donuticus Posted August 30, 2012 Share Posted August 30, 2012 Each to their own but I'm unconfortable with the thought of designer babies I don't often agree with your posts Mecky but on this I am with you wholeheartedly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthenekred Posted August 30, 2012 Share Posted August 30, 2012 No I don't, I advocate giving parents the choice, and it is for them to decide when and if to have a baby and if possible the sex of the baby. When and if it becomes possible it’s also for them to decide other attributes that are desirable. And if everyone chose boys at what point do you dictate a lack of choice? No one is arguing choice, the point is what it is you are allowed to choose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted August 30, 2012 Share Posted August 30, 2012 And if everyone chose boys at what point do you dictate a lack of choice? No one is arguing choice, the point is what it is you are allowed to choose. Everyone wouldn't choose boys, but if they did then humans would just become extinct, I’m sure that people would start choosing girls well before that happens. This also isn’t going to available for everyone, only an insignificant minority will even want to choose or be in the financial position to choose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthenekred Posted August 30, 2012 Share Posted August 30, 2012 Everyone wouldn't choose boys, but if they did then humans would just become extinct, I’m sure that people would start choosing girls well before that happens. Really? So choice has now become a balancing act to even up the percentages? Nature does that already. This also isn’t going to available for everyone, only an insignificant minority will even want to choose or be in the financial position to choose. If it's so insignificant and in a minority why would anyone invest in the technology? Designer babies for the rich only? Why would I invest in a state health service that provides for the rich only at gender level choice, while the rich can still take advantage of the NHS at any level? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted August 30, 2012 Share Posted August 30, 2012 Really? So choice has now become a balancing act to even up the percentages? Nature does that already. No choice is just choice, living under dictatores removes choice, we suposadly don't have a dictatorship so should have choice. If it's so insignificant and in a minority why would anyone invest in the technology? Designer babies for the rich only? Why would I invest in a state health service that provides for the rich only at gender level choice, while the rich can still take advantage of the NHS at any level? Because an insignificant minority is still enough people to make it worth the investment, and no one’s asking you to contribute anything, if the NHS was to undertake such an activity it would be private and self funding with profits going back to treat other patients. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosemary19 Posted August 30, 2012 Share Posted August 30, 2012 It may not be long before we have a world full of healthy, brainy, beautiful perfect people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aleksandr Posted August 30, 2012 Share Posted August 30, 2012 1. But it is their body and you want to dictate what they can do with it. 2. No 3. In your opinion, my opinion is differant, get over it. 4. You do know this is just a discussion forum in which people express their opinions; we don’t really have any power to change anything. 5. Just one point to add the government are already looking for ways in which the NHS can sell the services to make money. 6. NHS hospitals in England will be free to use almost half their hospital beds and theatre time for private patients under government plans. Any money they make can only be good for NHS patients. 1. A child's body is the child's body, not the parents'! Are you your parents' property? 2. Not worth answering. 3. Opinion different to mine, and so is your spelling. 4. Whatever. 5. Everyone knows about that stupid idea! 6. NHS staff are already working well over the hours for which they are paid. They do not have time to do any more work. Any money made from doing commercial work will have been made at the expense of the NHS patients who would otherwise have been seen in that time, and will be of no benefit because no staff will be available for this money to pay for, unless you're thinking of increasing the number of NHS staff with this money! So you are wrong: any money they make will be at the expense of NHS patients. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aleksandr Posted August 30, 2012 Share Posted August 30, 2012 You're not putting couples who want to select the gender of their child in the same category as criminals, are you?If it's done for religious or cultural reasons, then yes, definitely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted August 30, 2012 Share Posted August 30, 2012 1. A child's body is the child's body, not the parents'! Are you your parents' property? The child doesn't have a body until it is conceived by the parents. So the decision what to do with the egg and sperm rests with the potential parents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aleksandr Posted August 30, 2012 Share Posted August 30, 2012 Actually there are more boys born due to their inherent weakness,about 502 per 1000,as against 498 girls.In addition man has not been evolving for a few million years.I hope you do not lecture in Biology or similar at university.Utter nonsense! Man stopped evolving in this country only very recently. Natural selection played a major role until the invention of vaccines and antibiotics and the rest of modern medicine, although the ability to make clothing, shelter and fire slowed some aspects of our evolution down a bit. Now, in fact, we are regressing as a population due to genetically weak individuals living long enough to reproduce and their offspring benefiting from modern medicine, when before, they would have died without a trace. Oh, and the male and female ratio is very, very close to 1:1. (502:498 is effectively 1:1.) If left to primitive cultures (aka primitive people), it would be wildly different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.