggs for a reason you know. And it wasn't so that we could use science to p*ss about with them.

By that same logic:

We were given an inquisitive mind which craves understanding and innovation. The desire to create and to understand is, and has been argued to be, what defines us as human. And it was not so we could allow the moral sensitivities of a few 'p*ss' around with it.

Originally posted by malganis
That system has worked for our entire existence, we shouldn't try to take over mother nature's jobs and rules too much, eventually she will get angry and f**k our species up. Or rather the scientists will, and mother nature will stand by and watch.

Before I comment any further on this snippit I ask you: Where do we draw the line?

Originally posted by semperfoo
Spine. Against nature how? Is it not us exploring and using nature for our benefits? Afterall drugs are used and combined from what nature as given us. Your view on this hole thing is a bit radical. Two chicks being able to impregnate one another doesnt seem just a lil [snip] up to you?

The plants and other natural ingredients are altered (sometimes down to the genetic level) and then combined in ways which they never would naturally. They are then synthetically enhanced and/or produced. Is this the natural way of these ingredients? Is genetic engineering not doing the same?

We are exploring and using nature (after all, genetics are nature) for our benefits. Are we not?

Two women want a child to whom they can both contribute to genetically. We have explored nature and used it to their benefit.

And no, it does not seem 'snip' up to me. It may not be the natural way of things but then again...many things we use and accept aren't.

Originally posted by semperfoo
And this is rediculous. Just look at nature. See any female crocodiles having sex with other female crocodiles? Same goes for any animal, humans included. ITS WRONG AND WONT WORK.

Some animals, such as certain types of monkeys/apes, routinley engage in same-sex sexual activities.

If you were reffering to sex as a form of procreation and not simply a recreational act then there are certain reef dwelling fish that can, when the male of the school dies, 'change' their sex (growing the male sexual organs; changing their color pattern) and fertilizing the released eggs of the other females.

And if we are going to bring the argument one way I am sure we can bring it the other as well: How many animals do you see carrying on like humans do? Making clothing, creating music, creating art, etc...

Does that make their non-human behavior unnatural or 'snip' up?

Call me old fashioned, but when it comes to reproduction, I prefer to leave control up to nature and individuals. Where the hell will the line in the sand be drawn? Will we now start creating human/animal hybrids? oh, wait, we already are.

No, I find this disturbing, to say the least. Two women cannot by nature breed. If a lesbian couple want to have kids with their own DNA, they should both get artifically inseminated. This is just wrong. Its totally against the very biological basis of mammals, and no good will come of it. Tampering with the future and progeny is not a gamble the human race is mentally mature or moral enough to take.

Can't believe so many replies have been wasted, arguing Right or Wrong.
leading to an unnecessarily aggressive argument.

On the "girls with sperms" article, I can't say it's Right or Wrong because it would have to be judged upon the effects on mankind. "Will it lead to a new great discovery?" "Will it lead to physical or mental problems for their offsprings?" I don't know.
which means it can only be judged after the technology has actually been developt and used.

So at the point people discover the consequences of this technology,
it's a morale issue of the authorities and medical corporations,
who have the power to approve or stop the use of it.

Most of the people agree science had it's Glory & Curse for mankind which obviously isn't the responsibility of science itself. Knowledge ain't a criminal. At the same time knowledge has no morale. Because knowledge(science) is just reality. It's just based on the laws of the universe.

It is the morale of the human being using the knowledge that counts.

I hope we notice that everyone who participated in this topic shares one thing in common. Which is, we are concerned about the evolution of mankind.
eazy - "Are we going the right way daddy?"

Originally posted by spines

Originally posted by malganis
Playing god with synthetic birth genetics will just create problems; birth defects, contaminated gene pool, etc.

We have been 'playing god' for quite some time now. I ask you to present me with some evidence of birth defects within humans or a contaminated gene pool.

en.wikipedia.org...
A drug, so not so much genetic altering, but it was meant to take away the natural pain of childbirth but ended up causing horrible birth defects after it had been issued for a few years. Childbirth pain is a natural thing, by trying to get rid of it you are trying to forge nature into a luxury. Anyway, the drug was banned for a while and now they are trying to see if there is anything else they could do with it, like treating leprosy for example.

Getting rid of natural childbirth pain was just for a pointless luxury. Using it to get rid of leprosy is useful. Just as creating synthetic sperm is just another luxury, risking messing up genetics just so that a lesbian couple can have a baby, I bet there would be a certain 'cool' factor in that, wouldn't there. It doesn't really do much for the advancement of our species though does it, infact you could argue that it's actually doing bad for society because it will encourage the obsoleting of males, but maybe that's going a bit far.

Furthermore, we do not need to alter genetics to play god. Keeping people alive on life support systems is simple prolonging and preventing what could be argued as the natural state of things (to die).

Well it depends on where you stand on that issue. If someone is hit by a drunk driver in a car and needs medical attention to keep them alive, then i'm all for it. But if it's someone's natural time to go, then their time is up and yes, you are just wasting time and resources trying to change that person's natural death time.

Originally posted by malganis
We were given male sperm and female eggs for a reason you know. And it wasn't so that we could use science to p*ss about with them.

By that same logic:

We were given an inquisitive mind which craves understanding and innovation. The desire to create and to understand is, and has been argued to be, what defines us as human. And it was not so we could allow the moral sensitivities of a few 'p*ss' around with it.

Originally posted by malganis
That system has worked for our entire existence, we shouldn't try to take over mother nature's jobs and rules too much, eventually she will get angry and f**k our species up. Or rather the scientists will, and mother nature will stand by and watch.

Before I comment any further on this snippit I ask you: Where do we draw the line?

Well we could discuss all night about why we were given minds and where we draw the line with what we use them for. It could get philosophical or spiritual or scientific, and no one knows the answer. It's just my opinion that we have already reached, or are reaching the 'line' where things start to get messy, scientifically and ethically.

I agree, Mecheng. We're not long for this world. :shk:



What a time to be alive!!! :shk:

Originally posted by frenzy_boy


I can't say it's Right or Wrong because it would have to be judged upon the effects on mankind. "Will it lead to a new great discovery?" "Will it lead to physical or mental problems for their offsprings?" I don't know.
which means it can only be judged after the technology has actually been developt and used.

So at the point people discover the consequences of this technology,
it's a morale issue of the authorities and medical corporations,
who have the power to approve or stop the use of it.

True, we can only test it and watch the results to know if it will work or not.

The real argument though is if it is ethically right or wrong, and that just depends on people's individual views on mating.

Originally posted by whargoul

Ask yourself this one basic question: "How does this affect me?"

Yes it does affect me, you and the world. What if something went wrong, and those children were to come out terribly deformed or other defects? How many children need to be put through this?

And what if there isn't any side effects of this right away, but eventually it does grow after time? Let's say we marry one of these genetically modified people, and have a child with him/her. The child comes out totally messed up?

We are talking about the future here. Come on, we've lived thousands of years without screwing with mother nature in the sense of manipulating genes. This could end up to be a big burden on us in the future with healthcare and eventual taxes for taking care of them.

Orginallyposted by Spines The genetic altering of food is by no means natural...yet it has saved over a billion people. Should this has never been allowed to happen?

You can't compare genetically modified humans with genetically modified vegetables. Also, you can't compare them to artificial hearts and transfusions either. Like you said, these helped MILLIONS of people. This is using science and nature for mankinds good. We are not modifying genes with people who have a bionic heart! And I'm not 100% for modified food either.

Some things shouldn't be tampered with. The human genome is one of those. Your not helping man kind by allowing two females to reproduce with each other. There are thousands of children out there in foster care. Don't you think it would be more beneficial (and less hassle) adopting one instead of creating a genetically modified human?

I'm really done with this discussion now. It sickens me seeing this being even proposed. And at the end of the day, I know more people will be against it then for it.

Peace,
Frontkjemper



**Edit**

You have voted malganis for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have used all of your votes for this month.

Very good points malganis.

[edit on 13-4-2007 by Frontkjemper]

Originally posted by malganis
en.wikipedia.org...
A drug, so not so much genetic altering, but it was meant to take away the natural pain of childbirth but ended up causing horrible birth defects after it had been issued for a few years.

I had asked for an example of synthetic genetic altering (as in the case of the original article) but it was still an interesting read.

However, I have already said that developments in drugs have caused unnecessary death. It is a tragic consequence of development and, thankfully, it is less and less of a threat as our understanding of the human body increases.

Originally posted by malganis
Getting rid of natural childbirth pain was just for a pointless luxury. Using it to get rid of leprosy is useful. Just as creating synthetic sperm is just another luxury, risking messing up genetics just so that a lesbian couple can have a baby, I bet there would be a certain 'cool' factor in that, wouldn't there.

So is the argument that science can 'go against nature' if its result is useful? Who says what is useful? Do we abide by the ethics of our culture, of anothers when determining usefulness?

To the women who wish to have a baby with both their genetic material present this 'useless' science would appear to be quite useful. This is something which seems to be ignored for some reason.

Originally posted by malganis
It doesn't really do much for the advancement of our species though does it,

One could argue that the eradication of leprosy (your 'useful' example) does not do much for the advancement of our species either. Our species did quite well when the best way to handle leprosy was to send those affected into seclusion. Did it not?

So helping to cure leprosy would seem have the same usefulness in the 'advancement' of our society as allowing two women to have a child with shared genetics.

Originally posted by malganis
infact you could argue that it's actually doing bad for society because it will encourage the obsoleting of males, but maybe that's going a bit far.

I would say that it is going a bit far. It assumes that all women would prefer this form of procreation over traditional means.

Hear Hear! Well said Frontkjemper! I'm with you, against this idea. It's just wrong, and people can justifty the wrong and unnatural all they want, but when it comes down to it, if it's wrong - it's just plain wrong.

Mod Edit: Quoting Etiquette – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 14-4-2007 by sanctum]

Originally posted by Frontkjemper

Orginallyposted by Spines The genetic altering of food is by no means natural...yet it has saved over a billion people. Should this has never been allowed to happen?

You can't compare genetically modified humans with genetically modified vegetables. Also, you can't compare them to artificial hearts and transfusions either. Like you said, these helped MILLIONS of people. This is using science and nature for mankinds good. We are not modifying genes with people who have a bionic heart! And I'm not 100% for modified food either.

Well, once again I am forced to restate this point: If you are using the 'it is not natural' argument in regards to the original issue then you can not logically argue that you are in favor of artificial hearts, genetically altered foods, etc.... The modification of genes is not the only thing which makes it 'not natural'. Something can be made not natural without the need for the modification and that is why the artificial heart example is used: It is not natural and therefore is applicable in this debate.

In short: If your reasons for being opposed to an issue is 'it is not natural' then logically you can not be 'for' anything which is not natural...including the 'not natural' advances which have saved millions of lives.

Originally posted by Frontkjemper
Some things shouldn't be tampered with. The human genome is one of those. Your not helping man kind by allowing two females to reproduce with each other. There are thousands of children out there in foster care. Don't you think it would be more beneficial (and less hassle) adopting one instead of creating a genetically modified human?

Once again that logic can be used to say that: You are not helping mankind by supplying a few lucky individuals with an artificial heart. You are supplying those with a specific need the proper 'non-natural' science.

You are supplying two individuals with a non-natural means by which to overcome a natural hurdle. Once again only a few individuals benifit from this scientific advancement...not all of mankind.

And on the issue of adoption: That line of reasoning could be applied to heterosexual couples who need the service of a surrogate mother or invetro fertilization.

Originally posted by Frontkjemper
I'm really done with this discussion now. It sickens me seeing this being even proposed. And at the end of the day, I know more people will be against it then for it.

I know that logically what I am about to say is not a sound argument but: More people were against declaring African Americans as 'human beings'. In fact, esteemed academics from Yale went on record as saying, after studying blacks in the south, that they were 'sub human in every way'.

The majority agreed tha blacks should be treated as property because they were 'not human'.

Once again this quote seems to apply:

“Nothing is more revolting than the majority; for it consists of few vigorous predecessors, of knaves who accommodate themselves, of weak people who assimilate themselves, and the mass that toddles after them without knowing in the least what it wants”
-Johan Wolfgang

i'd definitely pay to see the video of two hot chicks beta testing this new technology together! hey, i know y'all would watch it too!

www.newstarget.com...

A variety of genetically modified corn that was approved for human consumption in 2006 caused signs of liver and kidney toxicity as well as hormonal changes in rats in a study performed by researchers from the independent Committee for Independent Research and Genetic Engineering at the University of Caen in France.

What you need to know - Conventional View
• The corn in question, MON863, is made by the Monsanto Company and approved for use in Australia, Canada, China, the European Union, Japan, Mexico, the Philippines, and the United States. It has had a gene inserted from the bacteria Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), which causes the plant's cells to produce a pesticide.

• Researchers fed rats either unmodified corn or diets containing 11 or 30 percent MON863 for 90 days. The rats who ate modified corn were found to exhibit signs of liver and kidney toxicity, as well as signs of hormonal changes.

• Male rats lost an average of 3.3 percent of their body weight, and their excretion of phosphorus and sodium decreased. Female rats gained an average of 3.7 percent of their body weight, while their triglyceride levels increased by 24 to 40 percent.

• The mechanism that causes the toxicity is not yet known, but the researchers say there is evidence that the Bt toxin may cause the perforation of blood cells. They expressed concern that the methods used by Monsanto in initial tests of the corn were statistically flawed and called their own tests "the best mammalian toxicity tests available."

• Greenpeace responded to the study by calling for an immediate recall of all MON863 corn and the reassessment of all genetically modified foods currently approved for the market.

• Quote: "Our counter-evaluation shows that there are signs of toxicity, and nobody can say scientifically and seriously the consumption of the transgenic maize MON863 is safe and good for health." - Lead Author Gilles Eric Seralini

What you need to know - Alternative View
Statements and opinions by Mike Adams, author of Grocery Warning: How to identify and avoid dangerous food ingredients

• It seems that the more these GM foods are tested, the more frightening the implications seem to be for human health. When companies like Monsanto do their own in-house testing, results are mysteriously favorable in nearly all cases, but when independent labs run their own tests, the results are downright shocking.

• I find it interesting that the FDA believes U.S. consumers should not be allowed to know which foods are genetically modified and which aren't. The push for honest labeling of GM foods has been blockaded by corporate interests and corrupt federal regulators.

Resources you need to know
The Campaign for labeling of GM foods: www.thecampaign.org...

Bottom line
• A variety of genetically modified corn was found to cause signs of hormonal changes and liver and kidney toxicity in rats.

www.rense.com...

Note - This is the most generally complete, current profile of Morgellons as we perceive and define it based on clinical lab data and extremely advanced research being done by a small group of heroic, brilliant private sector scientists and physicians. - Jeff Rense

Morgellons Disease - April 2007

A communicable nanotechnology invasion of human tissues in the form of self-assembling, self-replicating nanotubes, nanowires, nanoarrays with sensors, and other nano configurations, some carrying genetically-altered and spliced DNA/RNA. These nano machines thrive in alkaline ph conditions and use the body's bio-electric energy and other (unidentified) elements for power. There is some evidence these tiny machines possess their own internal batteries. They are also believed to be able to receive specific tuned microwave, EMF and ELF signals and information. To what end is not known.

The symptoms vary from open skin lesions from which colored or plain fibers emerge, which do not scab normally, heal extremely slowly and never become bacterially-infected -- to brain fog, fatigue and depression, etc. It is also established that Morgellons nano machines are commonly found in all body fluids, orifices and often even hair follicles, and are believed to routinely achieve total body systemic penetration. It is reported by nearly all afflicted that Morgellons nano machines seem to have some kind of hive or 'group intelligence.'

Communicability appears to be possible/probable through shedding of the fibers by the infected and through all normal bacterial or viral vectors. Some fibers have been shown to withstand temperatures in excess of 1400 F, routine sterilization for Morgellons nano machines in all reusable medical/dental medical equipment and instruments is moot. There is also strong evidence linking Chemtrail aerosol fibers to Morgellons fibers although proof of transmission through aerial spraying remains anecdotal.

Well, I see everyone else is weighing in here, so I guess I will too.

1. Nature is too vast to be adequately defined by our concepts.

2. In the future the human race will be unrecognizable compared to today.

All right, now have fun!

This is interesting, but I don't see any concern. I think people should marry their pets. I married my iguana and I couldn't be happier.