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.

 

Historic birth of cancer-immune baby

page: 5
5
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by QueenofWeird
This is not about genes being manipulated! Via IF several foetuses are created and then checked to see which ones are free of the breast cancer gen.

I don't understand the leap to designer babies or talk about creating perfect people.

Of course it's designer babies.

They scanned 11 foetuses to see which of them had the faulty gene. They found one that they wanted to keep and tossed out the rest. That's selecting by design. Designer babies.


To me designer babies are children made to be beautiful, smart and so on. On a genetic level. I can see how people can feel against the selection of foetuses. What do you think women what that partical breast cancer gen should do? Just have children and hope for the best? Adopt children?




posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 10:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by americandingbat
There are probably people who feel that way, and again I'm troubled. Do breast cancer survivors really feel that they would be better off not having been born? Do their parents wish they had had a different kid instead?


We are talking about girls seeing their mothers getting sick and dying and then having to go to the process of screening. Some of these daughters are brave enough to have their breasts removed when they find that indeed they carry the gen. Horrible. Whether they are happy to be alive, is a question we should ask them. I don't know what they feel the final analysis is.



posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by martalen
Just to clarify: This baby is not the product of genetic alteration to remove the gene. In vitro embryos produced by the couple were screened for the gene and the embryo free of the cancer gene was selected for implantation.

And, yes, the headline is typically sensational. This baby is only safe from the forms of cancer caused by the presence of that gene - she is not "cancer-immune"


Hey not fair you read the article!



posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 07:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by welivefortheson
there are postive and negative mutations, why you would want negative mutations to continue purely out of principle is beyond me,have you ever suffered negative mutation?,what would you say to severly disabled folks that you denied them the right to be alieved of it purely because you believe its unatural?

if you can remove a negative mutation that causes harm and suffering it should be done,however should you want to cause harm to humans allowing negative mutations that cause depopulation ,then so be it.


I'm sure I have quite a number of "mutated" genes. I know I have genetic predispositions to certain traits that make my life a lot harder than it would be otherwise. I'm still glad I was born most of the time. And I know that my parents wouldn't have traded me for another baby even had they known what they were in for.

The main issue that I have with this particular procedure is not that I don't think we should remove the breast cancer gene; it's that I don't think we should discard people just because they might get breast cancer.

If in fact they were screening babies for the BRCA-1 gene so that they could somehow make sure it didn't get expressed, that would be different. I would still have questions, but they would be more practical and scientific rather than ethical and moral.

BRCA-1 does not cause significant depopulation – it contributes to breast cancer, which usually occurs after a woman has already reproduced if she is going to do so. It has no affect on her ability to pass her genes on to further generations. If it did, then it would be eliminated naturally through natural selection (which is still going on, no matter what people say).

As for


what would you say to severly disabled folks that you denied them the right to be alieved of it purely because you believe its unatural?


Do you realize that what you're arguing for is that they should be denied the right to live at all? It's not a matter of having the same baby either with or without the disability. It's a matter of choosing not to have the baby with the disability but to have a different baby instead.

Finally, many mutations are not easily categorized as "good" or "bad". An example is the gene for sickle cell anemia (a devastatingly painful disease). People with two copies of the sickle cell gene develop the disease. But people with only one copy have a lower risk of dying of malaria – which is why the mutation survived in certain populations.



posted on Jan, 13 2009 @ 04:12 PM
link   
quote americandigbat: "The main issue that I have with this particular procedure is not that I don't think we should remove the breast cancer gene; it's that I don't think we should discard people just because they might get breast cancer"

****So we should just go on producing millions of females who will get breast cancer?

Some of the posts in this thread show amazing lack of understanding of both the problem and the solution.

Humans have 4000+ heritable defects. Eliminating them is a formidable task. "Natural" selection just isn't working.

Our domestic animals likewise are plagued with heritiable defects. We have practiced selective breeding with them for a long time. I don't think we have eliminated the problems there either.

So when what you are doing doesn't work it is time to try something else.

I cannot believe that there are objections to this. There seem to be some people who think that being born defective is better than not being born at all. So you enjoy your life of suffering? And you willingly pass this "joy" onto your offspring? NOw that is child abuse!

Playing God? Since this creator did such a lousy job we have to now clean up his mess.


.



posted on Jan, 13 2009 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by OhZone
Our domestic animals likewise are plagued with heritiable defects. We have practiced selective breeding with them for a long time. I don't think we have eliminated the problems there either.


This may be a bad point to use to back up your argument, since a lot of the heritable defects our domesticated animals have are a result of human interference in natural reproduction trends.

If you know a woman who has survived breast cancer, or children whose mother has survived breast cancer, or anyone who has loved a woman who has survived breast cancer, ask them if the world would have been better off without her ever being born.

On second thought, please don't. Just imagine what they might say to the suggestion.

____________________________
EDIT:

I was thinking about this thread last night, and comparing it to the current threads on the British woman who has decided not to abort the conjoined twins that she is carrying.

In that case, she has decided it is better to try to give them life, even though it will almost certainly be very brief, than to abort.

If a woman found out that she was already pregnant with a girl who had the BRCA-1 mutation, should she abort the pregnancy? Since everyone seems to think it's so awful to pass the gene along to a child?

[edit on 1/13/09 by americandingbat]



posted on Jan, 13 2009 @ 09:03 PM
link   
This kind of work, if done half-assed and limited to only the super rich puts a major dent in natural selection and human evolution.

Though it's kind of crap to have only rich families be the ones to evolve with reduced gene mutations....maybe governments should get their acts together, stop buying guns and bombs and allocate money to make this a lot more affordable for the world.



posted on Jan, 13 2009 @ 09:52 PM
link   
its not genes, but toxins in the vaccination , doctors always messin things up first they give shots then they wondered why babies have so many cancers, they are ultimate idiots



posted on Jan, 13 2009 @ 10:05 PM
link   
we need to get to the point of removing the extreme-aggressive and early aging genes from our DNA.. so we can go back to riding these bodies for 500 ... 800... 1000 years.. instead of only 40..50..70




posted on Jan, 13 2009 @ 10:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by OhZone

Playing God? Since this creator did such a lousy job we have to now clean up his mess.



quite close to the truth..
god is not a anthropomorphous magical angel or anything like that.. humans like you and me traveling from afar.. they made the mistake of removing aggression from themselves until they became fragile to the point of suffering constant invasions and subjugation, so they made us.. stronger, more aggressive but..they also had to make us short lived.. so we could not overpower them.. now, it's our turn to raise and evolve.. but not naturally unfortunately.. though possible, would take us thousand more years.. can you wait to that?

our spirits are encased in these primate-like bodies with short lives.. let's support moral scientists, who will help us turn into a better race

by the way, natural selection is non-existent since young adults resort to alcohol and drugs to relax enough and then choose a sexual partner for the night.. no mind is placed on attractive and strong looks, smarts (survivability) , potential good future or potential good parent/mother for the kids.. it's crazy.. there are some skinny wackos out there giving alcohol and drugs to pretty beautiful girls just because for them there is no other way to get laid . it's unfortunate



posted on Jan, 13 2009 @ 10:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by munkey66
A doctor can look at a family tree and see a history of lung cancer and then screen out the lung cancer gene so the offspring can smoke like a chimney?
look at the family tree and see a history oh heart disease, so once again get screened to produce someone who can eat even more crap and become even heavier?

If nature decided cancer was needed, so be it,
This type of research can only lead to something bad even though it appears to offer something good.

remember that every action has an equal and opposite reaction.


"Nature" didn't decide anything. In fact, genetic mutations are on the rise because of the lack of a true "natural" force. When thinking about mutations, we venerate those, which might increase our length and quality of life, but revile those, which destroy life. You can't ethically say you believe in "nature's will", so to speak, that certain people should die because it is within nature's plan, or that a more efficient organism should arise out of the deaths of those were predestined to genetic insufficiency.

Isn't self awareness worth preserving? Not many beings get to experience that. Our ultimate goal as a society should be the immortalization of the mind through physical means, not simply the enjoyment of the life we were given. What's the point then? We invent ideas, which promote psychological structures, fears concerning death most importantly, through the belief in Gods. We undoubtedly have a severe tendency to cling to religion. You know what happens when you criticize a Muslim, don't you? You are condemned to death! What blatant absurdity, so obviously rooted in fear!

We are humans. We are alone in the galaxy. We should realize that our biological form is only one stage in the infinite experience that is the mind. Whatever we must do to overcome these initial stages of biological evolution must be pursued with all our energy, so we can explore and observe and calculate all of the Universe's little intricacies for all of eternity.

[edit on 13-1-2009 by cognoscente]



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join