Justice or Travesty?

[Lyion]

And your paragraph has absolutely nothing to do with any of the points I raised. Try again, Mr Wizard.

The harvesting and creation of humans for 'spare parts' is something many are morally opposed to. Sure, some have religious issues, but it isn't a fundamentalist or limited one.

People's oversimplification of the issue notwithstanding, If, as you say, this is pure science and only faith based non rational people oppose it, why is France leading the way in fighting this?

Are these fundamental religious regimes?

Denmark, Finland, France, Greece, Spain, and Netherlands allow scientists to produce new stem cell lines, but only from surplus embryos that fertility clinics plan to destroy.

Anyways, there really is nothing to discuss.

[Wrath Child]

What quagmire?

--R.

It's funny how no one ever seems to look at the bottom of a slippery slope as long as they're enjoying the ride down.

As fascinated and excited as I am with what the future holds for stem cell and cloning research, I'm not foolish enough NOT to look at how dark that future could easily become. Let's say we advance to the point of having cloning chambers(artificial wombs). You pop in a tissue sample, cook it for a bit and presto chango you have a clone of yourself. Is this clone human? Is it an individual with rights or do you own it since it WAS your tissue that it grew from. What about growing clones with no brains, to be used for spare parts?

Now with stem cell research, what happens when someone figures out to grow brain cells that will enhance a persons IQ, expand their memory or maybe even create photographic memory? In your opinion would it be acceptable to inject these cells into someone with Down's Syndrome in order to make them "normal"? What about using stem cell research to correct the alleged "gay gene" if it were to be discovered? Uh oh! Little Johnny is playing with mommy's lipstick again! Quick, someone grab him so we can give him another shot of manly-man brain juice!

Just think of the master race we'll be able to create!

[Harrison]

Correcting homosexuals(if possible) will be "wrong" by that time...whiny liberals.

[Rust]

What quagmire?

--R.

It's funny how no one ever seems to look at the bottom of a slippery slope as long as they're enjoying the ride down.

As fascinated and excited as I am with what the future holds for stem cell and cloning research, I'm not foolish enough NOT to look at how dark that future could easily become. Let's say we advance to the point of having cloning chambers(artificial wombs). You pop in a tissue sample, cook it for a bit and presto chango you have a clone of yourself. Is this clone human? Is it an individual with rights or do you own it since it WAS your tissue that it grew from. What about growing clones with no brains, to be used for spare parts?

Well, first of all, I doubt we will have artificial wombs for quite some time, as developmental biology is hellishly complex. We are *not* simply the sum total of our genetic code. Any number of chemical and physical effects in the womb may arise we won't even begin to understand for decades or longer.

But granting your scenario of artificial wombs, and granting we can manage to clone humans, I don't see why you should 'own' your clone any more than you and your spouse 'own' your baby. In each case the parent supplied what more or less amounts to a single cell. I know some segments of the population are crazy about 'property rights' but at least since 1865 or so, the question of 'can humans own other humans as chattels' seems to have been more or less settled in the negative. Maybe you disagree with that, I don't know?

Now with stem cell research, what happens when someone figures out to grow brain cells that will enhance a persons IQ, expand their memory or maybe even create photographic memory? In your opinion would it be acceptable to inject these cells into someone with Down's Syndrome in order to make them "normal"? What about using stem cell research to correct the alleged "gay gene" if it were to be discovered? Uh oh! Little Johnny is playing with mommy's lipstick again! Quick, someone grab him so we can give him another shot of manly-man brain juice!

We already culture skin cells outside the body for skin grafts. I don't see an issue with culturing other autologous (or allogenic or xenogenic) cells for therapeutic ends. Cells are not moral actors (the Catholic Church to the contrary, ha...) and have no moral claims or rights.

Assuming somatic cell therapies were developed that could increase the mental levels of a Down's Syndrome patiemt, and they were able to give informed consent, it's their right to seek treatment. I would not support forcing them to accept treatment - they're not all like Terri Schiavo, they can make intelligent choices (many of them can, anyhow) and I don't see the need to substitute my judgement for theirs. I think you need to come up with a better scenario...

And as to homosexuals. again, since being gay isn't 'wrong' or 'not normal' I would leave it up to the individual. Now, if the treatment only worked in utero, then I'd say the state has a compelling reason to ban the treatment, since being gay is perfectly normal in some humans. Exposing a fetus to a completely useless medical treatment (which would presumably pose some risk to the fetus), just because the parents have some homophobia, is rather blatantly medically unethical. Primum no nocere. isn't that how it goes? And assuming the treatment was possible as an adult, let the individual decide. Parents aren't gods, they don't have unlimited rights over their offspring.

Just think of the master race we'll be able to create!

Most of eugenics is idiotic - the linkages between genotypic characters are basically totally unknown, and many are likely pleotropic. I can see the value in not promoting heritable genetic disorders like Tay-Sachs, but who says brown skin is worse than pink, or that left-handedness is bad? Sure Sickle-Cell anemia is painful, but it lets you survive malaria.... who decides what's 'good' and what's 'bad'?

"Evolution is smarter than you are" -- Leslie Orgel

--D.

[Rust]

Correcting homosexuals(if possible) will be "wrong" by that time...whiny liberals.

And some morons think *being* homosexual is "wrong" today, and that it should be "corrected". Stupid bigots.

--R.

[Harrison]

People just accept everything now. Homosexuality if able to be fixed never will be because of whiny liberal bullshit. The same people who think rapists can be rehabilitated through 5 years in jail.

Common sense dictates homosexuality is wrong. Not on a moral level but, on a logic level.

Nature disagrees with you...

Penis + Penis = Nothing
Vagina + Vagina = Nothing



(don't try to bring up some ridiculous statement about homosexual apes and monkeys etc. It just makes you look like a fucking moron for even trying to imply that it means it's "natural" in any way)

[KILL]

Lumpy.



Wise beyond his years.

[Wrath Child]

And as to homosexuals. again, since being gay isn't 'wrong' or 'not normal' I would leave it up to the individual. Now, if the treatment only worked in utero, then I'd say the state has a compelling reason to ban the treatment, since being gay is perfectly normal in some humans. Exposing a fetus to a completely useless medical treatment (which would presumably pose some risk to the fetus), just because the parents have some homophobia, is rather blatantly medically unethical. Primum no nocere. isn't that how it goes? And assuming the treatment was possible as an adult, let the individual decide. Parents aren't gods, they don't have unlimited rights over their offspring.

I don't have time this morning to go through and comment on your whole post but this part can't be ignored:

"Now, if the treatment only worked in utero, then I'd say the state has a compelling reason to ban the treatment, since being gay is perfectly normal in some humans. Exposing a fetus to a completely useless medical treatment (which would presumably pose some risk to the fetus), just because the parents have some homophobia, is rather blatantly medically unethical."

If memory serves me right, you are pro-choice, are you not? If that is the case, then who are you to decide what a woman does with her body in regards to her fetus? Should we ban all abortions that take place because the woman didn't like the gender of her baby(almost always females), which happens all too often? Exactly what limits on abortion are you in favor of?

Certainly you aren't going to try and argue that "exposing a fetus to a completely useless medical treatment (which would presumably pose some risk to the fetus)...is rather blatantly medically unethical" but outright killing that very same fetus is perfectly acceptable and medically ethical?

Curious...

[Rust]

And as to homosexuals. again, since being gay isn't 'wrong' or 'not normal' I would leave it up to the individual. Now, if the treatment only worked in utero, then I'd say the state has a compelling reason to ban the treatment, since being gay is perfectly normal in some humans. Exposing a fetus to a completely useless medical treatment (which would presumably pose some risk to the fetus), just because the parents have some homophobia, is rather blatantly medically unethical. Primum no nocere. isn't that how it goes? And assuming the treatment was possible as an adult, let the individual decide. Parents aren't gods, they don't have unlimited rights over their offspring.

I don't have time this morning to go through and comment on your whole post but this part can't be ignored:

"Now, if the treatment only worked in utero, then I'd say the state has a compelling reason to ban the treatment, since being gay is perfectly normal in some humans. Exposing a fetus to a completely useless medical treatment (which would presumably pose some risk to the fetus), just because the parents have some homophobia, is rather blatantly medically unethical."

If memory serves me right, you are pro-choice, are you not? If that is the case, then who are you to decide what a woman does with her body in regards to her fetus? Should we ban all abortions that take place because the woman didn't like the gender of her baby(almost always females), which happens all too often? Exactly what limits on abortion are you in favor of?

Certainly you aren't going to try and argue that "exposing a fetus to a completely useless medical treatment (which would presumably pose some risk to the fetus)...is rather blatantly medically unethical" but outright killing that very same fetus is perfectly acceptable and medically ethical?

Curious...

Under the common law, a fetus en ventre sa mere has no real legal rights. What it has is sort of a claim on retroactive rights, once it is born. Some political jurisdictions have changed this, giving a fetus actual rights, of course. But in most Western states, once a baby is born, it can sue (via a guardian or parent presumably) for harms inflicted in the womb.

So if I want to hide behind a legalistic screen, I can point out that in the first case, of abortion, the fetus is not 'born alive' and so never becomes a legal person with rights. The baby who was treated in the womb on the other hand, acquires a retroactive right to sue for any harm caused by a proceedure. Now, if the treatment was medically necessary (say for 'blue baby' or some other problem that really needs to be treated in the womb), obviously the doctor has a good defense against any claim for harm, if he can show the proceedure was carried out properly with a given degree of skill and due care. If harm was inflicted due to a medically frivolous treatment (like, say, 'curing' homosexuality) then I suspect the doctor would not only face serious civil liability, but ethical charges from a professional body.

In terms of a moral basis, obviously the aim is to balance competing interests as well. Given that in my world, abortion is a woman's right, that doesn't mean there are no limits - I do not support elective abortions once the fetus is viable, and I would also not support medical experimentation on fetuses in the womb, even if they were going to be aborted, absent some pretty damn compelling rationale, which I leave to others to construct. As to gender selection and aborting female fetuses, I would support banning the practice medically - both sex determination and elective abortions based on the gender. The woman can abort or not, but there's no reason that a doctor has to tell her the gender. It's not medically relevant information. Or only allow it in the third trimester. Now, if there was a condition where all your male offspring would inherit a Y-linked genetic disorder, I could see some justification in aborting. But that's not your scenario.

Abortion is a medical proceedure. No more, no less.

--R.

[Rust]

People just accept everything now. Homosexuality if able to be fixed never will be because of whiny liberal bullshit. The same people who think rapists can be rehabilitated through 5 years in jail.

Common sense dictates homosexuality is wrong. Not on a moral level but, on a logic level.

Nature disagrees with you...

Penis + Penis = Nothing
Vagina + Vagina = Nothing



(don't try to bring up some ridiculous statement about homosexual apes and monkeys etc. It just makes you look like a fucking moron for even trying to imply that it means it's "natural" in any way)

Homosexual behavior is seen in a number of different species, not just primates. There are even sociobiological arguments that it improves species fitness, as non-breeding adults can devote effort to helping raise others offspring. So, no, 'common sense' doesn't say it's wrong, that's just your hick prejudices talking, boy.

Secondarily, sex isn't just about offspring. Maybe once you *have* sex, you might lose some of the fucking moronic ideas you have about it.

Of course, as an high-school dropout, you haven't actually learned about evolution or sociobiology, so we should give you a pass on being ignorant for once, I guess.

And when it comes to being 'whiny', I think liberals have a long way to go to match the amount and tone of whining *you've* done here over the years about sex and women and not getting any.

--R. 'vagina + vagina = hawt'

[Harrison]

You're so fucking amazingly dumb it is staggering that people think you're even a glimmer of intellectual worth.

Homosexual behavior is seen in a number of different species, not just primates. There are even sociobiological arguments that it improves species fitness, as non-breeding adults can devote effort to helping raise others offspring. So, no, 'common sense' doesn't say it's wrong, that's just your hick prejudices talking, boy.

I warned you previously.

There are even sociobiological arguments that it improves species fitness, as non-breeding adults can devote effort to helping raise others offspring.

That has NOTHING to do with homosexuality. Non-breeding adults don't have to be homosexual. We see this in various different social animals that raise eachother's young. Last I checked... they weren't homosexuals either.

That was a pathetic attempt at backing homosexuality in nature with a baseless claim.

Oh and I'd like to point out this shining example of golden hypocrisy!

Parents aren't gods, they don't have unlimited rights over their offspring.

You truly are just a fucking moron with a vocabulary. Hide behind the mother's choice until it doesn't suit your needs or argument right? I would expect no less from you.

Hey it's HER body, let her do with it as she pleases! Oh wait, the child has the "homosexual gene" and you want to correct that?! FUCK NO YOU AREN'T GODS YOU CAN'T DO THAT

Oh you want to kill the baby? That's cool, step into my office.

[Gidan]

So what other genes do you think people should be able to change? If you can change 1, you should have the right to change any. Hell at that point, you could even choose to give your child the "homosexual gene".

Just because you dont like gays doesn't mean they are wrong, they choose to live a different life then you choose to live.

Comparing Humans reproduction and sex to the rest of the animal world doesn't work. In general, animals have sex for 1 and only 1 purpose, to reproduce. Humans have sex for pleasure more then to reproduce. If your arguing that its unatural to homosexual, you should also be arguing that people should ONLY have sex for the purpose of reproduction and for no other reason.

[Adivina]

You know.... is anyone else annoyed by the fact that HE will be charged for killing the baby, but SHE won't? It is not as if she didn't take part in it, she admitted to punching herself in the stomach. If he is to be punished shouldn't she be as well?

This has nothing to do with my view on abortion, I believe everyone should have their own choice and freedom in that matter, and this has nothing to do with laws, because I know by abortion law she is protected. However, doesn't it seem morally wrong that he is punished and not her as well? I think they were both responsible and if legal action and penal measures are taken, she should be just as guilty as he is.

[Harrison]

It's not that "I don't like homosexuals" at all, not even close.

I am with the crew of people that say something went a little loopy and now they're homosexual.

Whether it be from environment, or otherwise...Something isn't right.

I wasn't the one comparing animals to humans. I believe Rust was the one inferring that ignorance.

[Gidan]

Its definatly wrong for 1 of them to be punished and not the other. But the law is very clear that she can not be charged in any way for what happens. The law definatly has flaws, if your going to charge 1, you need to charge them both. They both did the same acts, shoudl either charge them both or charge neither.

[Harrison]

You know.... is anyone else annoyed by the fact that HE will be charged for killing the baby, but SHE won't? It is not as if she didn't take part in it, she admitted to punching herself in the stomach. If he is to be punished shouldn't she be as well?

This has nothing to do with my view on abortion, I believe everyone should have their own choice and freedom in that matter, and this has nothing to do with laws, because I know by abortion law she is protected. However, doesn't it seem morally wrong that he is punished and not her as well? I think they were both responsible and if legal action and penal measures are taken, she should be just as guilty as he is.

The whole subject is fucked up. She can kill the baby, not anyone else. It's only murder if someone else does it with her.

Fuck abortion and the hypocrites who allow that bullshit to stick around with impunity. You may think you're somehow socially advanced for thinking a woman has the right to kill a baby and no one else but the fact is you're just a moron. Oh, they tried an abortion...that's awesome! But..... the man has to go to jail now for murder.

[Adivina]

Perhaps they should make self made attempts at abortion a crime. That would fix that stupid loophole. If you are going to do it, you do it correctly?

[Tikker]

It's not that "I don't like homosexuals" at all, not even close.

I am with the crew of people that say something went a little loopy and now they're homosexual.

Whether it be from environment, or otherwise...Something isn't right.

I wasn't the one comparing animals to humans. I believe Rust was the one inferring that ignorance.

homosexuality, for the most part, is accepted as just a mutation within a species

you see roughly the same percent of "gay" in almost all species

If you think Rust is wrong, or lying about this, you don't know shit Finawin~


but roughly back on topic, if they were able to correct mutations like that, I'd think it would be a good thing

[Harrison]

Exactly my point, if it was able to be corrected...why shouldn't we?

The argument that parents don't control the outcome of their offspring wholly, doesn't cut it when you bring up that little dark secret of legalized murder.

[Lyion]

It's not that "I don't like homosexuals" at all, not even close.

I am with the crew of people that say something went a little loopy and now they're homosexual.

Whether it be from environment, or otherwise...Something isn't right.

I wasn't the one comparing animals to humans. I believe Rust was the one inferring that ignorance.

homosexuality, for the most part, is accepted as just a mutation within a species

It is? Give me some proof, please.

[Gidan]

A beter question is, were we to find the "Gay gene" why should people reverse it?

[Agrajag]

Because it serves no purpose?

[Gidan]

So any gene that makes you different from the average person should be reversed if it doesn't give you some specific advantage?

[Agrajag]

Not different from the norm, but serves no purpose.

I tried to put it as simple as possible, Gidan. Guess it wasn't dumbed down enough for you...

[Zanchief]

Correcting homosexuals(if possible) will be "wrong" by that time...whiny liberals.

Seems to me conservatives are the ones whining on this issues. You always seem to bring up whiny liberals, but it's the conservatives who have refined whine to an art form.