Eugenics, for or Against?

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
Gene expression is not guaranteed is it? I mean, just because a characteristic is present in dna does not mean it will manifest in the organism, does it?

Without absolute knowledge of exactly what the product of combining two different genetic codes would be, you can’t really predict what the outcome will be, can you? Aside from a basic schematic terms, I mean, like dog + dog = dog.

So, say you want a brown haired, blue eyed, genius. Geneticist does his thing, and out comes a brown haired, blue eyed, genius that sprouts tumors like a field of daisies at the age of 40.

You got what you wanted though, right?

Disclaimer- I don’t know shit about genetic science or the current state of it.

[/quote]

[quote]
In some instances, phenotype is guaranteed in the 90th percentile. In some cases it is lower. For instance, effectively all viable humans are born with at least one lung.[/quote]
Sure, viable humans are born with at least one lung. But many non viable humans are born with a plethora of defects.

[quote]
What you state above is the obvious potential downside. It’s obvious… got it? I don’t suspect that geneticists have overlooked this possibility. Nor do I suspect that trials that cannot overcome these types of possibilities would get very far in the world.[/quote]
Thats why I wasn’t talking about possibilities, or what one suspects, but facts and having a guaranteed predictable outcome. Otherwise you are setting a ticking time bomb to go off at an unknown time and with unknown effect at some point in another persons life.

Ask Dolly the sheep and her predecessors, but sure, there is Also good reason to be concerned about environmental exposure.

My understanding of it as a natural occurrance is that it is a product of tissue turn over. Of the billions of cells that are created to replace existing tissues, some are mutated and not perfect replica of the intended cell. Tumors and growths occur when the immune system do not remove the anomalous cells and they are able to replicate. With higher incidence of tissue damage due to environmental/chemical exposure and replication of damaged cells comes higher risks of cancer.

Even an enhanced immune system would be an interesting effect, but then there is a problem with it attacking healthy viable tissues, a condition that occurs naturally in some viable humans.

[quote]jakerz96 wrote:
What’s desirable? You might be able to tell me that no one is killed, but no one is forced to do anything? That’s a stretch as I am sure some people would be told not to breed. “Eugenics (let me quote from Webster) is: a science that deals with the improvement (as by control of human mating) of hereditary qualities of a race or breed.” What you seem to be talking about as positive eugenics is gene therapy (that I might be in favor of). That my friend is different entirely as it infringes on no one’s liberty, but rather is promoting healing of disease in a person rather than eradication of undesirable qualities via controlled breeding.[/quote]

Gene therapy is a method of eugenics. It is in fact “positive eugenics.”

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
Gene expression is not guaranteed is it? I mean, just because a characteristic is present in dna does not mean it will manifest in the organism, does it?

Without absolute knowledge of exactly what the product of combining two different genetic codes would be, you can’t really predict what the outcome will be, can you? Aside from a basic schematic terms, I mean, like dog + dog = dog.

So, say you want a brown haired, blue eyed, genius. Geneticist does his thing, and out comes a brown haired, blue eyed, genius that sprouts tumors like a field of daisies at the age of 40.

You got what you wanted though, right?

Disclaimer- I don’t know shit about genetic science or the current state of it.

[/quote]

[quote]
In some instances, phenotype is guaranteed in the 90th percentile. In some cases it is lower. For instance, effectively all viable humans are born with at least one lung.[/quote]
Sure, viable humans are born with at least one lung. But many non viable humans are born with a plethora of defects.

Also longer life spans. The longer you live, the more replications your cells make and the more crap your exposed to.

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
we keep religion out of it.
[/quote]

And, like I originally said…I’m not bring religion into this, I’m using Natural Law, a valid moral code that prosecutors used to convict the people at the Nuremberg Trials. Just because the moral code from which I argue has absolutes, doesn’t mean I’m bringing religion in to it. I’m using reason and philosophy. [/quote]

The idea of Natural Law is subject to the same criticisms as the idea of religion, in the scope of this topic. It’s impossible to debate intelligently when people assume ethereal absolutes like Natural Law, particularly when there is no objective evidence for this assumption. Your claim that it violates Natural Law can’t be trumped, any more than the claim that it violates the will of god.

Then again, I’m not sure you can completely divorce any discussion of morality from such assumptions. [/quote]

Exactly, morals aren’t morals unless they are absolute.

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
First about your post on the top of page three ^ how can you justify killing an embryo because a small number die for various reasons in mothers womb around this country??

Vaccinations mean nothing. I had very few vaccinations as a kid. My mom smoked all the time and I was often sick during the winter because I was inside the house and around second hand smoke that much more. I moved out when I was 17 and have never lived in the same house as a smoker and guess what?? I am never sick!! My fucking God, quit telling me you KNOW how a child will turn out when you don’t even have a clue as to how real life works!! Try to tell me you are NOT pro choice!? And tell me what this vaccination problem is you speak of.

So we need more variation in the human genetic population?? Well you are wrong, plus I know we all do NOT fuck out cousins like you.

[quote]Tex Ag wrote:
I think people can look at the current vaccination issues to see where this might lead. Individuals make decisions for their kids not considering the cost to the greater population. Outbreaks and deaths from diseases that were nearly eradication decades ago are popping up in often wealthy neighborhoods (I point this out because of the class distinctions made earlier). What might be best for an individual may be worse for the greater population.

Animal species are healthier and more adaptive the greater their genetic gene pool. There are risks in shrinking the human genetic pool - especially since gene interactions are very poorly understood. Isolating what a particular gene may or may not do is ignoring the other genes involved in whether the gene is question is trigger and how the outcome manifests.

It is like saying that genetic manipulation is needed because a man has a gene that says he will get prostate cancer. One of the treatments for prostate cancer is doing nothing because it usually grows so slowly and shows in old men who will probably dies of something else before the cancer kills them. Now, if that gene that ‘needs to be removed’ also serves another function - even as placeholder - the alternatives after removal are unknown and could potentially be much worse.[/quote]
[/quote]

Why on earth is it bad to breed with your cousins?

Here are some stats on miscarriages. Far more than a few.

"Miscarriage is the most common type of pregnancy loss, according to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). Studies reveal that anywhere from 10-25% of all clinically recognized pregnancies will end in miscarriage. Chemical pregnancies may account for 50-75% of all miscarriages. This occurs when a pregnancy is lost shortly after implantation, resulting in bleeding that occurs around the time of her expected period. The woman may not realize that she conceived when she experiences a chemical pregnancy…

What are the chances of having a Miscarriage?

For women in childbearing years, the chances of having a miscarriage can range from 10-25%, and in most healthy women the average is about a 15-20% chance.

* An increase in maternal age affects the chances of miscarriage
* Women under the age of 35 yrs old have about a 15% chance of miscarriage
* Women who are 35-45 yrs old have a 20-35% chance of miscarriage
* Women over the age of 45 can have up to a 50% chance of miscarriage
* A woman who has had a previous miscarriage has a 25% chance of having another (only a slightly elevated risk than for someone who has not had a previous miscarriage)"

http://www.americanpregnancy.org/pregnancycomplications/miscarriage.html

So, far from a few embryos dieing naturally in the womb.

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

Exactly, morals aren’t morals unless they are absolute.[/quote]

Being stubborn doesn’t make you correct.

http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/86/2/07-040089/en/

Vaccinations: scroll down to “herd protection” to understand how the actions of the surrounding population can protect individuals.

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
If we created a pill that guarantees our kids would never get cancer, wouldn’t we give it to them in a heartbeat?

If we could modify their genetic code to provide the same protection, wouldn’t we also do it in a heartbeat?[/quote]

Exactly. Some of these questions are a no brainer. Others are a little tougher.[/quote]

Two pretty big ifs. Pills have side effects. The cure is often worse than the disease.

Mutant children because some scientist knows less than he thinks is not the best idea.

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
My fucking God, quit telling me you KNOW how a child will turn out when you don’t even have a clue as to how real life works!! Try to tell me you are NOT pro choice!? And tell me what this vaccination problem is you speak of.
[/quote]

I never intimated that anyone knows exactly how a child will turn out, quite the opposite. In fact my post questioned, like others had, that we can with any certainty understand fully the outcome of manipulating genes.

Whooping cough outbreaks
http://www.aolhealth.com/2010/09/17/whooping-cough-outbreak-largest-in-55-years/

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
we keep religion out of it.
[/quote]

And, like I originally said…I’m not bring religion into this, I’m using Natural Law, a valid moral code that prosecutors used to convict the people at the Nuremberg Trials. Just because the moral code from which I argue has absolutes, doesn’t mean I’m bringing religion in to it. I’m using reason and philosophy. [/quote]

The idea of Natural Law is subject to the same criticisms as the idea of religion, in the scope of this topic. It’s impossible to debate intelligently when people assume ethereal absolutes like Natural Law, particularly when there is no objective evidence for this assumption. Your claim that it violates Natural Law can’t be trumped, any more than the claim that it violates the will of god.

Then again, I’m not sure you can completely divorce any discussion of morality from such assumptions. [/quote]

Exactly, morals aren’t morals unless they are absolute.[/quote]

That’s not actually what I meant. Morals don’t have to be absolute in order to prescribe human behavior, which is what morals do. But let’s not rehash that discussion. I was saying that any discussion of morality implies assumptions about values, independent of actual facts. Where you stand on the morality of eugenics depends on what your values are.

“Oh, I’ll take my child copper-toned, with “good hair,” a civil disposition, prone to pursue and excel in academics. Oh, and make sure my product is heterosexual.”

Or, are we talking some new fangled diversity/affirmative action controlled eugenics? Like, federal funds being awarded to engineer adequate populations of under-represented baby-products?

It’s often troublesome enough for some children when their parents can’t afford the right brands and styles of jeans…I can only imagine the taunting if they’re lacking the fashionable genes.

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

Exactly, morals aren’t morals unless they are absolute.[/quote]

Being stubborn doesn’t make you correct.
[/quote]

Being wrong doesn’t make you correct.

[quote]Sloth wrote:
“Oh, I’ll take my child copper-toned, with “good hair,” a civil disposition, prone to pursue and excel in academics. Oh, and make sure my product is heterosexual.”

Or, are we talking some new fangled diversity/affirmative action controlled eugenics? Like, federal funds being awarded to engineer adequate populations of under-represented baby-products?

It’s often troublesome enough for some children when their parents can’t afford the right brands and styles of jeans…I can only imagine the taunting if they’re lacking the fashionable genes. [/quote]

Yeah… I can see all sorts of way it can be used wrongly and cause problems myself. Brave new world.

So do have a medical degree to back any of your opinions?! All you have done is tell me your preference, like chocolate vs vanilla ice cream.

  • An embryo has their own complete and entirely separate genome from the mother at the moment of conception!!

  • The size is different, I give you that. However the same can be said about every person on earth, throughout their entire lives.

  • The level of development is different, but see above because we all change everyday in this world.

  • Environment is different, but guess what?? Your house is a different environment than any other on the earth.

  • Degree of dependency also defines the differences between the unborn and every other person on earth as they ‘grow up’

So I provided you with 4 characteristics that define the unborn and every person on earth. Please provide me with a structured rebuttal for each of the points I brought forth. As a side note, I will be gone for the three day so I might not reply to your post right away.

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:
It is getting a bit old when people keep on equating embryo’s to living human beings. It is true to say that an embyro is living human tissue, but it is not a human being. It is no more a human being than my liver cells are. Each one of those cells has the genetic instructions to create a complete human being and subsequent copy of me, and they are alive. They are not human beings though, they are liver cells.

Embyro’s are collections of stem cells and nothing more. You cannot argue the case that an unborn child is even close to a human being until late in term. Society and the rest of the civilised world accepts this fact as evidenced by our abortion laws and mature attitude to this.
[/quote]

So which entity defines who counts and who doesn’t?

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
Why do you think that your case applies to everyone? [/quote]

Show me ONE credible source on this world wide web, which states inbreeding is advantageous in the HUMAN population.

[quote]Tex Ag wrote:
Why on earth is it bad to breed with your cousins?[/quote]

How does this by any means define how YOU can choose who dies and which child lives?? Plus I KNOW far more abortions kill children in this country than miscarriages ever would. Even at 6’7" I know that is a stretch!!

[quote]Tex Ag wrote:
Here are some stats on miscarriages. Far more than a few.

"Miscarriage is the most common type of pregnancy loss, according to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). Studies reveal that anywhere from 10-25% of all clinically recognized pregnancies will end in miscarriage. Chemical pregnancies may account for 50-75% of all miscarriages. This occurs when a pregnancy is lost shortly after implantation, resulting in bleeding that occurs around the time of her expected period. The woman may not realize that she conceived when she experiences a chemical pregnancy…

What are the chances of having a Miscarriage?

For women in childbearing years, the chances of having a miscarriage can range from 10-25%, and in most healthy women the average is about a 15-20% chance.

* An increase in maternal age affects the chances of miscarriage
* Women under the age of 35 yrs old have about a 15% chance of miscarriage
* Women who are 35-45 yrs old have a 20-35% chance of miscarriage
* Women over the age of 45 can have up to a 50% chance of miscarriage
* A woman who has had a previous miscarriage has a 25% chance of having another (only a slightly elevated risk than for someone who has not had a previous miscarriage)"

http://www.americanpregnancy.org/pregnancycomplications/miscarriage.html

So, far from a few embryos dieing naturally in the womb.

[/quote]

Guess what, they haven’t even cured the common cold yet!!

[quote]Tex Ag wrote:
I never intimated that anyone knows exactly how a child will turn out, quite the opposite. In fact my post questioned, like others had, that we can with any certainty understand fully the outcome of manipulating genes.

Whooping cough outbreaks
http://www.aolhealth.com/2010/09/17/whooping-cough-outbreak-largest-in-55-years/[/quote]

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
First about your post on the top of page three ^ how can you justify killing an embryo because a small number die for various reasons in mothers womb around this country??

Vaccinations mean nothing. I had very few vaccinations as a kid. My mom smoked all the time and I was often sick during the winter because I was inside the house and around second hand smoke that much more. I moved out when I was 17 and have never lived in the same house as a smoker and guess what?? I am never sick!! My fucking God, quit telling me you KNOW how a child will turn out when you don’t even have a clue as to how real life works!! Try to tell me you are NOT pro choice!? And tell me what this vaccination problem is you speak of.

So we need more variation in the human genetic population?? Well you are wrong, plus I know we all do NOT fuck out cousins like you.

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
Why do you think that your case applies to everyone? [/quote]

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
So which entity defines who counts and who doesn’t?[/quote]
[/quote]

No one person decides, and that’s how your post came across if you look at how it’s written. You think b/c you grew up around 2nd-hand smoke, and you say it didn’t affect you(but then go on to say how you were ‘often sick’), that this applies to everyone and it doesn’t.

I can tell you for a fact that certain vaccinations do matter, as I’m in a program that helps produce Win-Rho that saves fetuses from their mother’s immune system.
I also seem to recall a polio vaccine that saved thousands/millions(?) of babies from poliomyelitis.

Here’s another one, the smallpox vaccine.

If you’re going to respond to this, please put some thought and research into your answer.
Your first post seems like it was written in an angry stupor.

Another contradiction. You really don’t know what you’re talking about do you?
If there were no difference in everyone’s genes then we all would be fucking our cousins.