Gamingforce Interactive Forums
85239 35211

Go Back   Exploding Garrmondo Weiner Interactive Swiss Army Penis > Garrmondo Network > Political Palace

Notices

Welcome to the Exploding Garrmondo Weiner Interactive Swiss Army Penis.
GFF is a community of gaming and music enthusiasts. We have a team of dedicated moderators, constant member-organized activities, and plenty of custom features, including our unique journal system. If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ or our GFWiki. You will have to register before you can post. Membership is completely free (and gets rid of the pesky advertisement unit underneath this message).


Costom made babies
Reply
 
Thread Tools
LordsSword
Banned


Member 18063

Level 13.72

Jan 2007


Reply With Quote
Old Jan 22, 2007, 12:42 PM Local time: Jan 22, 2007, 11:42 AM #1 of 12
Costom made babies

I heard about this and my stomach turns at this.

General overview from different perspectives:
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/jan/07010905.html
http://www.slate.com/id/2157495/
http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=24770

Here a brief story about some buyers:
http://www.medindia.net/news/view_ne...p?x=17589&cK=1

Made to order, even with defects:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16299656/

Perhaps my fear of this kind of future keeps me from embracing this sort of thing but movies like Blade Runner & Gattaca came to mind when I heard about this kind of eugenics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics

Jam it back in, in the dark.
knkwzrd
you know i'm ready to party because my pants have a picture of ice cream cake on them


Member 482

Level 45.24

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Jan 22, 2007, 05:24 PM Local time: Jan 22, 2007, 04:24 PM #2 of 12
Blade Runner is about robots and I don't think Gattaca really had an anti-Eugenics stance in the end, so I can't see how either of those films support your fears.

There's nowhere I can't reach.
LordsSword
Banned


Member 18063

Level 13.72

Jan 2007


Reply With Quote
Old Jan 22, 2007, 06:42 PM Local time: Jan 22, 2007, 05:42 PM #3 of 12
Blade Runner is about robots and I don't think Gattaca really had an anti-Eugenics stance in the end, so I can't see how either of those films support your fears.
You need to check out Blade Runner again. The "Replicants" were a slave race of people not machines.

At the end of Gattaca the authors of the movie showed clips of historical figures that had abnormalities that aided in their personal greatness.
Such abnormalities would have been discriminated against in the movies eugenics story.
What makes me nervous is the basic enslavement of people. Buying and selling people. True they are not made to work fields like my ancestors but their worth is determined by their traits.
To me human worth can't have a price.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.
YO PITTSBURGH MIKE HERE
 
no


Member 74

Level 51.30

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Jan 22, 2007, 09:12 PM Local time: Jan 22, 2007, 06:12 PM #4 of 12
I think Brave New World is a bit more appropriate of an example in this case.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?
Soluzar
De Arimasu!


Member 1222

Level 37.11

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Jan 22, 2007, 09:17 PM Local time: Jan 23, 2007, 03:17 AM #5 of 12
I'm not really against the idea of screening to prevent any potential children suffering from problems that would cause them to not be able to live their life to the full. I am entirely against the idea of screening for hair and eye color, or other such aesthetic details. The idea of children with 'made to order defects' chils me to to the bone, and I personally would question the fitness of parents who ask for such things.

I was speaking idiomatically.
LordsSword
Banned


Member 18063

Level 13.72

Jan 2007


Reply With Quote
Old Jan 23, 2007, 12:00 PM Local time: Jan 23, 2007, 11:00 AM #6 of 12
I'm not really against the idea of screening to prevent any potential children suffering from problems that would cause them to not be able to live their life to the full.
This is already done but suppose just for the sake of argument, the day comes if any undesired trait combination could be considered a hinderance to quality of life.
I assume that everybody wants their kids to have the best in life what guideline would you use to define what is best for people?

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?
Will
Good Chocobo


Member 4221

Level 18.81

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Jan 23, 2007, 12:46 PM #7 of 12
I think Brave New World is a bit more appropriate of an example in this case.
God forbid we read books.

As if we didn't have enough trouble with race, nationality, and socioeconomic status...

FELIPE NO
Pokey
killhouse


Member 15382

Level 9.89

Nov 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Jan 23, 2007, 08:40 PM Local time: Jan 23, 2007, 07:40 PM #8 of 12
Quote:
The idea of children with 'made to order defects' chils me to to the bone, and I personally would question the fitness of parents who ask for such things.
Agreed. I am against purposely planting defects in embryo's, simply because there is no excuse to handicap or hinder the development of a human being so they can be more like the parents. Such procedures scream selfishness and I can only imagine what a deaf kid would think if they found out that they could have been able to hear if not for parental intervention. Sad.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?
Soluzar
De Arimasu!


Member 1222

Level 37.11

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Jan 23, 2007, 09:04 PM Local time: Jan 24, 2007, 03:04 AM #9 of 12
This is already done but suppose just for the sake of argument, the day comes if any undesired trait combination could be considered a hinderance to quality of life.
I'm not even prepared to entertain such a notion. That's such an improbable situation that I don't see the value to discussing it. What you propose worked well as a plot device for such films as GATTACA, but only because they are so far removed from reality. I don't believe even for a second that such a situation would ever come to pass.

The vast majority of humans like to consider themselves to be moral creatures, as judged by whatever code pleases them. This fact would have to change in order for anything you suggest to become reality. I don't think there's any evidence to suggest that those seeking 'custom babies' represent the majority, and I certainly don't believe that the majority possess the capacity to ignore the moral implications. It scarcely seems to matter what moral code such ideas are judged by, because I can't imagine any of them to have sympathy for such a notion.

Quote:
I assume that everybody wants their kids to have the best in life, what guideline would you use to define what is best for people?
It's very simple. I have no doubt that you will insist that it is not simple, but in the absense of sophistry I do consider it simple in the extreme. If a child would be be born to endure a life of constant physical suffering, that's grounds for intervention. If a person would have a physical or mental capacity which would be below the normal adult range, that also is grounds for intervention.

It's important that you understand that I'm not suggesting that nobody should be stupid, weak, or ugly. I'm not in favour of science providing us with a world filled with genius athletic supermodels. I'm in favour of people not having to endure life with severe physical disabilities, or with a mentality that can never surpass that of a 5-year-old child. These things do happen, and if science can prevent that, then I've yet to hear a convincing argument why it should not.

If the tone of this response seems harsh, it is because I perceive that you already have your response prepared. Do you suppose that I've never heard these arguments before? I'm just not willing to admit that it's necessary that we should forego the use of any technological advancement which has the potential to be used in a bad way.

Jam it back in, in the dark.
The_Griffin
Nostalgia and Crossovers


Member 266

Level 32.27

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Jan 23, 2007, 10:29 PM Local time: Jan 23, 2007, 08:29 PM #10 of 12
Pardon me for saying this, but what is the moral objection everybody has to screening aesthetic features such as skin color, eye color, hair, etc.?

Think of it this way: If you're a black family, then your kid, no matter what, will run into racism eventually, be it from being denied a loan while a white person of the exact same status financially, socially, and legally being approved one, or from being called out racial epithets. Wouldn't you want to prevent your kid from having to go through that hell?

Like it or not, people judge by looks. It's a fact of life, and it will be a fact of life for all of eternity, simply because we are human. Is it a terrible thing to wish your child be allowed to live a life relatively free of such negative judgements? I say that it isn't, simply because such changes do not inherently impact ones' life negatively.

God, I am going to look at this tomorrow and wonder what the fuck I was thinking. Hopefully it'll teach me to avoid PP after I've consumed a healthy amount of alcohol.

There's nowhere I can't reach.
LordsSword
Banned


Member 18063

Level 13.72

Jan 2007


Reply With Quote
Old Jan 24, 2007, 06:49 PM Local time: Jan 24, 2007, 05:49 PM #11 of 12
I'm not even prepared to entertain such a notion. That's such an improbable situation that I don't see the value to discussing it.
Its not improbable when it is happening now. The transactions are taking place and the company is still in business.

The vast majority of humans like to consider themselves to be moral creatures, as judged by whatever code pleases them. This fact would have to change in order for anything you suggest to become reality.
Abortion is the only current refrence I can use to counter your claim. Once upon a time it wasn't all that popular, now its big business in my neighboring state of Kansas and other parts of the U.S.
What changed is the overall philosophy of the culture about its view of kids and their relation to a perception of quality of life for individuals.
To me, this is just the next step.

If the tone of this response seems harsh, it is because I perceive that you already have your response prepared. Do you suppose that I've never heard these arguments before? I'm just not willing to admit that it's necessary that we should forego the use of any technological advancement which has the potential to be used in a bad way.
No, youre not harsh, you never were unless you get pushed just right. So, should this sort of thing be illegal or just regulated by the government?
I say ban it. One of these days somebody is gonna pay for a blond hair blue eyed kid and get a brown one by mistake. Then there comes the lawsuit for a refund....

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.
mistershow
Carob Nut


Member 6540

Level 4.22

May 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Feb 13, 2007, 06:09 PM #12 of 12
If I am not mistaken, something like this idea was already done by some parents of a handicapped child in I believe the northwest. They had their daughter undergo surgery to stunt her growth so that they could more easily handle her when she grows up.
(Forgive me for bringing up something that is already being discussed halfway down the page....hadn't gotten there yet!)
Also, this seems to be falling along the same lines as the Peter Singer/infanticide debate. He argues for the good of the many over the good of a few. For example, if a child were to be born handicapped and had to suffer through life and the rest of the family would not be happy because it had to take care of the child and the parents were able to give birth to another happy baby that would not be handicapped then the child should be killed.

That was an awful runon sentence but hopefully you got the point.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?
Reply

Thread Tools

Exploding Garrmondo Weiner Interactive Swiss Army Penis > Garrmondo Network > Political Palace > Costom made babies

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:40 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.