EMBRYO TESTING

[Guest guest]

ravenmagic2003 wrote:

>

>

> A person would know if they have the gene of this sort that could

> possibly be passed to a child. Would it not be more ethical -- not to

> mention wiser -- to adopt and not have one's own child?

To some people that's simply not a satisfactory option.

Ace

[Guest guest]

ravenmagic2003 wrote:

>

>

> My reason for being so upset by this topic is because who decides what

> is a desirable gene and what is an undesirable gene? Already the

> majority of people view those with AS as lesser persons and so how

> scary is it to think that AS might be one of those undesirable genes

> that leads to an abortion by those who could care less about the fact

> that they are speaking about a child?

A a point in fact I have yet to meet anyone who considers a person with

AS as a lesser person. The people I know see every person on their own

merits. I don't know how one decides or who should decide, I know I am

not capable of doing so. All I ask is that no one else insist they have

the right based on their own personal convictions. That is not a proper

place to decide from.

Ace

[Guest guest]

Ace wrote: " All I ask is that no one else insist they have the right

based on their own personal convictions. That is not a proper place to

decide from. "

Once a child begins its journey from zygot to fully formed person, no

one has the right to insist that others have the right based on their

own personal convictions, to end that journey just because the child-

in-waiting is unable to speak for himself or herself.

Raven

[Guest guest]

Yes, why test yourself only to discover that the person you are about

to kill off carries your defective genes when you can just kill off

the child and not have to worry about your own hypocrisy?

For these people, a genetic test is perfect.

As for adoption, for these sorts of people, it is better to try to

keep producing and killing imperfect fetuses than it is to adopt a

perfectly healthy kid who will otherwise not find a home.

Tom

Administrator

>

A person would know if they have the gene of this sort that could

possibly be passed to a child. Would it not be more ethical -- not to

mention wiser -- to adopt and not have one's own child?

To some people that's simply not a satisfactory option.

Ace

[Guest guest]

> FAM Secret Society is a community based on respect, friendship,

support and acceptance. Everyone is valued.

" I don't see any sign of any of the above in your judgmental

statements in this thread. Please if you have no room for other

people's point of view leave the subject off the list.

Ace "

Thewy are only judgmental statements to you Ace because you do not

like them. By calling my statements judgmental, it is YOU who

are being judgemental.

Actually Ace you are right when you post the comment regarding the

lack of friendly atmosphere as it pertains to my response to the

topic.

The fact is, I just get sick and tired of people being so selfish and

self-centered that they will stop at nothing to make difficult issues

look easy to resolve, or they will stop at nothing to make morally

difficult and ambiguous issues look clearcut and easy.

To my way of thinking, trying to get me to believe that eugenics or

abortion is acceptable is like trying to get a judge to believe that

a rape was acceptable because the victim dressed provocatively.

Immoral people hate moral people, and the reason is that immoral

people would rather place their own needs above the needs of others.

For immoral people it's always " my rights! " (I have a right to get an

abortion. It's my body.)

For moral people, it's always, " Yes, but what about the rights of

others? " (What about the right of the child to be born and live.)

The immoral response to that is: " Who cares? " (Let the kid croak.

What do I care?)

Moral people cannot be persuaded to change opinions by weak

argumentation. The fact is, it is usually irresponsible and immoral

people who try to make the easy way out easy to acquire, and moral

people are not persuaded by weak people.

Moral people do the hard work and that is why we are bitter. Immoral

people want the easy way out and don't often get it, and that is why

THEY are bitter. Nothing will ever change until immoral people stop

being selfish.

The reason I say immoral people need to change is because most of the

time they cut of they hurt themsleves and others without realizing

it. In short, immoral people need to be protected from themselves and

the damage they do to society in general, and its up to moral people

to do the protecting if the immoral people will not step up to the

plate themselves.

So Ace, why do you take mostly immoral stances and why you are so

belligerent on this board all the time?

Tom

Adminstrator

[Guest guest]

There were a few posts back and forth in which Beth told you to knock

it off and asked Nick nicely to walk away from the fight if I recall

correctly. It happened the second time I went to Canada.

I consider it water under the bridge, although you know I have called

you out for towing the line before.

Tom

Administrator

" Also, you were involved in a brawl with Nick while I was away, if I

recall correctly. So maybe we should both watch out going forward,

eh? "

What brawl? I'm not aware of any brawl happening.

Ace

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 6/20/2006 2:05:02 AM Eastern Standard Time, no_reply writes:

For immoral people it's always "my rights!" (I have a right to get an abortion. It's my body.)

People often do forget that responsibility is the other side of the of the coin. You can't have a "right" without the responsibility to use it wisely. Abuse that right with irresposibility and eventually someone will take it away. Problem is, we have so many "rights" that the true Rights that we have have been forgotten and indeed they are the ones being eroded. But people don't care as long as nothing interferes with their "rights" to download free music, blast music in their cars you can hear a mile away or get free stuff from the government.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 6/19/2006 9:03:57 PM Eastern Standard Time, no_reply writes:

The first eugenics order Hitler signed when he took power was to have all metally incapacitated and physically repulsive people housed in institutions "put to sleep."This was done mostly in preparation for the war effort. (The funding had to come from somewhere.) As the plan was conceived, three doctors would carefully examine the patient and if the patient was rendered too badly off or too gross to live, s/he would be euthanized. Later on it was just a rubber stamp process.

Hitler had more in mind than just funding the war effort. The cost of maintaining those he killed wasn't that high, though it might have been to Germany given what the Versaille Treaty and the Weimar government had done to the economy, e.g. needing a wheelbarrow full of Duetschmarks to buy a loaf of bread.

What the Nazis were really doing was testing the waters for the Final Solution and hardening the people. There was some outcry about this policy, but not enough to stop it, though it was hidden for a time. But it served its purpuse. The people were exposed to a core principle of the Nazi philosophy and the seed was planted. In time, it allowed them either accept the Final Solution or at least pretend it wasn't really happening. So by beginning with the devaluation of those rejects, the Nazis conditioned Germany to accept the mass murder of millions.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 6/19/2006 9:03:57 PM Eastern Standard Time, no_reply writes:

The risk there is that you abort a baby the day before the cure is developed.

The day before is pushing it, but certainly the cures for many things, or at least much more effective treatments, are on the near horizon. By waiting a few years to have kids, parents could wait until those things are available or much closer to happening.

When I was younger, I was in favor in testing like this and to an extent I still am. However, I think it is going to be horribly misused. If used properly, certain conditions like Cystic Fibrosis and Sickle Cell Anemia could be taken out of the gene pool. The number of conditions that could be rooted out is very small though, all things considered, probably not more than 100, certainly not the 6,000 this test mentioned.

Why so few? Because there are only a few diseases that are genetic, inheritable, common and fatal enough to warrant such consideration. There are plenty of other conditions that aren't fatal, but can be inconvenient, like AS, that need not be weeded out because there are treatments, in our cause mostly counselling and training. Other things, like diabetes, will soon be treatable by bacteria that live in the blood stream that regulate insulin and in the longer term entirely new organs can be grown and implanted.

All this stuff might be expensive, but it is better than the wholesale massacre that would result from try to make a Ken and Barbie world.

Then again, unless this became hard and fast law applied to everyone, that is it remained voluntary, it would probably mostly affect the rich. Kind of ironic how for so long medicine has tested its new things on the poor and now the rich will be testing gene modded kids. It will be interesting to see what kind of monsters they produce.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 6/20/2006 11:45:22 AM Eastern Standard Time, ravenmagic2003@... writes:

I have to disagree, . I have a very good colleague who is now 38 who suffers from Cystic Fibrosis. He has devoted his life to doing many good works in his community despite the fact that his mother was told he would not survive past his teen years. Obviously he has and he has made it his mission to motivate people to be the best version of themselves they can be.

I think I wasn't clear enough. I don't mean that fetuses with these conditions would be aborted. My ideal would be that if such were detected, it might be easier to correct it at the early stage through gene surgery so that the child would be born without the condition. Then again, in another decade or two, it might be simpler to carry the pregnancy to term and implant a new set of lungs, ones without the CF genes, into the child at a later time. That would still make them a carrier, but they would be unaffected by it.

That wasn't a call for more abortion or eugenics of that kind, but rather that is what I was against. It would be better to develop either in eutero genetic cures or other treatments that are more effective and permanant that what we have today.

[Guest guest]

environmental1st2003 wrote:

>

>

> The risk there is that you abort a baby the day before the cure is

> developed.

Actually the chance of that happening is so small, it's smaller than the

finest grain of sand on a 100 mile sand beach.

Cures simply are not found that magically. Years before a cure becomes

available we know it's on the way.

Abortion in reality is not permanent. An aborted fetus always has

another chance to come back as another person. I know that had I been

aborted I would simply have made it into this world as someone else. I

might have had the opportunity to be born without all the handicaps that

have kept me in pain all my life.

I might have had a far better chance at a great life.

Ace

[Guest guest]

Ace,

I did send you an e-mail privately while Tom was away, asking you to

refrain from personal attacks, I also e-mailed Nick and asked him to

talk away. You are correct Tom.

Beth

>

>

> " Also, you were involved in a brawl with Nick while I was away, if I

> recall correctly. So maybe we should both watch out going forward,

> eh? "

>

> What brawl? I'm not aware of any brawl happening.

>

> Ace

>

[Guest guest]

Tom wrote: " The risk there is that you abort a baby the day before

the cure is developed. "

Ace wrote: " Actually the chance of that happening is so small, it's

smaller than the finest grain of sand on a 100 mile sand beach.

Cures simply are not found that magically. Years before a cure

becomes available we know it's on the way. "

Actually, Ace, when someone works on finding a cure at some

point 'the next day' is the day they actually find the cure. It's

like overnight successes that are 30 years in the making. It

happens.

Ace wrote: " Abortion in reality is not permanent. An aborted fetus

always has another chance to come back as another person. I know

that had I been aborted I would simply have made it into this world

as someone else. "

You are just surmising that at this point, Ace. There is proof that

cures are found 'the next day' whereas no one has ever proven that

consciousness of aborted babies return at a later date in a

different or better body. At this point, your claim is pure science

fiction.

Ace wrote: " I might have had the opportunity to be born without all

the handicaps that have kept me in pain all my life. I might have

had a far better chance at a great life. "

Nothing stopped you -- or stops you -- from having a great life

right now even if you do have handicaps, Ace. Only you stop

yourself.

Raven

[Guest guest]

Wiliam wrote: " However, I think it is going to be horribly misused.

If used properly, certain conditions like Cystic Fibrosis and

Sickle Cell Anemia could be taken out of the gene pool. "

I have to disagree, . I have a very good colleague who is

now 38 who suffers from Cystic Fibrosis. He has devoted his life to

doing many good works in his community despite the fact that his

mother was told he would not survive past his teen years. Obviously

he has and he has made it his mission to motivate people to be the

best version of themselves they can be.

The oldest living person in Canada with Cystic Fibrosis is a male

who is 59 years old this year. He has done a lot to educate people

on integrating people with disabilities into the workplace and the

community.

Our world would be greatly diminished if people like my colleague

Tim and this other gentlemen were not sharing with the world in this

way.

And since males with CF cannot have children of their own making,

they oftentimes adopt.

Raven

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 6/20/2006 3:45:59 PM Eastern Standard Time, ravenmagic2003@... writes:

Sorry for the misunderstanding, .Raven

No problem. One common trait of AS is to expect everyone else to know what you know. I forget that isn't so sometimes and so don't explain my points as clearly as I should.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 6/20/2006 3:45:59 PM Eastern Standard Time, ravenmagic2003@... writes:

Sorry for the misunderstanding, .Raven

No problem. One common trait of AS is to expect everyone else to know what you know. I forget that isn't so sometimes and so don't explain my points as clearly as I should.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 6/20/2006 4:05:36 PM Eastern Standard Time, ravenmagic2003@... writes:

Based on that premise, then you are totally fine with capital punishment, murder, matricide, patricide, infanticide, murder-suicide, suicide, etc.

Technically capital punishment was allowed of certain crimes, though the perpetrator could get sanctuary in certain places and could get a trial and would likely be forgiven in the Jubilee years.

[Guest guest]

It's nice to have that wish, but I think you are wrong. If the Bible is

correct, both body and soul are fashioned in the womb. This implies

that once you are aborted, that is the end.

If you believe in reincarnation, then I can understand your belief.

Tom

Administrator

Abortion in reality is not permanent. An aborted fetus always has

another chance to come back as another person. I know that had I been

aborted I would simply have made it into this world as someone else. I

might have had the opportunity to be born without all the handicaps that

have kept me in pain all my life.

I might have had a far better chance at a great life.

Ace

[Guest guest]

Well stated. This is what abortion rights activists and physicians

practicing/encouraging genetic preselection/eugenics are doing today.

Tom

Administrator

So by beginning with the devaluation of those rejects, the Nazis

conditioned Germany to accept the mass murder of millions.

[Guest guest]

environmental1st2003 wrote:

>

>

> It's nice to have that wish, but I think you are wrong. If the Bible is

> correct, both body and soul are fashioned in the womb. This implies

> that once you are aborted, that is the end.

>

> If you believe in reincarnation, then I can understand your belief.

The bible is not right or wrong. It is misinterpreted 90% of the time.

Even the bible tells us that our soul never dies so even if we did not

believe in reincarnation we should be able to accept that if a fetus has

a soul, that soul will continue. Our bodies are of no real value so what

is lost?

Ace

[Guest guest]

God's plan for us on earth. That's what.

Even the bible tells us that our soul never dies so even if we did not

believe in reincarnation we should be able to accept that if a fetus

has a soul, that soul will continue.

Our bodies are of no real value so what is lost?

Ace

[Guest guest]

Sorry for the misunderstanding, .

Raven

wrote: " I think I wasn't clear enough ... <snip> ... "

[Guest guest]

Ace wrote: " Even the bible tells us that our soul never dies so even

if we did not believe in reincarnation we should be able to accept

that if a fetus has a soul, that soul will continue. Our bodies are of

no real value so what is lost? "

Based on that premise, then you are totally fine with capital

punishment, murder, matricide, patricide, infanticide, murder-suicide,

suicide, etc. Hmmmmmm, did I not see those subjects in the Bible

identified as sins? Yes, I believe I did. And do other religions not

also hold similar views? Why, yes they do! Imagine that. Food for

thought.

Raven

[Guest guest]

Ace wrote: " Even the bible tells us that our soul never dies so even

if we did not believe in reincarnation we should be able to accept

that if a fetus has a soul, that soul will continue. Our bodies are of

no real value so what is lost? "

Based on that premise, then you are totally fine with capital

punishment, murder, matricide, patricide, infanticide, murder-suicide,

suicide, etc. Hmmmmmm, did I not see those subjects in the Bible

identified as sins? Yes, I believe I did. And do other religions not

also hold similar views? Why, yes they do! Imagine that. Food for

thought.

Raven

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 6/20/2006 10:20:09 PM Eastern Standard Time, vze2vfni1@... writes:

Perhaps, but I'm old enough that, if I wanted offspring, then that would probably be with a woman over 35. Generally that means amniocentesis, but without the option of abortion, that means, "Fer-get it. She's too old."

Here's something to consider. Scientists are also close to perfecting and artificial womb. Such a thing could be able to accept an embryo and develop it to term. Others are close to figuring out how to use animal eggs cells to serve as the host for human DNA and begin the gestation of a human, perhaps in an artificial womb. Bear in mind also that scientists can build bacteria DNA from scratch, that is from stocks of parts they can assemble a complete DNA sequence and make a living, working bacteria. It won't before they can do this with more complex animals.

So one day soon, we could see factory/nurseries where custom kiddies are built from scratch, "fertilized" in an animal egg and gestated in an artificial womb. And people in the 70's though invetro-fertilization was a mess, what about fully synthetic humans?