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: 4
9
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:
sty

posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 03:20 AM
link   
if all the deaf parents would have deaf children , we would end up as deaf race in some hundred years. I guess we should not play with the rules of natural selection, i agree it is even good to denny the right of those parents to have children if there is a risk for the kids to be deaf. Sure this planet is promoting the trouble. In the end , that movie called Idiocracy was not wrong..




posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 03:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Legalizer
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.


Under this logic, child neglect, endangerment, abuse, or even infanticide would be protected activities.


Despite what you think, children are not the PROPERTY of those who bear them.

It is my business, so long as the consequences of your actions affect me, others and potentially society itself.


Originally posted by Legalizer
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.


And how many 'broken' children will you have to go through before you reach perfection?


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


Children are not goods.


Originally posted by Legalizer
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"


That is not even close to what is being generally proposed here. 'Natural' selection is done in the context of thousands of years. The historical environmental, biological and cultural context for such choices has natural limits... If we begin to tinker with humanity in a way that negates these limits, we could face consequences far greater than any suffered by a single individual.

[edit on 27-12-2007 by loam]



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 03:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by sty
..i agree it is even good to denny the right of those parents to have children if there is a risk for the kids to be deaf...


Here, I get off the bus...

I would oppose this as well. What deaf parents choose to do in their attempts at NATURAL procreation (meaning no artificial genetic manipulation) *IS* their business.

I would defend this right as strenuously as I oppose the attempts to create designer offspring.


sty

posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 03:59 AM
link   
i guess we should hold on with the GM. We just discovered the "operating system" of life, but we do not know anything on programming. I simply believe that we are not there yet.



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 04:23 AM
link   
everyone seems to be blaming the deaf as a whole for the actions of a few.
and we all know, theres always irresponsible people in all colours, creeds and walks of life.

it started with some psycho's dream of a blonde hair blue eyed nation.
then people started choosing the sex of their kid or other features.
now these few (keyword few) irresponsible people want their kid to be deaf.

I ask, how many of you have close ties to anyone deaf? either a close friend or relative? you do realise they are not "deaf and dumb", right?

you would understand that it is not guarantee'd hereditory. Deaf people have kids with hearing. ppl who can hear have deaf kids.
I know *MANY* deaf, and absolutely none of them would choose this for their kid, they all hope for their kids to be born at their best

sterilising the deaf? oh man, thats some serious ignorance right there.

what if you went to iraq and lost your hearing in an explosion? what if you lost it in your home town due to a car smash or other?
oh sorry sir. we understand your 25 but your now legally deaf. now we have to sterilise you.

what about oldies? your grandpa goes for his checkup "sorry mr jones, but your hearing aid isnt helping as youve lost your hearing. i know you had your kids 40yr ago but the law is the law and we have to sterilise you anyway. flop those wrinkly ol boys out i have the scissors handy"

and when we start sterilising the deaf what then? the blind or those that lose eyesight?
does the name hitler or his regime ring a bell?

the deaf are as normal and intelligent as me and you except they cant hear.

Sign language is free to learn if you choose.



[edit on 27/12/07 by Obliv_au]



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 04:25 AM
link   
The future lies with with the vertebrates


Originally posted by loam
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.

Parents have a duty to procure the welfare of their offspring as best they can. Within reason and the letter of the law, they have a right to do so as they see fit. I think you will find this is the legal position in most countries, though possibly not in places like North Korea.

The future will doubtless see a number, eventually a majority of parents asserting this right through genetic engineering. The trend will begin, as you fear, with adjustments to remove susceptibility to genetic diseases like haemophilia and Huntington's chorea, but soon enough parents will be trying to manipulate the appearance, fitness, intelligence and for all I know the body odour of their children to whatever extent they can. This is the future, oppose it how you will. You may not want it for your children, but you may be sure they will want it for theirs.


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.

I am probably more keenly aware of the possible consequences than you are, my dear loam. I can even spare a little compassion for your fears. But change is always inevitable and the attempt to deny reality is futile.

No technology has ever been bound by prohibition. Human genetic engineering is the future, and the future belongs to those who embrace it with courage.

Take comfort, my friend. We and our hominid ancestors have had technology for two million years and it hasn't killed us yet. On the contrary, it has done very well by us: made us the most successful species of our size on the planet. It'll make gods of us yet, if we don't lose our backbones. So buck up!


In an unregulated environment, such technology will become the biological windfall of only those with means.

All technology is initially the province of those with means because all technologies start out expensive. This is a good thing; the rich are slightly more likely to have the education and worldly experience to deal with novelty in a sensible way. But who's talking about an unregulated environment? We know this stuff is going to be regulated almost to the point of strangulation. To imagine any different is to indulge in fantasy.


It is one thing to live with material distinctions, but when those differences become substantially biological...

You think material distinctions aren't biological? Take a look around you.

[edit on 27-12-2007 by Astyanax]



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 08:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
...but soon enough parents will be trying to manipulate the appearance, fitness, intelligence and for all I know the body odour of their children to whatever extent they can. This is the future, oppose it how you will. You may not want it for your children, but you may be sure they will want it for theirs.


As this thread obviously demonstrates, I have no doubt.


Originally posted by Astyanax
...change is always inevitable and the attempt to deny reality is futile.


I'm not denying reality. In fact, I'm keenly aware of it...as well as it's perils to humanity.


Originally posted by Astyanax
No technology has ever been bound by prohibition.


Now that isn't exactly true now, is it? I don't see everyone in my neighborhood with their own personal arsenal of nukes.


In fact, I see this issue on par with the nuclear weapons one. It is as much a threat, if not greater, and should be treated as such.


Originally posted by Astyanax
Human genetic engineering is the future, and the future belongs to those who embrace it with courage.


Nonsense. It may be *IN* our future, BUT it is not *THE* future. Unless, of course, you seek the potential for our ultimate demise.

I wont embrace it with courage... I'll oppose it with courage...



Originally posted by Astyanax
Take comfort, my friend. We and our hominid ancestors have had technology for two million years and it hasn't killed us yet. On the contrary, it has done very well by us: made us the most successful species of our size on the planet. It'll make gods of us yet, if we don't lose our backbones. So buck up!


I mean no disrespect, honestly, but that sounds like the ravings of many a tyrant of our past.

Your sentiments don't surprise me. They sadden me...

:shk:


Originally posted by Astyanax
All technology is initially the province of those with means because all technologies start out expensive. This is a good thing; the rich are slightly more likely to have the education and worldly experience to deal with novelty in a sensible way.





Originally posted by Astyanax
But who's talking about an unregulated environment? We know this stuff is going to be regulated almost to the point of strangulation. To imagine any different is to indulge in fantasy.





Originally posted by Astyanax
You think material distinctions aren't biological? Take a look around you.




Again...



[edit on 27-12-2007 by loam]



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 09:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 



Changing your body or appearance is a personal choice make by the individual person, changing genetically an embryo is not.

Deny ignorance.


Again master race comes to mind.



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by loam
Under this logic, child neglect, endangerment, abuse, or even infanticide would be protected activities.

No it wouldn't, your logic is flawed.
A child is a living human being granted the rights to life liberty and pursuit of happiness as all other living human beings.

A sperm and an egg in petri dishes have no rights.
I knock off several million sperm a day, call the authorities!


Originally posted by loam
Despite what you think, children are not the PROPERTY of those who bear them.

But the genetic material that makes them are, so my position still stands, its none of your business what anyone does with their sperm and eggs.


Originally posted by loam
It is my business, so long as the consequences of your actions affect me, others and potentially society itself.

Ok busy body, explain in detail how my choosing to give my daughter blue eyes and big boob instead of brown eyes and a hairy man chest has a damned thing to do with you or society. (hypothetically of course, her mom passed on the big chest)



Originally posted by loam
And how many 'broken' children will you have to go through before you reach perfection?
Well lets see there are about 6 billion dysfunctional people on the planet right now. Add that to the total number of dysnfunctional people that were ever born by without any engineering and thats your starting number.




Originally posted by loam
Children are not goods.

Oh yeah?
Tell that to adoption agencies, child protective services, and your local school system.
How much do you think it costs to have a child.
In 2001 in New Jersey it was a total of $15,000, just to give birth, more than a car.
You are suggesting people accept their fate and pay that much to give birth, and then more than that annually to raise a child that might die before it reaches 15 because of genetic disorders that could have been avoided passing to the child.

Apparently you'd rather see kids living on tubes than be fixed before being brought to the womb.


Originally posted by Legalizer
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"



Originally posted by loam
That is not even close to what is being generally proposed here.
'Natural' selection is done in the context of thousands of years.

Its a logical extension of natural selection.

And Natural selection takes place daily, not over thousands of years.
How many young people go cruising the mental, cripple, genetically damaged wards of hospitals looking for suitable mates? None that are remotely sane.

You see an person who is deaf, dumb, and blind and get sexually attracted?
You see a person who has MS and think "There's some breeding to do!"?


Originally posted by loam
The historical environmental, biological and cultural context for such choices has natural limits... If we begin to tinker with humanity in a way that negates these limits, we could face consequences far greater than any suffered by a single individual.


Where's your proof?
My pants just split from all the smoke you've blown up my rectum in this thread.



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 02:14 PM
link   
Smiley and it will go away


Originally posted by loam
I don't see everyone in my neighborhood with their own personal arsenal of nukes.

No, just Russia, the United States, Britain, France, China, Israel, India, Pakistan, North Korea and - coming soon, who knows? - Iran and a bunch of terrorists with polonium undershorts. I repeat: no technology has ever been bound by prohibition.

As for the rest of your post, nice smileys. Sorry, but there really isn't any more to say about it, is there? Your post, I mean, not the subject.

[edit on 27-12-2007 by Astyanax]



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
Changing your body or appearance is a personal choice make by the individual person, changing genetically an embryo is not.

You are so wrong in so many ways.
First of all, who are you to determine what any of six billion people on
earth do with their sperm and eggs and combination thereof?

You know the answer, an insignificant short lived specimen of species of billions of species that have lived on this planet.

Thats your sum value in the totality of things.
You opinion will not change the choices of others being made in any significant way.


Originally posted by marg6043
Deny ignorance.


Practice what you preach.



Originally posted by marg6043
Again master race comes to mind.


Six words and a smily is what comes to your mind.

A master race is not an new or even a nazi idea.
Its old as time.
Better to breed this race through choice than to run
rampant from land to land killing other races and hoping
against all possibility that your particular race is as great as you think it is.

Thats how its still being done.

This "master race" breeding choice has also been going on for ages.
Royal families would only breed with royals, at least on the record.
Several countries still have arranged marriages.

Mating is currently being manipulated by media.
"This is hot!"...and people settle for what they can get out of that, but how many unexpected children are created from what people are consistently told to want?

I hear there is a terrible issue with this in Brazil. They've been selling them Blond, Blue Eyes, Big Breast for decades and people are going to all manner of expense to be that.
Sounds plausible, I saw it Georgia too, it was like Village of the Damned, or Stepford Wives.

The point is with or without your consent six billion people on earth will make genetic choices with or without your approval. Some those choices are going to change our species forever for better or worse. If science has a chance to change it for the better...even a one in twenty billion chance, then there is no excuse, not to try.

Someday there might be twenty billion of us, unless we learn to live effectively longer, and breed less. Now imagine it, 20 billion humans releasing toxic sludge everyday of the year. At any given time, there would be at least a billion elderly who need someone to care for them, another six billion infants that need to be cared for, another six billion teenagers with nothing productive to do, a billion invalids that need hospitalization, the rest of the billions slaving to feed the others.

Slaving at what jobs?
Making more products?
From what resources?
To go to what landfill?

On any given day a Billion people will die.
A Billion corpses of putrid disease.
A Day.

Master race or Extinction.
The choice is yours for your chromosomes alone.


[edit on 27-12-2007 by Legalizer]



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 04:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Legalizer
 


So with all that rant what is you point?
That you believe in a master race after all?



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 06:30 PM
link   
I cannot even believe that people are still arguing about this. Don't worry, It will never be allowed to happen. The day this starts will be the day that human rights are given to embryos to protect them. It is this crazy thing called Ethics. I'm sure wikipedia has an entry for the word if you never heard of it.



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 07:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by zerotime
The day this starts will be the day that human rights are given to embryos to protect them.


But embryos aren't exactly human -- yet. They're just 2, 4, 8, 16 or 32 (and so on) human cells. After 8 weeks, then maybe the term 'human' can be used, since by then it's no longer an embryo (and now a foetus).



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 07:43 PM
link   
There is a very real danger present in this type of thinking, it is called setting a legal precedent for this kind of "Parental right" to choose the type child they desire. Anyone who would seriously consider 'downgrading' the physical (or mental) abilities of their own child needs serious counceling. We are required to pass a test and have proof of insurance to get a license to drive a car and there are restrictions upon these new drivers until they gain enough practical experience to become an accomplished operator of a motor vehicle. I feel the same care should be taken in marriage and in giving birth to children. I feel it is morally wrong to show more concern for property than for human life. Teenagers with babies are a lot more dangerous than teenagers on alcohol or drugs. Inexperience is a killer for babies and young children.



posted on Jan, 1 2008 @ 10:46 AM
link   
Only fools would want their children to be deaf. There doesn't seem to be any great excuse for ruining an innocent persons' life.

[edit on 1-1-2008 by ahuman]



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join