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.

 

Deaf demand right to designer deaf children

page: 3
9
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 25 2007 @ 06:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by DocMoreau
Hmmm... I wonder if tall, muscular, good-looking, blond blue eyed people should be allowed to screen their embryos to insure that they don't get a ugly, weak dark haired baby?

Well, why not?

Hair colour is a matter of taste, of course. But who wants a weak and ugly baby?




posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 03:57 AM
link   
Why not deaf children, kids don't listen to their parents anyway.

Doctors should say "ok we'll make your baby deaf", and turn on the telepathy gene!

This can only be a small number of people who want their kids to be born deaf.

Just take them in for testing, sterilize them, and say "oops, guess the whole issue is solved, here's some free tickets to the opera, enjoy".



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 05:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


I hope you are being sarcastic, and it just isn't translating to the internet.

I would imagine that Children and Protective Services could take your kids if you exposed them to a weekly hair dye right?

So in order to 'keep' my kids, I am going to have a 'scientist' screw around with my lil embryo's genetics so that I don't have to worry about foster care for my tots. Its okay that even though he the scientist is trained, there is no way to say what edited genes will do when exposed to 'mutagens' such as radiation from a tv or microwave, or some chemical exposure to Benzene or something.

So, lets say your doctor has been doing genetic engineering of human embryos for 5 years, and normally works on at least one a day. Would you let someone possibly screw up your family's future generations to someone who may have done the complete procedure around 1,800 times? I wouldn't. The risk for mutation is too high. too much human error, not enough benefit without high risks.

Also, who is to say that the 'process' is even done by your doctor. I would imagine that a specialist lab would do the procedures. So who is to say that they don't stick their own 'proprietary' genetics into the embryos that prevent the resulting human from producing offspring of their own, or without a 'special pill'.

It could even happen where they could put parts of recessive genes into the embryos in parts, spread throughout everyone of the embryos that they create. These 'parts' then get passed to the next generation, so has a 25 percent chance of passing on again. so in a hundred years from now, we find out that those with the recessive genes have ruined the genetic pool as a whole.

Plus, could one be forced to abort a pregnancy if it was proven that the embryo contained patented genetic materials? Thats the case in the GMO plant world. Maybe they would wait until the baby is born, before they kill it, that way they could check and see if it is the 'Second Coming' first.

Can you imagine the bigotry of classes where either the genetic supermen look down on the 'breeder', a la Gattica or a "Pure, Natural" class looking down on the masses with junked DNA caused by corporate greed and human stupidity.

We either need to stop pretending to be God, or at least admit that he doesn't exist.
Or if he does exist, let him do his job while we focus on being human to each other.
DocMoreau



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 08:25 AM
link   
reply to post by DocMoreau
 

No indeed, I am not being sarcastic. If it's possible to select the phenotypic characteristics of an unborn child for the benefit of that child, why not do it?

Certainly the arguments you advance in opposition to the idea entirely fail to convince. Despite the prolixity of pseudoscientific verbiage, they all boil down to 'but what if something goes wrong?' Answer: if something goes wrong, there will be hell to pay. All good things come at a price. Get over it.

And before you come over all red and huffy about how you're being expected to play the hero over your children's genetic future, remember: nobody's asking you - or them - to the party. Stay unevolved as long as you like.

[edit on 26-12-2007 by Astyanax]



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 09:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


Why not? because family genetic characteristics are part of individuality.

This is what the nazis wanted to do when trying to recreate the master race.

I am all for genetics been used to stop major crippling and life threatening diseases from happening base on family history but not to make everybody look the same depending on society trend of what generations find in style at a certain point in time.



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 11:43 AM
link   
I have seen some "out-there" things surfing the net. I thought I had pretty good idea oh how the world thought. I was terribly wrong.

Seeing this post gave me shivers. How could they subject a child to have a disability? Insane.



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 12:13 PM
link   
The rope speaks


Originally posted by marg6043
Why not? because family genetic characteristics are part of individuality.

Even so, people alter them all the time. You'll be familiar with the paraphenalia: hair colour, cosmetics, cosmetic surgery, performance-enhancing drugs and all the rest. How is doing it by gene manipulation any less 'individualistic'?


This is what the nazis wanted to do when trying to recreate the master race.

Hitler is dead and Westerners need to grow out of their bogy-man terror of him and everything he touched. The only thing wrong with eugenics is that we don't know enough to make it work. Perhaps we never will, but if you think that's going to stop people from trying, well, here's a quote that may persuade you otherwise:


I am all for genetics been used to stop major crippling and life threatening diseases from happening base on family history...

The Nazis agreed with you, and what's more, they actually tried to do it.

There was nothing wrong with the end; it was the means that was at fault. Compulsory sterilization and the murder of handicapped children are evil. Using gene manipulation to prevent children from being born handicapped is not. But it's eugenics all the same.

As for genetic modification on aesthetic or career grounds, which you and the fellow with the Wellsian moniker so object to, it certainly isn't evil, just - like boob jobs and all the rest of the body-shop palaver - unutterably crass.

[edit on 26-12-2007 by Astyanax]



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 01:23 PM
link   
Eugenics.
I'm all for it.
The sorting out of defective embryos is a start. Some of the good ones will still be carriers, so the sorting must continue.
Society does not need defective people.
Sterilize those who carry severe heritable defects.

I fail to see why people continually bring up Hitler.

Do you think that perfecting the human bondy and mind is a bad thing?



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by OhZone
Do you think that perfecting the human bondy and mind is a bad thing?


Oh, what the hell, I'll feed the trollish question...

How do you define "perfecting"? Mind sharing your great vision for humanity?



[edit on 26-12-2007 by loam]



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 01:48 PM
link   
Just a little note, the rate of abortion for down's syndrome embryo's in Taiwan in 80%, in the US its 20%. Guess which country has the higher number of children who will forever be dependent on others and which country will not.

How much does it cost you for a hospital visit in the United States?
Just an emergency room trip for a minor cut will cost you about $300 or more.

In Taiwan it costs $4 to stay a week!
My daughters hospital visit would have bankrupted our family in America, and they would have pumped her full of drugs with adverse viral infections and suppressed immune system, possibly MRSA as well.

Instead she was in Taiwan at the time, cost $4, and she was made well without being pumped full of pharmaceuticals.

There are obvious social benefits to genetic testing and doing something proactive about troublesome genetic results.

To create genetically deficient children on purpose is absurd.



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Legalizer
To create genetically deficient children on purpose is absurd.


And systemically eliminating them is just as bad, if not far worse.

Do you honestly believe that Taiwan's successes in healthcare can be attributed to the stats you cite?




[edit on 26-12-2007 by loam]



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 08:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


So should we also play with the color of the skin to make one that is more appealing to all? and less offensive to some.


[edit on 26-12-2007 by marg6043]



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 08:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Legalizer
 


I tell you the prices on care for emergency room are not as cheap as 300 dollars anymore.


My last one was in the range of about 3000.



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 10:19 PM
link   
I personally am still having a difficult time digesting this thread.

Lets put ourselves in the minds of the deaf couple...

Wife: Honey, lets have children.

Husband: Ok Sweety, you know, Ive been thinking, that perhaps it would be best for us to raise a deaf child instead. They would fit in better with our way of life then a fully functional child.

Wife: Well how do we do that?

Husband: We go, and I give a sperm donation, and you donate your eggs and we have a number of artificial fertilizations done. Then, when we finally see that we have a child who is deaf like us, we kill the others.

Wife: Thats a good idea. That will really make for a nicely functioning household.

1 year later......

Wife: Honey, how many of these perfectly normal babies are we going to keep rejecting until we get a deaf one..

Husband: As long as it takes sweety.

Wife: I kinda feel guilty, after all, arent we being kind of selfish on our desire to have an all deaf baby in place of a normal one for our own functionality?

Husband: Dont be ridiculous. This is best for us. Think of it. Just imagine the harmony a totally deaf family will have...

Wife: I suppose your right. It is our child. We have the right to raise the child we want regardless of whether they are totally functional or not. It really is whats best for all of us. Btw, the test result for thelatest feritilization round came in, its another healthy one.

Husband: Damm, have them call the lab and throw that one away. I guess theres always tommorow..

Wife: I love you honey, your so sensitive.

Husband: Me to baby. I cant wait to have our all deaf family.

21 years later.....their Deaf Son finds out that mom and dad killed 13 fetuses to get him.

Son: Umm Dad...Im deaf because you wanted me to be? Is that right.

Father: Yes son, it was best for me and your mother in raising you. After all, we are like peas in a pod arent we?....

Its just seems absolutely like a nightmare to even ponder or postulate the mere decision. Its bad enough with abortion. But weve taken it one step further, where we make more then we need, and get rid of the healthiest.

Perhaps some other members could venture into what that dialogue might sound like...Its sick when you think about it.

Peace



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 10:27 PM
link   
The way God made them


Originally posted by marg6043
So should we also play with the color of the skin to make one that is more appealing to all? and less offensive to some.

Japanese and Chinese women (and some men) will sometimes undergo cosmetic surgery to create a 'second eyelid' such as Africans and Eurasians have.

Dark-skinned people all over the world already use skin whitening procedures to make themselves look 'more appealing' - or possibly 'less offensive' - at least in their own eyes. Many of these treatments are harmful. Some are potentially lethal. Yet people use them all the same - and have done so for centuries.

And then, of course, there's Michael Jackson.

If someone else opts voluntarily to change their skin colour, why should it bother you?

Think about what you're suggesting:

'People should stay the colour God made them!'

That sounds pretty racist to me. I don't think you mean it that way, but that's how it sounds.

* * *



Originally posted by loam


Originally posted by Legalizer
To create genetically deficient children on purpose is absurd.

And systemically eliminating them is just as bad, if not far worse.

Right now we are talking about eliminating the deficiency, not the child. This is not a thread about abortion. You two are in danger of derailing a very interesting discussion; refrain, I beg you.



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 11:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
Right now we are talking about eliminating the deficiency, not the child. This is not a thread about abortion. You two are in danger of derailing a very interesting discussion; refrain, I beg you.


Hogwash! All the way around...


There is a material difference between what you do to yourself (eyelid surgery and skin whitening examples) and what you impose upon another.

IN THIS THREAD, the discussion surrounds deaf parents purposefully seeking to produce, by artificial means, deaf offspring.

That isn't "eliminating a deficiency". It introduces one by intent.

I find the concept utterly disgraceful.


:shk:

In terms of my responses to OhZone and Legalizer, I was addressing the concepts that we should genetically "perfect" human beings and "do something proactive about troublesome genetic results."

To me, those concepts are sufficiently related to the thread topic to comment upon...and are just as offensive to me as the example presented by the OP.

[edit on 27-12-2007 by loam]



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 02:03 AM
link   
Wash that hog!


Originally posted by loam
There is a material difference between what you do to yourself (eyelid surgery and skin whitening examples) and what you impose upon another.

We 'improve' our children (propel them towards an imagined ideal of perfection) by potty-training them, vaccinating them, feeding them responsibly, straightening their teeth, educating them and so on. What is the material difference between this and genetically manipulating them towards a similar ideal? I take it you're not one of those who favour denying your children the benefits of civilization and raising them as savages?


IN THIS THREAD, the discussion...

Thread topics mutate as the discussion proceeds. All I ask of you and Legalizer is that you don't turn this into an abortion thread.


In terms of my responses to OhZone and Legalizer, I was addressing the concepts that we should genetically "perfect" human beings and "do something proactive about troublesome genetic results."

To me, those concepts are sufficiently related to the thread topic to comment upon...and are just as offensive to me as the example presented by the OP.

Genetic 'perfection' is an unattainable goal because it does not exist. Evolution is not teleological.

An organism that is perfectly adapted to its environment finds itself at an immediate disadvantage when the environment changes, and environments - including the one you and your children live in - change all the time. Where then lies perfection? Anyone who attempts to realize his ideal of a 'perfect human' is only going to create a sad, crippled thing.

As for the potentially attainable goal of tinkering with one's children's genomes in order to make them fitter, happier, prettier and potentially richer, I certainly think people are entitled to do so if they wish. As I said to Doc Moreau, no-one's asking you to join in. If you want to stay unevolved, and keep your children that way too, that's your privilege.



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 02:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by loam
To me, those concepts are sufficiently related to the thread topic to comment upon...and are just as offensive to me as the example presented by the OP.


Well its not your child, not your medical bill, not your choice, so if you are offended, get your nose out of other people's business.

That solves your problem.

I think if people can get as close as possible to perfection than let them.
There is no point breeding broken children if something can be done about it in advance.

Would you take delivery on anything if there manufacturer told you in advance its severely damaged.

Should we change genes for skin color?
Besides chemicals all over themselves (with lead mmmm), people lay out in the sun cooking cancer into themselves, or sit under lights for the same effect.
Better to change a gene and make everyone tan.
Except asians, they seem to want to be white.

In the end its not up to anyone at Above Top Secret to decide, except for their own reproduction.

Remember there has always been this genetic choosing:
"I wouldn't do it with you if you were the last man/woman on earth"
and the adverse
"Thats a fine specimen of man/woman you married, what a cute kid"

However breeding hasn't always taken that turn.
Sometimes beer goggles or heated loins of desperation make people see
qualities in others that don't exist and the children they produce are something
from under the microscope enlarged to human size.



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 03:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
What is the material difference between this and genetically manipulating them towards a similar ideal?





Originally posted by Astyanax
Thread topics mutate as the discussion proceeds. All I ask of you and Legalizer is that you don't turn this into an abortion thread.


So it's fine for it to 'mutate' as long as you approve of the direction?

I also fail to see how this has turned into an abortion thread...



Originally posted by Astyanax
Genetic 'perfection' is an unattainable goal because it does not exist.


On this we agree.



Originally posted by Astyanax
As for the potentially attainable goal of tinkering with one's children's genomes in order to make them fitter, happier, prettier and potentially richer, I certainly think people are entitled to do so if they wish. As I said to Doc Moreau, no-one's asking you to join in. If you want to stay unevolved, and keep your children that way too, that's your privilege.


My 'privilege' would be to oppose your reckless vision for the future.


Tinker with your own body all you like. But nothing grants you the right to make that decision for others. I don't care if it's your offspring or not.

The problem here is that you appear to be so enamored by the possible benefits of such technology, you fail to consider it's likely consequences.

In an unregulated environment, such technology will become the biological windfall of only those with means. A new social distinction will emerge...those who have been biologically 'perfected' and those who have not. What new social issues do you think that will introduce? We need only look at humanity's track record on race issues to see a mere shadow of the problem. :shk:

It is one thing to live with material distinctions, but when those differences become substantially biological, you have your head in the sand if you think that will 'improve' things on a broader scale.

I also shudder to think what such technology would look like in a 'regulated' environment that actively sought to 'perfect' humanity.

:shk:



[edit on 27-12-2007 by loam]



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 03:15 AM
link   
reply to post by DocMoreau
 


No, what happens when you start engineering genetically "perfect" species is that you get even worse mutations. This has been tried with rats and mice many times and the end result is always something like a generation that can't reproduce because they are sterile or hermaphroditic.

Nature will spawn flaws in the genome of any species to prevent the population from becoming genetically identical and eventually dying out. Mutations, for better or worse, are why species evolve.

Haven't humans done enough damage to their own species already?

[edit on 12/27/2007 by pjslug]

[edit on 12/27/2007 by pjslug]



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join