'Designer babies'

[Sir David Gray]

Should people be allowed to alter the DNA of their future child, to prevent them from having certain things wrong with them?

[Woody1985]

Should people be allowed to alter the DNA of their future child, to prevent them from having certain things wrong with them?

No, there are probably long term consequencies of this type of things ie humans not being able to build up immunity to certain diseases etc

Where does it end? Is there a potential to start altering other things like how tall people could grow etc?

[capitals_finest]

I voted Yes but more research needs to be done.

[hibsbollah]

No, they should wear normal clothes just like other babies:grr:

[Jay]

I am wary of it but if can help erradicate things like MS, MD, genetic cancers, CF etc the benefit is to the child. I would have to know a lot more before I thought it was a definite yes though.

If it is used purely for blond haired blue eyed boys etc then we shouldn't touch it.

[Hibrandenburg]

I am wary of it but if can help erradicate things like MS, MD, genetic cancers, CF etc the benefit is to the child. I would have to know a lot more before I thought it was a definite yes though.

If it is used purely for blond haired blue eyed boys etc then we shouldn't touch it.

Ah, more the Latin lover type Jill :wink:

Seriously, I watched a doc last night on a genetic disease called FFI which basically killed people through not letting them sleep. A really horrible prolonged death and if I had it and through genetic manipulation could guarantee my kids would be free of it then the question is a no brainer.

[hibsdaft]

thin end of the wedge...

[RyeSloan]

If it's proven to be safe then why not?

I'm always interested it the 'we shouldnt meddle with nature' argument...where does it start and where does it stop? Is taking an advanced medicine to stop or cure a disease OK but altering a mutated gene to do the same job not?

Of course the subject is vast and can go to extremes but when you see a the anguish of couples that know they have a gene they could pass to their child that would cause a serious disease who are we to tell them that the science that could prevent that 100% should not be used?

[Jay]

Ah, more the Latin lover type Jill :wink:

Seriously, I watched a doc last night on a genetic disease called FFI which basically killed people through not letting them sleep. A really horrible prolonged death and if I had it and through genetic manipulation could guarantee my kids would be free of it then the question is a no brainer.

I managed the blond haired blue eyed boy 4 times! Maybe I should have changed the sperm donor :greengrin

I think any parent who knew there was genetic problems in their family would want to try and erradicate it. I have a very strong link with breast cancer in my family and although I have sons it doesn't mean they wont have the gene - if I could have wiped that out for them I would have.

[Sir David Gray]

It is something that I am personally against. I can understand why some people would be keen to rid their child of a breast cancer gene, if their family has a long history of breast cancer. I just think that it's a step too far in medical advances and I do think that humans are naturally imperfect and illnesses and diseases are just something we have to accept.

If you eradicate the chances of someone having breast cancer, there's nothing to say that they won't pick up some other horrendous disease that is just as likely to cut short their life.

[Hibrandenburg]

It is something that I am personally against. I can understand why some people would be keen to rid their child of a breast cancer gene, if their family has a long history of breast cancer. I just think that it's a step too far in medical advances and I do think that humans are naturally imperfect and illnesses and diseases are just something we have to accept.

If you eradicate the chances of someone having breast cancer, there's nothing to say that they won't pick up some other horrendous disease that is just as likely to cut short their life.

But if you had cancer, would you fight it with all means available to you or would you lie down and die?

[Sir David Gray]

But if you had cancer, would you fight it with all means available to you or would you lie down and die?

If I ever had cancer, I would fight it with whatever drugs were available, I think that's completely fine. I just find 'designing' a baby to be perfect is a step too far.

[Jay]

If I ever had cancer, I would fight it with whatever drugs were available, I think that's completely fine. I just find 'designing' a baby to be perfect is a step too far.

Its not designing a perfect baby its erradicating some horrible disease. I was 36 when I got cancer, I was one of the lucky ones and am still here but if my mum could have stopped that happening to me I would not be perfect by any means but me and my very young family wouldn't have gone through hell for a year or so.

Whats wrong with trying?

wouldn't it be wonderful if we totally wiped Cf and others off the face of this earth?

[Hibrandenburg]

Its not designing a perfect baby its erradicating some horrible disease. I was 36 when I got cancer, I was one of the lucky ones and am still here but if my mum could have stopped that happening to me I would not be perfect by any means but me and my very young family wouldn't have gone through hell for a year or so.

Whats wrong with trying?

wouldn't it be wonderful if we totally wiped Cf and others off the face of this earth?

:agree: What she says.

[steakbake]

Its not designing a perfect baby its erradicating some horrible disease. I was 36 when I got cancer, I was one of the lucky ones and am still here but if my mum could have stopped that happening to me I would not be perfect by any means but me and my very young family wouldn't have gone through hell for a year or so.

Whats wrong with trying?

wouldn't it be wonderful if we totally wiped Cf and others off the face of this earth?

:agree:

Im in full agreement.

[Sergio sledge]

I'm slightly confused as to what the question is here, is it:

"If there was a way of removing a gene which caused a terminal illness from your unborn child, and the child is then born without the risk of said illness, would you do it?"

or is the question:

"Would you grow test tube babies, and at an early stage alter their DNA to try to eradicate a certain illnesses and genetic mutations, before selecting the one most likely to not have it, and to survive and then killing off the rest?"

I always thought that the second question was more commonly linked to the term "designer babies" as well as the fact people might select babies that were girls, for example, and keep them and not the boys, purely because they want a girl.

For the record, I am against "designer babies" as in the definition that I understood them to be, but in terms of the OP, if my wife had a baby in her womb, and the doctors told us it was 75% certain to have MS, but that they could remove a certain gene whilst in the womb to mean that the baby would not get MS, of course I would do it, I'd want my child to have the best chance in life possible, but that is different from selecting embryos to survive, and letting the others die.

[MrRobot]

It the child was only going to liev for a short period and was going to live in pain for that time, then deffo. Parents hope that their child will be healthy.

[Sir David Gray]

Its not designing a perfect baby its erradicating some horrible disease. I was 36 when I got cancer, I was one of the lucky ones and am still here but if my mum could have stopped that happening to me I would not be perfect by any means but me and my very young family wouldn't have gone through hell for a year or so.

Whats wrong with trying?

wouldn't it be wonderful if we totally wiped Cf and others off the face of this earth?

I understand your argument but I just think that cancer and other horrible diseases/illnesses are just things that we humans have to accept, as things we sometimes contract. As I said in my last post, if someone removes a gene that prevents cancer, there's nothing to say that you wouldn't develop some other illness that would be just as horrendous.

I watched a programme today that mentioned this very subject and a scientist came out with a statement that is not a million miles away from my position. He said that this whole process makes people with imperfections, such as the disabled and people with illnesses/diseases, feel as if their "kind" are slowly but surely being eradicated from existence, in favour of creating "perfect" beings.

Now I know that, at the moment, the focus is solely on preventing things like cancer. But I strongly suspect that once that kind of procedure becomes common, the scientists will move on to eradicating disabilities.

I strongly believe that each and every one of us is designed the way we are, for a reason and for a purpose. I also believe in the statement of "what doesn't kill you, makes you stronger".

If we start to mess around with nature, then I don't know what kind of World we'll live in.

[RyeSloan]

I understand your argument but I just think that cancer and other horrible diseases/illnesses are just things that we humans have to accept, as things we sometimes contract. As I said in my last post, if someone removes a gene that prevents cancer, there's nothing to say that you wouldn't develop some other illness that would be just as horrendous.

I watched a programme today that mentioned this very subject and a scientist came out with a statement that is not a million miles away from my position. He said that this whole process makes people with imperfections, such as the disabled and people with illnesses/diseases, feel as if their "kind" are slowly but surely being eradicated from existence, in favour of creating "perfect" beings.

Now I know that, at the moment, the focus is solely on preventing things like cancer. But I strongly suspect that once that kind of procedure becomes common, the scientists will move on to eradicating disabilities.

I strongly believe that each and every one of us is designed the way we are, for a reason and for a purpose. I also believe in the statement of "what doesn't kill you, makes you stronger".

If we start to mess around with nature, then I don't know what kind of World we'll live in.

Well after starting 40 threads on delicate subjects I am glad you have been able to hold yourself back from giving us the sermon for so long.

Lets not mess around with nature you say....total bollocks I say...humans by their very being have played around with nature from almost day 1 and nature is no guide to take to humanity and respect for the fellow man.

You admit that you would take life saving cancer drugs but not allow a genetic disease to be stopped before it can start...how do you reconcile that with 'not messing with nature'?

Nature is the most brutal beast there is...you say people should just live with disease and disability but the true fact is that if we let nature takes it's course the diseased and the disabled would lead a very short and very painful lifes...thankfully most humans have learned that natures brutal ways are not the be all and end all and have learned to minimise the effects of disease and treat disabled people with respect...you chose a convenient line in the sand to fit your specific moral thoughts but you fail to see that not messing around with nature would lead to huge suffering around the world overnight.

To even state that you believe in:"what doesn't kill you, makes you stronger".
totally disgusts me and through that I have lost any respect for any of your arguments....your lack of ability to understand the suffering of serious disease or disability is quite breath taking in it's ignorance and arrogance.

[Jay]

Falkirk I wonder if you might change your mind if you become a parent? I cant believe that anybody would think that a child dying from some horrible disease like Cystic Fybrosis or Muscular Dystrophy is something we should accept as 'mother nature' doing her stuff.

Disabilities are slightly different as people can adapt their lives around it and lead a pretty normal life. I agree that people with disabilities are strong people due to the nature of their challenges.

Children/adults with life shortening diseases are a different story. Have you watched someone with Alzeimers or Parkinsons deteriorate?? If we could rid the world of things like this it would be wonderful.

[hibsbollah]

Well after starting 40 threads on delicate subjects I am glad you have been able to hold yourself back from giving us the sermon for so long.

Lets not mess around with nature you say....total bollocks I say...humans by their very being have played around with nature from almost day 1 and nature is no guide to take to humanity and respect for the fellow man.

You admit that you would take life saving cancer drugs but not allow a genetic disease to be stopped before it can start...how do you reconcile that with 'not messing with nature'?

Nature is the most brutal beast there is...you say people should just live with disease and disability but the true fact is that if we let nature takes it's course the diseased and the disabled would lead a very short and very painful lifes...thankfully most humans have learned that natures brutal ways are not the be all and end all and have learned to minimise the effects of disease and treat disabled people with respect...you chose a convenient line in the sand to fit your specific moral thoughts but you fail to see that not messing around with nature would lead to huge suffering around the world overnight.

To even state that you believe in:"what doesn't kill you, makes you stronger".
totally disgusts me and through that I have lost any respect for any of your arguments....your lack of ability to understand the suffering of serious disease or disability is quite breath taking in it's ignorance and arrogance.

Thats a bit OTT is it not:rolleyes: I personally disagree with Falkirk on this issue but there is a logical argument against genetical intervention, that deserves to be respected even if, like me, you dont agree with it.

[RyeSloan]

Thats a bit OTT is it not:rolleyes: I personally disagree with Falkirk on this issue but there is a logical argument against genetical intervention, that deserves to be respected even if, like me, you dont agree with it.


Is it really OTT?? What is OTT is that someone thinks that:

"cancer and other horrible diseases/illnesses are just things that we humans have to accept"

"what doesn't kill you, makes you stronger".

Clearly he has little empathy for the millions who suffer from terrible life debilitating diseases every day of their life...it is after all just something they should be getting on with is it not, a kind of character building excercise prescribed by God. :bitchy:

[hibsbollah]

Is it really OTT?? What is OTT is that someone thinks that:

"cancer and other horrible diseases/illnesses are just things that we humans have to accept"

"what doesn't kill you, makes you stronger".

Clearly he has little empathy for the millions who suffer from terrible life debilitating diseases every day of their life...it is after all just something they should be getting on with is it not, a kind of character building excercise prescribed by God. :bitchy:

OK, here's a dilemma that is different from the cancer argument but still relevant and worth thinking about. Sometime in the future, a gene is discovered that causes, or makes more likely, clinical depression. Depression is the western world's biggest killer, apparently. Do you use science to remove the possibility of depression forever in the human population, or do you say no, because of the risk of forever changing what it is that makes us 'human'?

The problem is, pain is part of life. Take away pain, and you change fundamentally what it means to be alive.

[RyeSloan]

OK, here's a dilemma that is different from the cancer argument but still relevant and worth thinking about. Sometime in the future, a gene is discovered that causes, or makes more likely, clinical depression. Depression is the western world's biggest killer, apparently. Do you use science to remove the possibility of depression forever in the human population, or do you say no, because of the risk of forever changing what it is that makes us 'human'?

The problem is, pain is part of life. Take away pain, and you change fundamentally what it means to be alive.


You confuse genes that can have an influence on future state of mind or behaviour (although there seems to be move towards weighting life experience as the much more important factor) and mutated genes that we know can and will result in an inherited disease no matter what the person does with their life.

Of course pain is part of life, were Hibs fans for gawds sake :wink: but there is a hell of big difference to admitting that and saying that people who suffer should just be quiet and accept their lot as it's 'natures way' I would say.

[Sir David Gray]

Well after starting 40 threads on delicate subjects I am glad you have been able to hold yourself back from giving us the sermon for so long.

Lets not mess around with nature you say....total bollocks I say...humans by their very being have played around with nature from almost day 1 and nature is no guide to take to humanity and respect for the fellow man.

You admit that you would take life saving cancer drugs but not allow a genetic disease to be stopped before it can start...how do you reconcile that with 'not messing with nature'?

Nature is the most brutal beast there is...you say people should just live with disease and disability but the true fact is that if we let nature takes it's course the diseased and the disabled would lead a very short and very painful lifes...thankfully most humans have learned that natures brutal ways are not the be all and end all and have learned to minimise the effects of disease and treat disabled people with respect...you chose a convenient line in the sand to fit your specific moral thoughts but you fail to see that not messing around with nature would lead to huge suffering around the world overnight.

To even state that you believe in:"what doesn't kill you, makes you stronger".
totally disgusts me and through that I have lost any respect for any of your arguments....your lack of ability to understand the suffering of serious disease or disability is quite breath taking in it's ignorance and arrogance.

I don't understand this bit. I'm not too sure if you are aware but I am actually disabled, I have been since birth.

I think I was born the way I was, for a reason. It's given me opportunities and outlooks on life that I would not have had if I had been born able bodied.

Finally, i'm not sure why my mention of "what doesn't kill you, makes you stronger" disgusts you. If you experience something in your life that is extremely distressing and you eventually come through it, I think you become a tougher character, as a result.

In an ideal and perfect world, no-one would get sick, there would be no wicked people and there would be no natural disasters.

Unfortunately, we do not live in an ideal world and I believe diseases are all part of the imperfect world that we live in.


Falkirk I wonder if you might change your mind if you become a parent? I cant believe that anybody would think that a child dying from some horrible disease like Cystic Fybrosis or Muscular Dystrophy is something we should accept as 'mother nature' doing her stuff.

Disabilities are slightly different as people can adapt their lives around it and lead a pretty normal life. I agree that people with disabilities are strong people due to the nature of their challenges.

Children/adults with life shortening diseases are a different story. Have you watched someone with Alzeimers or Parkinsons deteriorate?? If we could rid the world of things like this it would be wonderful.

I won't insult anyone, I will admit that all of my comments on each of the issues I have commented on, in this thread, have been down to my personal experiences, I think that's how most people form their opinions. I have not had any children, but if I did have a child and it had one of the illnesses that you mention, then of course it would be absolutely heartbreaking as everyone hopes that their child will be born healthily.

I won't say what I definitely would or wouldn't do if I was put in that situation, as no-one can really say, until they are in that situation. All I can do is give my opinions on what I have experienced, so far.

[Jay]

I don't understand this bit. I'm not too sure if you are aware but I am actually disabled, I have been since birth.

I think I was born the way I was, for a reason. It's given me opportunities and outlooks on life that I would not have had if I had been born able bodied.

Finally, i'm not sure why my mention of "what doesn't kill you, makes you stronger" disgusts you. If you experience something in your life that is extremely distressing and you eventually come through it, I think you become a tougher character, as a result.

In an ideal and perfect world, no-one would get sick, there would be no wicked people and there would be no natural disasters.

Unfortunately, we do not live in an ideal world and I believe diseases are all part of the imperfect world that we live in.



I won't insult anyone, I will admit that all of my comments on each of the issues I have commented on, in this thread, have been down to my personal experiences, I think that's how most people form their opinions. I have not had any children, but if I did have a child and it had one of the illnesses that you mention, then of course it would be absolutely heartbreaking as everyone hopes that their child will be born healthily.

I won't say what I definitely would or wouldn't do if I was put in that situation, as no-one can really say, until they are in that situation. All I can do is give my opinions on what I have experienced, so far.


It would be interesting to do this again in a few years and see where we all stand then as my opinions have definitely changed over the years. I did know about your disabilty but it made no difference to my opinions on here. I do find your opinions strange though giving the challenges and discrimination you must have faced at times in your life.

[Petrie's Tache]

The idea of removing major illness from the world is a humane idea!

However, the population of the planet is rising at the moment i.e look at China. What would happen if people didn't die of these illnesses and what effect would it have on the population? Could the planet sustain it?

[sleeping giant]

FH is a deeply religios person from what i can gather and i'm sure his views on things come from his beliefs.
Thats not a slight on you FH. I respect and admire people who can find an inner peace through religion.

For the record , i am against it but would most likely use it if i had a need for it:confused:



Well after starting 40 threads on delicate subjects I am glad you have been able to hold yourself back from giving us the sermon for so long.

Lets not mess around with nature you say....total bollocks I say...humans by their very being have played around with nature from almost day 1 and nature is no guide to take to humanity and respect for the fellow man.

You admit that you would take life saving cancer drugs but not allow a genetic disease to be stopped before it can start...how do you reconcile that with 'not messing with nature'?

Nature is the most brutal beast there is...you say people should just live with disease and disability but the true fact is that if we let nature takes it's course the diseased and the disabled would lead a very short and very painful lifes...thankfully most humans have learned that natures brutal ways are not the be all and end all and have learned to minimise the effects of disease and treat disabled people with respect...you chose a convenient line in the sand to fit your specific moral thoughts but you fail to see that not messing around with nature would lead to huge suffering around the world overnight.

To even state that you believe in:"what doesn't kill you, makes you stronger".
totally disgusts me and through that I have lost any respect for any of your arguments....your lack of ability to understand the suffering of serious disease or disability is quite breath taking in it's ignorance and arrogance.

Cracking post:agree:


thin end of the wedge...
Tis indeed:agree:

[RyeSloan]

I don't understand this bit. I'm not too sure if you are aware but I am actually disabled, I have been since birth.

I think I was born the way I was, for a reason. It's given me opportunities and outlooks on life that I would not have had if I had been born able bodied.

Finally, i'm not sure why my mention of "what doesn't kill you, makes you stronger" disgusts you. If you experience something in your life that is extremely distressing and you eventually come through it, I think you become a tougher character, as a result.


Fair enough but I find your stance all the more strange considering.

Also your concept of a major illness simply making you stonger because you survived it some what bizzare...I have witnessed people surviving an illness yet never coming close to having the quality of life they had before it, peoples lives being destoyed by parkinsons and the effect it has on others around them. You seem to think this is a good thing and should be accepted, I happen to think we should do nothing of the sort and strive to avoid it as much as possible.

[Sir David Gray]

It would be interesting to do this again in a few years and see where we all stand then as my opinions have definitely changed over the years. I did know about your disabilty but it made no difference to my opinions on here. I do find your opinions strange though giving the challenges and discrimination you must have faced at times in your life.

I have faced many challenges in my life, that would not have been a concern, had I been born able bodied.

But those challenges have, I believe, made me stronger. I have accepted my life and I can't actually imagine it being any different. In fact, I don't think I would want it to be.


Fair enough but I find your stance all the more strange considering.

Also your concept of a major illness simply making you stonger because you survived it some what bizzare...I have witnessed people surviving an illness yet never coming close to having the quality of life they had before it, peoples lives being destoyed by parkinsons and the effect it has on others around them. You seem to think this is a good thing and should be accepted, I happen to think we should do nothing of the sort and strive to avoid it as much as possible.

I have never said that diseases like Parkinson's, are a "good thing", they're anything but. I said that they are, unfortunately, part of life and part of nature and that nature is something that should not be messed around with, to the extent that you're basically changing a foetus into a different person.

I believe that, instead of altering people's genetics to prevent a disease that only might happen, scientists should be using their skills to come up with a drug that can be used to help heal someone with a disease, as and when it is actually required.

Joe Bloggs could be born without defective cancer genes, parkinson's genes, alzheimers genes, in fact you name it and he's had it removed. However, when he's 5 years old, he's knocked down by a car and is left paralysed from the neck down.

That's an extreme example but it emphasises my point that time and money should be put in to help overcome problems when they actually present themselves and without compromising the natural genetic make up of a human being.

[RyeSloan]

Your example is completely flawed....of course accidents will happen but why should we let disease happen as well because someone might get knocked down? Anyway the boy in you example is not dead, just made stronger going by your arguements so far.

You are happy enough to intervene with nature AFTER a disease has been evidenced but not before...why? Whats the difference?

Despite prevention always being better than a cure I'm also curious that you are more than happy to support modern medicine....cell therapy (not just stem cells either) and the like are the future of disease treatment where one type of cell is reprogrammed to replace or cure another are in the body that has been damaged by disease, if that's not messing with nature I don't know what is..do you support such intervention (something that might actually give your 5 year old his mobility back)...or do we only get 19th century medicince in your vision of our future?

[Andy74]

FH.

If everything that goes on is really God's will, then surely having people born with the ability to go and learn how to alter human genes and 'mess with nature' is actually, by it's nature the will of God.

A God would not have made this possible if it was not his ultimate will surely?

Or do we just pick and choose the things that happen as God's will if they don't suit?

[HibsMax]

I voted yes but I don't think it's that clearcut. I don't think we should be trying to engineer babies that are totally immune to all known diseases because diseases have a way of mutating. If the body can't deal with these mutations then the "perfect" baby is potentially more likely to suffer.

BUT.

If there is something that can be done to alter the DNA to prevent certain illnesses such as diabetes, cancer(s), etc. then.....who knows?

But how far do you take the argument? I'm not sure we want to be messing too much e.g., Let's say science identifies a gene common in ALL serial killers. Now let's say that a pregnant mother has some tests run and it turns out her unborn child has this gene. What then? I'll not worry about that yet since we're mainly discussing disease.

Fundamentally speaking, what is the difference between treating a sick human and treating an unborn human? Some people go through some VERY intense procedures and therapy to deal with illnesses they have. If science can make that a thing of the past, I say go for it.

[HibsMax]

I understand your argument but I just think that cancer and other horrible diseases/illnesses are just things that we humans have to accept, as things we sometimes contract. As I said in my last post, if someone removes a gene that prevents cancer, there's nothing to say that you wouldn't develop some other illness that would be just as horrendous.
that's a crap argument and you HAVE to know that, right? "Hey, Johnny, don't bother with that expensive, experimental cancer treatment cuz even if it works there's not guarantee you won't get hit by a bus tomorrow. Just accept it and live what's left of your life."


I watched a programme today that mentioned this very subject and a scientist came out with a statement that is not a million miles away from my position. He said that this whole process makes people with imperfections, such as the disabled and people with illnesses/diseases, feel as if their "kind" are slowly but surely being eradicated from existence, in favour of creating "perfect" beings.
Hey, why bother trying to cure any diseases? We don't want to hurt anyone's feelings after all.


Now I know that, at the moment, the focus is solely on preventing things like cancer. But I strongly suspect that once that kind of procedure becomes common, the scientists will move on to eradicating disabilities.
and the downside of that is......? I understand that many people with disabilities go on to live fulfilling lives but I am sure that if you asked many of them questions like, "Would you like vision?", "Would you like to have use of your legs?", etc. that some of them would say "Yes". Not all of them and I'm not attempting to speak for these people. That is just my opinion.


I strongly believe that each and every one of us is designed the way we are, for a reason and for a purpose. I also believe in the statement of "what doesn't kill you, makes you stronger".
but what if it kills you?


If we start to mess around with nature, then I don't know what kind of World we'll live in.
Hopefully a slightly better one.

[HibsMax]

I believe that, instead of altering people's genetics to prevent a disease that only might happen, scientists should be using their skills to come up with a drug that can be used to help heal someone with a disease, as and when it is actually required.
if you knew something was going to happen wouldn't you want to prevent it from happening in the first place? Prevention over cure. Why vaccinate children? Why not let them actually get polio or smallpox (old examples) then deal with it?

[Sir David Gray]

FH.

If everything that goes on is really God's will, then surely having people born with the ability to go and learn how to alter human genes and 'mess with nature' is actually, by it's nature the will of God.

A God would not have made this possible if it was not his ultimate will surely?

Or do we just pick and choose the things that happen as God's will if they don't suit?

I'm glad you brought that argument up as I completely understand why people would say that and it's an extremely good opposing viewpoint to what I have said.

It's just a matter of personal opinion.


Your example is completely flawed....of course accidents will happen but why should we let disease happen as well because someone might get knocked down? Anyway the boy in you example is not dead, just made stronger going by your arguements so far.

You are happy enough to intervene with nature AFTER a disease has been evidenced but not before...why? Whats the difference?

Despite prevention always being better than a cure I'm also curious that you are more than happy to support modern medicine....cell therapy (not just stem cells either) and the like are the future of disease treatment where one type of cell is reprogrammed to replace or cure another are in the body that has been damaged by disease, if that's not messing with nature I don't know what is..do you support such intervention (something that might actually give your 5 year old his mobility back)...or do we only get 19th century medicince in your vision of our future?

I have heard people talking about cell therapy, but i'm unsure as to what the whole procedure actually entails, so I wouldn't like to comment.

[LiverpoolHibs]

I understand your argument but I just think that cancer and other horrible diseases/illnesses are just things that we humans have to accept, as things we sometimes contract. As I said in my last post, if someone removes a gene that prevents cancer, there's nothing to say that you wouldn't develop some other illness that would be just as horrendous.

I watched a programme today that mentioned this very subject and a scientist came out with a statement that is not a million miles away from my position. He said that this whole process makes people with imperfections, such as the disabled and people with illnesses/diseases, feel as if their "kind" are slowly but surely being eradicated from existence, in favour of creating "perfect" beings.

Now I know that, at the moment, the focus is solely on preventing things like cancer. But I strongly suspect that once that kind of procedure becomes common, the scientists will move on to eradicating disabilities.

I strongly believe that each and every one of us is designed the way we are, for a reason and for a purpose. I also believe in the statement of "what doesn't kill you, makes you stronger".

If we start to mess around with nature, then I don't know what kind of World we'll live in.

A Christian agreeing with a Nietzschean aphorism. Well I never!

[Sir David Gray]

A Christian agreeing with a Nietzschean aphorism. Well I never!

What can I say, i'm diverse. :greengrin

[RyeSloan]

I'm glad you brought that argument up as I completely understand why people would say that and it's an extremely good opposing viewpoint to what I have said.

It's just a matter of personal opinion.


I have heard people talking about cell therapy,but i'm unsure as to what the whole procedure actually entails, so I wouldn't like to comment.

Handy that. Alberto Gonzales would be proud! :wink:

[Sir David Gray]

Handy that. Alberto Gonzales would be proud! :wink:

I can only be honest. I wouldn't like to comment on something that I'm not fully aware of.

[Dashing Bob S]

No, they should wear normal clothes just like other babies:grr:

I was born in a pair of Italian hand-crafted shoes.