WTF is this forum coming to? Awesome discussions on life, the universe & everything!

True, I did mean that but I worded it incorrectly, I would never say that there is definitely no God, only that there is no need or evidence for one.

 

LOL, sooooooooooooo true!!

I'm like Danny boy, your like little miss M.

Genetics!!

 

oh so telling others to search for topless and semi naked pics is ok.

so if i was to post those sort of pics that is fine rather than the use of words because topless/semi naked pictures are not sexual, only words are.

oh i see.

 

I believe you meant to say the human species, not race, there are several races within the human species.

 

Yeah you got it in one!

 

Actually the message of GATTACA is that genetic tinkering is futile. Genetically perfect people still end up flawed or fall victim to tragedy, and the genetically unmodified still manage to triumph in the random game of life. Nature is a bad-ass mother with a billion years of evolutionary experience in not dying. You think we are going to control her with a few retort tubes and petri dishes and a shaky, superficial knowledge of genetics? Think again.

 

That may be if homosexuality is in the genes. But I'd like to think that if you were able to choose how your offspring would be aligned, then most people would choose to have a child that can love both man and women alike.

I wouldn't want to bring a child into this world at it's current state, but that wouldn't be because some people dislike people with different views.

 

Oh yeah ,watched it all through and understood the same as you. I just don't have as much faith in humanity to learn from such stories. The current male/female ratios of some countries I feel leads credence to my views on this subject.

As far as the human race dying out due too homosexuality, I feel any rational person, religious or not, can't honestly believe this. Yes science has done amazing things, yet, there is still the human factor. What parent wants their child to be born homosexual if they have a say or choice? Now for those out there inclined too, don't blow a gasket just yet at that statement...

But be honest, parents, if you could know, and could change, not abort, just change it, would you? if science can create embryos from two male mice, how long before being able to detect deeper genetic inclinations and traits? How long after that to modifying?....

I need to quit this....

 

It was unclear. Racial survival, for example, would mean the survival of your specific race, not the survival of the human species.

 

The primary definition of sin is "transgression of divine law," so the connotation is ineluctably religious. The only people I ever hear mentioning the word sin are religious people, and my point to IDS-IPS was that debating something which involves two contrary (mutually exclusive) worldviews is ultimately ungainly.

This is in fact at the very core of what is being debated: morality. Like I said above, there are a plethora of worldviews and the issue of morality is the inevitable sticking point. Plus, I think the word you're looking for is relative, not relevant.

 

yes, relative, thank you....geez, it's late.....

I think I'm out for a bit.

Where'd you go to Tribble?

 

Sorry dude that wasn't aimed at you!

 

Outside of maths there are no absolutes.
This baby was born with its brain outside its skull, yet it was alive. What would you suggest the doctors do in such a case? Would not the humane thing be to but the child to sleep and end its misery?

Morals are fluid, and are bent to fit the situations. Generally we all agree that killing people is wrong, yet in some cases we even go so far as to applaud it. Why? If morals are absolute then surely we shouldn't succumb to praising the guy who, in self-defence, killed his family's would-be murderer. Nor should anyone defend the death penalty. Or do you find that it is only wrong for civilians to kill people, but that the government should be free to do so?

Our concepts of morals have changed throughout the centuries, and they will continue to change as our civilisation evolves for as long as it is around.

Definitely.
If they could, via a simple screening test, determine in-utero that my coming child would be born with a genetic disorder (such as Huntington's, Hemophilia or others), or with a genetic predisposition for developing heart problems, MS or any of the multitude of other debilitating diseases that affect us. Then yes, I would definitely opt to have them eliminate those possibilities. Would I however, want to have them change it if it turned out that my coming child might turn out to be homosexual? No. Homosexuality is not a disease. I am a father of two, twins in fact (one of each gender), and I can honestly state that if either of them (or both for that matter) turns out to be homosexual it will not bother me the slightest. I will continue to love them just the same, and I will continue to want nothing but the best for them.

Abortion is a whole other issue, and it would take a lot for me to consider that option. I do feel though, that we should be free to choose that option if indeed we wanted to.

 

That issue is an old one. Parents have been trying to modify their offspring to give it (or the family, or tribe) survival advantages since time immemorial.

In biology, everything that a parent gives its offspring to maximise its survival is called privillige. Good genes are privillige, but so is the egg yolk in an egg, or the caterpillar that some wasps lay their eggs in, or a warm nest, or the food and protection that parents give their new-born as they raise them to independence.

In humans it is food, clothing, education, socioeconomic status and ties with the right people (e.g. by trying to flatter a rich or respected acquaintance into being godparent), but also family name and bloodline. Many people still select the 'right' partner as being from the right family and right sociocultural background. For many the right ethnicity matters, and the right religion, caste, socioeconomic achievement etc. We are of course also biologically wired to select for fit, healthy reproductive partners. All these factors are privillige, and they make a selective genetic impact.

So if parents try to give their child the best chances in life not just by giving it the best background, food, clothing, education, social network et al. then why would they stop at trying to give it the best genes? It's almost inevitable.

 

Now there's a political manifesto I could get behind - mandatory buggery, wearing leather caps I hope.

I think there's generally two types of people out there: those who would intervene, and those who don't care. Actively wanting your child to be homosexual is as daft as actively wanting it to be heterosexual - loosen the grip you frickin' control freaks!

I've recently been the recipient of a first child. Raising children is something to fill the time as life goes by. I have no aims, hopes or expectations for my child, why should I have? There is no target in life (except for death), 'success' (man I dislike that word) is relative, what other people think of me or my child is up to them. I challenge anyone here to describe what a perfect life would be for me to try and achieve for my offspring. Whether my child lives to 150 or dies in infancy, I will have the comfort of the joy and love that we've shared and the joint experiences we've had. I would have no particular expectation to ever become a grand-parent as that is completely up to how my child would choose to live life.

As long as the ability is there for people to control and influence their children in pretty extreme ways, some people will pursue such avenues. But I personally can't see how trying to impact your child's life so strongly by choosing their sexuality, or anything else, makes for a particularly healthy or pleasing parent-child relationship.

 

I feel the need to clarify a personal view.

I would never, could never if given the choice or power to decide, abort my child if it was determined if it was homosexual. Regardless of it's state, I could do nothing less than love them and support them. Even if a child lets say...umm...murders, I could do no less then love and support. I do not have to like or support what they have done, and would encourage and guide to face the legal ramifications of their actions.

What I have posited earlier was me posting what I fear will be without moral absolutes. I just pray not in my, my children, my grandchildrens and on...lifetimes.

 

But would you be comfortable with someone choosing to abort their baby because it has been detected that it will have religious tendencies?

 

I'm not comfortable with abortion, full stop.(That's two full stops for you Brits.)

To the best of my knowledge, to date, there has not been a consensus, discussion or scientific study dealing with religious choices and genetics. Maybe I'm just ignorant of it, regardless, you have my answer above.

 

Ok sorry I miss-read your post with that question! Would you be ok with a parent changing that about their child though? It is the same as asking whether you would change their sexuality and I would like to know what you think.

 

The concept of eugenics both scares and nauseates me. We're deciding who should live and die, and what traits they should have-as though I don't like what you say, so nobody after you will be born with the want to say it. But, further than that-I have a rare and terminal genetic disorder. One that most people would say would be easier with if a child with it were just aborted. But I've lived a rather full life. I have a wife and a child, I have seven patents so far to my name, and I am giving science a chance to come up with treatments to help others. I don't think my life would have been better if I had never been born.

Further than that, my son was born with extreme hydrocephalus. Initial scans showed almost no brain matter. Doctors were divided over what to do-some advocated a partial birth abortion. Some said hydrocephalus treatments were amazing now. Some said it was holoprosencephaly. We made our decision based on what was in our heart and according to our beliefs. Snort had a large amount of cortex spring up after shunting-proving that there was much more brain there than originally thought. He'll be a paraplegic, and he's behind on his milestones, but every time he squawks at Mr. Bumpy and flops over to rub his face on him I'm reminded quality of life is up to the individual-not the observers. That is one gloriously happy little boy most of the time. Does he have his struggles? Of course. Are they worse than other children? You don't even want to know how bad they are. But he has a ball with life. Everyone loves to play with him. It's a case of just because his life isn't perfect doesn't mean it's not worth living. I honestly don't think we're qualified to make the decision for others. At least not without evidence of their wishes. I have a living will in place that dictates if my mind is damaged beyond repair (my condition almost guarantees strokes, and there are always surgery complications too-when's the last time you were on a ventilator? It's not yet been a year I was off after surgery) then I'd like to be let go. But the difference is that I lived, truly lived-I had been accorded my chance, and I took it. Look at Hawking's contributions to science. Eugenics wouldn't have accorded him a chance, and we would have missed out. It can record a person's potential handicaps, but not their true potential.

And as for destroying homosexual children in utero, I wouldn't care if my child fell in love with a pool table, he's my child. If you look at issues in Christianity as simply sin is sin, it's no worse on the spectrum than telling a lie. I don't see it as a plague that will destroy humanity, I don't see the destruction of heterosexual marriage, I see a person who got programmed a little differently than me, and the only honorable and respectable thing to do is treat them like the human being they are. Anything less is wrong in my opinion. People rush to judge them as some horrible mutant from beyond the stars when they didn't ask to be any different from any of us-and really, they aren't. If you want to talk about sin, it's no less sinful to be adulterous, or a perpetual drunk (drinking is one thing, but staying sloshed is another thing entirely, and we agree it's a poor idea for your health apart from any belief system) or a shoplifter or even a habitual liar. It's never accorded a magical status. We tolerate all kinds of other sin because we recognize people are human and won't be perfect, it's time we recognized that this is just like that. We are commanded (in the strongest language in the New Testament) to hate the sin, but love the sinner-and we are seriously failing at loving the sinner. Loving the sinner in this case means giving them the same honor and respect you would anyone else-and I believe that extends to allowing them the same opportunities that heterosexuals have. It's a simple thing called equality, and we fail at it routinely.

I am still fighting off my drugs this morning, so I'll return to this at a later time. I still have more to say here.