Forcing Evolution

[dairygirl4u2c]

when i say choose what sperm i am not saying, sterilize etc. just fyi

[JesusIsMySuperHero]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1507042' date='Apr 22 2008, 07:18 PM']when i say choose what sperm i am not saying, sterilize etc. just fyi[/quote]

Wtf is the difference? sorry for the language, but wtf is the differnce?

You are still deciding which people are born, instead of God. That is taking authority over something that is uniquely God's authority, so you are rebelling against him by spewing these lies. You think this stuff is positive, and it is not. It is unholy and rebellion against God! I would be very careful, because you have said that it is our right given by God to end suffering. If God doesn't want us to do that, because he wants to have dominion over who is born, and not us, than you are guilty of Iniquity, which is to say something is of God when it is not!

God will throw you into outer darkness if you are wrong? Are you willing to gamble with your soul? I am certainly not going to gamble with my soul. He is soveriegn, and I will accept which children, no matter what the disability or genetic flaw, that he deems necesssary to be born into this world.

This is not man's domain to mess around in.

[BeenaBobba]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1504374' date='Apr 20 2008, 05:07 PM']i think we could manipulate genes of monkeys etc and determine a way that would minimize bad consequences should we do it to humans.[/quote]

The problem with that is that primates, while genetically similar to human beings, aren't [i]exactly[/i] the same. We'd never be able to predict every consequence before experimenting on human beings, so I don't think it's something we should play around with.

[quote]if it's gonna cause bad consequenes, i'm generally against it. really i'm just talking theoretically, if we knew no bad consequences, then what? you cna't say bad consequences when my qhole premise has addressed that.[/quote]

No offense, but my biggest problem with your premise is that it's totally unrealistic. The only way we could get to the point where we'd be confident there'd be no bad consequences would be through human experimentation, and even then, the potential for human error can't be completely discounted.

Not only that, but I highly doubt we'd ever be able to completely prevent and/or control genetic mutations and environmental factors. Both can cause diseases and abnormalities.

[quote]i can see if you think some people are dumber and that's just eh way it is... etc. but, at least for preventing diseases and such, isn't that something that we should change?[/quote]

The thing is, your premise is rather vague. It's impossible to say we'd approve of something when there are no specific examples of [i]how[/i] one would go about manipulating genes to prevent certain diseases.

[quote]the world is not perfect right now, i don't think anyone can disagree with that. innocent people are born suffering etc. whatever the reason for it, sin etc, it's still not perfect and we can be cocreators to prevent it.[/quote]

I think you're giving the human race too much credit. We'll never get to the point where we'll be without error, so we'll never get to the point where the world is a perfect place. Heck, some people might even [i]choose[/i] to be imperfect as a form of rebellion.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]No offense, but my biggest problem with your premise is that it's totally unrealistic. The only way we could get to the point where we'd be confident there'd be no bad consequences would be through human experimentation, and even then, the potential for human error can't be completely discounted.[/quote]

if you read the gene therapy thread, i think i'm showing that it's realistic. sure, there might be some odds and ends that are bad, but that's just the way it is with guinea pigs. as far as i know, the only thing bad really is cautious is guinea pigs, and some people can't do it as their body rejects it but that's not really bad. maybe a few die. same as it is now though, with medications etc. i don't see a difference.

i can see not thinking we should try to become super humans, but the curing diseases stuff i'm pretty adament about.

i will concede that i'm lacking in the info as far as how viable it is... and if it turns out bad then we stop. but, as far as realistic i wouldn't say at all that it's "totally unrealistic" but rather at worst is uncertain.

are you against the use of guinea pigs? i see you responded in the gene therapy thread after this one, so maybe that thread was illuminating for you.

Edited April 23, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[BeenaBobba]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1507145' date='Apr 23 2008, 12:19 AM']if you read the gene therapy thread, i think i'm showing that it's realistic. sure, there might be some odds and ends that are bad, but that's just the way it is with guinea pigs. as far as i know, the only thing bad really is cautious is guinea pigs, and some people can't do it as their body rejects it but that's not really bad. maybe a few die. same as it is now though, with medications etc. i don't see a difference.[/quote]

Yeah, but isn't this thread is about preventing disease by manipulating genes [i]before[/i] conception? One of my points was that I don't see disease being completely eradicated that way simply because genetic mutations and environmental factors can and will come into play regardless of gene manipulation. In terms of potentiality, every egg and sperm cell has the potential to carry "unwanted" genetic material. I mean, is there such a thing as a perfect egg or sperm cell? Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think so. Anyhow, there are too many variables, and we'd never be able to control each and every one of them.

E.g., if a woman carried the gene (genes?) for hemophilia, you'd advocate either (1) preventing the egg carrying the gene from being fertilized or (2) manipulating the gene within the egg so that it's no longer active and problematic, correct? I want to make sure I understand your argument.