Re: News: Breast cancer gene-free baby due.
- From: "Steven L." <sdlitvin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2008 21:24:50 -0500
Burkhard wrote:
On Dec 22, 12:04 am, Vend <ven...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:On 21 Dic, 23:25, Burkhard <b.scha...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Dec 21, 5:17 pm, Vend <ven...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:Yes.On 21 Dic, 16:27, Sapient Fridge <use_reply_addr...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>Only if you make quite a couple of problematic assumptions (i.e., it
wrote:
In messageChild abuse.
<cb94fe83-3e74-465b-a875-a84d31fa0...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Ron
O <rokim...@xxxxxxx> writes
On Dec 21, 6:55 am, Ye Old One <use...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:Not the only example. Deaf parents have tried to choose to have deafOn Sun, 21 Dec 2008 04:14:16 -0800 (PST), Vend <ven...@xxxxxxxxxxx>What is the definition of genetic problems?
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
On 21 Dic, 02:53, Ye Old One <use...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:Actually, I don't either. One of the doctors involved gave an
<snip>
"What next? It is going further along the line which ultimately endsI don't think this technology leads towards designer babies,
in designer babies."
interview on Radio 4 the other day and he said it was not designer
babies as all they could do was weed out genetic problems.
since the--
expected number of embryo to be discarded increases exponentially with
the number of traits (on independently inheritable chromosome regions)
selected.
I suppose a better efficiency could be obtained by operating selection
on the gametes, the sperm cells in particular which are available in
large amounts, but that would require non-destructive DNA testing
(maybe some form of DNA marking like that used in cancer terapies?).
Bob.
There have already been cases where dwarf parents have wanted to use
fetal genetic testing to determine if they wanted to abort the fetus.
The fetuses that they wanted to abort were the "normal" non dwarf.
They did not want normal children because they were too hard to
handle.
children:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article3087367.ece
Definitely a bit of a moral minefield, and one that will only get moreI don't see anything particularly complicated about the issue.
complex as time goes on.
It's mutilation and it's already immoral and most likely illegal.
--
sapient_usene...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx ICQ #17887309 * Save the net *
Grok:http://spam.abuse.net http://www.cauce.org*nukeaspammer *
Find:http://www.samspade.orghttp://www.netdemon.net * today *
Kill:http://spamsights.org http://spews.org http://spamhaus.org
is complicated, once you think about it): You assume that being deaf
is better than not being deaf
- but on what basis?Because hearing is useful.
Deaf people mightLies.
claim that it is more an issue of a trade-of f- they lack some skills,
but are compensated by having/developing other skills.
That they areWhich skill do deaf people master better than people with normal
disadvantaged is simply a result of social attitudes that arbitrarily
value one skill over the other,
hearing?
How good are you at lip reading?
or design an environment whereAn environment such as the universe?
possession of one rather than the other is advantageous.
Build environment, of course, - I'm not IDler, when I use the word
design, I only mean things created by humans ;o)
Well, one part of my job for the last couple of years was to ensureUnder theSuch definition is not only incorrect but also irrelevant, since
"social definition of disability" that increasingly builds the
foundation of disability discrimination law, its not people who are
disabled, its the environment that disables them.
people are constrained to live in the social environment.
People with disabilities have the right not to be voluntarily
discriminated against, but there is no way the environment will change
to become fair to them by damaging people with normal skills.
Nature is fundamentally unfair and socieities which tend to the lowest
common denominator are unviable.
that my department complies with the relevant legislation and does not
create burdens for students with disabilities. - the UK Disability
discrimination act, just like the US ADD, assume the social definition
of disability - and guess what, you can very easily change lots of
things, once you think about them, thing s you did for no real purpose
whatsoever, just because it worked for "most " people
On 9-11, a number of disabled persons in wheelchairs in the Twin Towers burned to death, because the elevators had been destroyed, and they couldn't climb down the hundred flights of stairs.
And you can't totally automate the automobile/truck/road/highway transportation system so that blind people can drive.
Some things are just not under a society's control to change.
--
Steven L.
Email: sdlitvin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
.
- References:
- News: Breast cancer gene-free baby due.
- From: Ye Old One
- Re: News: Breast cancer gene-free baby due.
- From: Vend
- Re: News: Breast cancer gene-free baby due.
- From: Ye Old One
- Re: News: Breast cancer gene-free baby due.
- From: Ron O
- Re: News: Breast cancer gene-free baby due.
- From: Sapient Fridge
- Re: News: Breast cancer gene-free baby due.
- From: Vend
- Re: News: Breast cancer gene-free baby due.
- From: Burkhard
- Re: News: Breast cancer gene-free baby due.
- From: Vend
- Re: News: Breast cancer gene-free baby due.
- From: Burkhard
- News: Breast cancer gene-free baby due.
- Prev by Date: Re: Repost of a Conundrum
- Next by Date: Re: Was the moon ever close enough to pull on the mantle?
- Previous by thread: Re: News: Breast cancer gene-free baby due.
- Next by thread: Re: News: Breast cancer gene-free baby due.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading