Genetic disease screening (1 Viewer)

[Tangent]

Well I would say that when you're talking about it from purely a disease perspective (as opposed to blonde hair blue eyes reasons), it's actually closer to natural selection, because people with Downs Syndrome for example wouldn't survive, you know, 'in the wild' so to speak, long enough to reproduce and so would be selected against naturally anyway.

Ahh, but will it become so accepted one day, that genetically engineering a human being will become legal?

And i think of it is artifical selection, because humans are choosing which genetic traits to leave, and which to take. Science and natural almost walk hand in hand these days.

 

[SylviaB]

Ahh, but will it become so accepted one day, that genetically engineering a human being will become legal?

And i think of it is artifical selection, because humans are choosing which genetic traits to leave, and which to take. Science and natural almost walk hand in hand these days.

This is not genetic engineering. On the contrary, when limited to the prevention of offspring with serious diseases, this is much closer to letting nature take its course.
And in the end it truly benefits everyone.

 

[*TRUE*]

Hate the idea of terminating any person to be honest.

 

[Lukybear]

oh but your benevolent god creating people with crippling and debilitating genetic diseases is humane??

Hell, I didnt even mention God, but merely morality. Believe it or not, some atheiests are against abortion. Althougth that does not apply to me.

Im not going to deviate to theology, but God did not create disease.

How ever im guessing that you still beleive that it is up to people to choose to be tests, and abort.

I have to ask, if you find terminating embryos so inhumane, what about disposing of sperm, or letting a womans monthly period go to waste? They have the same potential for life.

Free choice must be given. If God apply liberty to us, who are we to destroy that for others?

And yes sperm and periods do have the potential for life, but not the same. A fertilised embryo WILL become a baby, where is gametes are required to fertilise to produce embryos etc...

Embryos are merely A developing stage of a human's life.

 

[Lukybear]

This is not genetic engineering. On the contrary, when limited to the prevention of offspring with serious diseases, this is much closer to letting nature take its course.
And in the end it truly benefits everyone.

That is a sad and abhorrent view. What is a difference between a genetically defect embryo/small child and a disabled person? So what, according to you, we should let all of the disabbled in our society to die? Are they not human? Do they not possess rights? That is a dangerous idea.

 

[withoutaface]

I have a genetic disease, so I'm all for it. My Dad felt really guilty when he found out he'd given it to me, and I don't want my child to have to suffer unnecessarily.

If this thing existed you would never have been born.

 

[hermand]

I volunteered to be tested last year for a whole host of genetic diseases such as Tay-Sachs, Cystic Fibrosis etc. (involved a simple mouth swab)

All clean and I'm glad I found out

but what if you weren't clean? would you want to know? especially if it's a potentially fatal condition, you'd spend your whole life worrying, waiting for it to come.

 

[hermand]

If this thing existed you would never have been born.

that's the main thing that concerns me with this technology, how it affects, mentally and emotionally, those living with the diseases/genetic mutations now. it's basically telling them that they wouldn't have been worth keeping.

otherwise, i don't really have a problem with it.

That is a sad and abhorrent view. What is a difference between a genetically defect embryo/small child and a disabelled person? So what, according to you, we should let all of the disabbled in our society to die? Are they not human? Do they not possess rights? That is a dangerous idea.

disabbled? if you're going to have such a strong point of view, please brush up on your spelling. it made me not able to take your post seriously. i'm not trying to be a bitch, just sayin'.

 

[Tangent]

And yes sperm and periods do have the potential for life, but not the same. A fertilised embryo WILL become a baby, where is gametes are required to fertilise to produce embryos etc...

Embryos are merely A developing stage of a human's life.

I have to disagree. A fertilized egg doesnt always become a baby. There is a chance of miscarriage. 1 out of 5 pregnancies end in miscarriage.
And i view the gametes and the fertilized egg as having the same potential for life, just at different stages of the time line. Its the POTENTIAL.

That is a sad and abhorrent view. What is a difference between a genetically defect embryo/small child and a disabled person? So what, according to you, we should let all of the disabbled in our society to die? Are they not human? Do they not possess rights? That is a dangerous idea.

There is a huge difference between an embryo and a person who has already been living. The embryo has no emotions, now brain function, and doesnt know what the outside world is lie, nor what life is like-therefore it wouldnt be missing anything.

No, we should not let disabled people die, that is silly. They are here, they are human, and have the right to live, just like everyone else. There is a huge difference between an embryo and a person who has experienced life.

that's the main thing that concerns me with this technology, how it affects, mentally and emotionally, those living with the diseases/genetic mutations now. it's basically telling them that they wouldn't have been worth keeping.

The point of this process is not to say "they wouldnt be worth keeping". Its about saving people from suffering before they are even born. We are here now, and the embryos arent yet. We are experiencing live, and all its ups and downs.

 

[Lukybear]

I have to disagree. A fertilized egg doesnt always become a baby. There is a chance of miscarriage. 1 out of 5 pregnancies end in miscarriage.

I doubt 1/5 preganicies ends in miscarriage. Highly doubious in this modern society, especially with far advancement of medicine. Also the design of humans would be far more durable, especially with internal fertilisation.

But if we assume that is the case, you still agree that a embryo goes to full term and becomes a baby no? So the question is posed, what is the difference between a embryo, and a human?

There is a huge difference between an embryo and a person who has already been living. The embryo has no emotions, now brain function, and doesnt know what the outside world is lie, nor what life is like-therefore it wouldnt be missing anything.

So now, lets take the example of a baby, born just seconds from the womb. This baby, would undoubtedly be called a human. Yet no emtions are inspired, consciousness does not exist. It has limited brain function. Does not know what the outside world is, what life is like, and is missing every experience.

So now what differentiates between a baby, who is a human, to a embryo? I suggest nothing.
[/quote]

 

[Kwayera]

I doubt 1/5 preganicies ends in miscarriage. Highly doubious in this modern society, especially with far advancement of medicine. Also the design of humans would be far more durable, especially with internal fertilisation.

No, it's true - it's just that it usually happens so early in the pregnancy that the mother never knows she was pregnant. Foetal abnormalities are normal, and the body usually catches it and spontaneously aborts very early in the process.

 

[MaNiElla]

I would definately love to screen myself, just out of curiosity.

But i'd be devestated if i were to find out that i've passed something to my baby, especially if you're so excited about having it! :S

 

[MaNiElla]

Though the sad thing is that the screening may mean no babies forever for some people, which will be sad tbh. Especially if you want to have a kid/family.