• This topic has 12 voices and 41 replies.
Viewing 12 posts - 31 through 42 (of 42 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #385517

    Anonymous
    Quote:
    That is however a different topic, abortion namely. I as a man support the view that only a woman has the right to decide measures being taken upon her body, this also includes abortion.

    This is offtopic, but it is not her body. It is other human being. I am sorry for rude word, but: "послије [size=2pt]јебања[/size] нема кајања" If she care about her body she should think of it before.

    #385518

    Anonymous
    Quote:
    Absolutley agree on it. Fatc that we coudl control our instincts is what separate us form animals. But even animals wont reject their offspring.
    All designer baby thing is industrialization of birth. It is not ethical, it is unhuman even.

    Animals do often, well always reject weak offspring. They die by natural selection, the survival of the fittest.

    Human, unhuman, ethics are prone to shift with time. It is industrialization of birth, I agree.

    Quote:
    But it's seen as sick and unethical at the moment. And not as widespread, but if this designer baby thing becomes the norm and the common way of conception, then we become "cold" when it comes to life.

    Maybe in Australia it is, here in Europe at least my impression is, that it is normal. What do you mean by cold to life?

    Quote:
    This is offtopic, but it is not her body. It is other human being. I am sorry for rude word, but: "послије [size=2pt]јебања[/size] нема кајања" If she care about her body she should think of it before.

    Yes, but although an other human being (however arguable, is an embryo a sapient therefore human being, or not) is still a part of the mother-to-be, that cannot exist without her.

    #385519

    Anonymous
    Quote:
    Maybe in Australia it is, here in Europe at least my impression is, that it is normal.

    Currently it's banned in Australia, but couples go to south-east Asian countries for this.

    Quote:
    What do you mean by cold to life?

    It devalues life, abortion (atm) is a big decision for some people and some people even become depressed after procedure because of it. But if designer babies become common, then we will be less hesitant when it comes to deciding whether to abort or not. If we can design babies, then maybe one day we will be able to clone humans and grow them in a matter of days or weeks. If this happens, then life isn't going to be as important because we can just make more people so easily. And because you have to pay for it, it becomes commercialised.

    Maybe this isn't a good analogy, but it's the one that came to mind. Because you can buy animals at a pet store, people are less depressed when that pet dies, but if you found this pet in the wild, domesticated it and created a relationship with it, and if you live in a place where you can't just buy dogs or find them easily, then the value of the dog's life is greater.

    #385520

    Anonymous
    Quote:
    Animals do often, well always reject weak offspring. They die by natural selection, the survival of the fittest.

    It does occur, but as I said ability to controll our impulses and isnsticts is what make us humans and not animals.

    Quote:
    Human, unhuman, ethics are prone to shift with time.

    Rather simplified wiew. 

    Quote:
    Yes, but although an other human being (however arguable, is an embryo a sapient therefore human being, or not) is still a part of the mother-to-be, that cannot exist without her.

    It is biologicaly speaking separate life form from mother. It has different genetics, it is other beings life. Sapience is not question there. Embrio is not viable without mother but it toes not make embryo part of her.

    #385521

    Anonymous

    I have a conservative view on this but I can see it happening in the future whether I like it not. Genetic engineering will not necessarily be applied in designing highly intelligent super humans.  It could be used in gender selection or in controlling genetic diseases. In many countries screening for Down’s syndrome during pregnancy is already a standard procedure. There is a list of other genetic diseases that cannot be screened during pregnancy but could possibly be controlled through genetic engineering.  There are some benefits for people.

    #385522

    Anonymous

    I voted Yes. The end justifies the means.

    I am more of a supporter of natural eugenics (like sterilizing schizoprenics, people with genetic diseases and other… undesirable traits), but if we can achieve such advanced technology and make it word wide available, why on earth should we not use it? It could improve quality of life drastically.

    We should not let some false hypocritic judeo-christian morality be a damper to our society.

    #385523

    Anonymous
    Quote:
    We should not let some false hypocritic judeo-christian morality be a damper to our society.

    This has nothing to do with judeo-christian morality. There are many atheist or other religious people who opposse this. I dont truly know what is the point of sterilizing people with schizoprenia or other similar things. ???

    Am not even discussing many such people are wonderful and very clever and some contributed way much to the society than the "healthy" people doing shit. In the end all this bio eengineering stuff wont solve any problems at all.

    #385524

    Anonymous
    Quote:
    This has nothing to do with judeo-christian morality. There are many atheist or other religious people who opposse this. I dont truly know what is the point of sterilizing people with schizoprenia or other similar things. ???

    And yet the starkest opposition to abortion and eugenics comes from Christian zealots. When you ask them why, they feed you some sermon about how "life is holy". People do not need to be Christian to share this view, but they are certainly influenced by Christian ethics and values. And I may quote Cvetinov, ethics are prone to shift with time

    Quote:
    Am not even discussing many such people are wonderful and very clever and some contributed way much to the society than the "healthy" people doing s***. In the end all this bio eengineering stuff wont solve any problems at all.

    Well Poh, that's your opinion and I respect it. I guess only time will tell…
    (I'm not going to answer the sterilization part, it's half taboo topic anyway… Definitely not going to open that can of worms)

    #385525

    Anonymous

    I dislike the idea of playing the exclusive role of nature / god. That's it.

    #385526

    Anonymous
    Quote:
    And yet the starkest opposition to abortion and eugenics comes from Christian zealots. When you ask them why, they feed you some sermon about how "life is holy". People do not need to be Christian to share this view, but they are certainly influenced by Christian ethics and values. And I may quote Cvetinov, ethics are prone to shift with time

    Bla bla bla. Lot of talk about things you hardly know. You ever heard of Hippocratic Oath? Yes, Christians are strongly against abortion. Is that by default wrong?

    Quote:
    We should not let some false hypocritic judeo-christian morality be a damper to our society.

    Another bla bla bla bla. Do you know difference between Christian and Jewish ethics? Do you know Who coined term ὑποκρίτης in modern sense? Next time you feel urge to troll Chrisitianit, try to learn something about it.

    #385527

    Anonymous
    Quote:
    I could see it now.All the rich Asians would make blonde Haired blue eyed babies. I don't know if I like the idea of playing with nature. What if we create a class of humans Who are so much better then natural humans that we will not be able to compete with them. Or maybe I watched too much TV either way I don't really like the idea.

    I totally agree. Today in Turkmenia country the most popular plastic surgery is a removal of epicanthus, in Europe recently was discovered the technology of creating blue eyes from usual brown. Such technology are in demand, rich colored people would necessarily use the biological engineering.

    Quote:
    Everythings we produce is natural, for we belong to the nature ourself, created and brought to life by it. We are already producing a class of humans which is better than the rest, attractive humans mate with other attractive humans, this would just equalise the population, giving them posibilities to improve upon achieved rather than upon inherited by mother nature.

    I don't think that this intervention in the God's business would be compatible with Christianity.

    So, I voted "No".

    #385528

    Anonymous
    Quote:
    No, it would turn the value of life into a consumer product.

    I agree.
    Let nature do her thing.

Viewing 12 posts - 31 through 42 (of 42 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Slavorum

9 User(s) Online Join Server
  • Woodju
  • Fia
  • Piachu
  • 'las
  • Australian Santa
  • Yung Slav