Embryo Testing

neal_672 · 06-19-2006, 10:00 AM

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/5079802.stm

Interesting, it gives people the choice. But what do you think? Is changing/destroying embryo's with genetic deficiencies playing God? Or, like me, do you think it can save the parents the un-neccessary pain of seeing their young child die.

Discuss.

peon · 06-19-2006, 10:11 AM

i'm all for medical advancements, its only cloning thats playing God in my eyes

Matt? · 06-19-2006, 10:11 AM

i don't have a stance on this really.

can embryos feel pain?

peon · 06-19-2006, 10:24 AM

no of course not

italic zero · 06-19-2006, 10:36 AM

sounds like a good idea

Der Übermensch · 06-19-2006, 11:03 AM

Read up on Harlequin Fetus, and you'll know why its a good idea.

PerpetualBurn · 06-19-2006, 11:05 AM

Well currently I believe it's just a screening process, and a somewhat limited one.

You can't choose your kid's eye colour by altering the embryo and the likes, all you can do is choose the traits from the existing ones. This means that if you are a possible carrier for some genetic disease, you can choose not to impregnated with an embryo that would inevitably become ill with that disease. For instance, instead of terminating a foetus with a hereditary illness, the embryo need never be implanted.

As far as I'm aware, you can only actually test for a few genes, so it isn't "designer babies" made-to-order quite yet.

I'm sure the "slippery slope" argument will come out though, and perhaps not without merit.

PerpetualBurn · 06-19-2006, 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Das Übermensch

Read up on Harlequin Fetus, and you'll know why its a good idea.

Definitely. Pictures of children born with this disease are hurrendous, and quite disturbing.

Do NOT look at the following picture if you are of a sensitive nature.
http://216.39.195.236/xml/journals/ijd/vol1n1/harlequin-fig1.jpg

Against Miik! · 06-19-2006, 02:01 PM

All common sense tells you this is a good idea. No more genetic diseases!! What could be better! But aside from "playing God", doesn't this kind of go against Darwins theories? Would it slow down evolution, if most all babies were born perfect healthy creatures? Or does it just speed up evolution, and let science take care of what nature would eventually?

Against Miik! · 06-19-2006, 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Med57

Does it matter either way? The way I see it is that we've got a chance to screen embryos for diseases, meaning that more parents are going to have healthy babies rather than babies with illnesses like cystic fibrosis. If you believe that it's playing God, then don't have the tests done. I can see why religious people might object, but I think it's a really good thing, personally.

I mean playing God in a theoretical sense. I'm not a crazy religous person. I just think that while some things may sound good on paper, they aren't always the best in the long run. I mean, a few hundreds of years ago disease was rampant. The study of modern medicine stopped this, which may sound good. However, our population is increasing at a rate to fast for this planet to hold. Actually, in that sense, I wouldn't have a problem with the embryo being destroyed. I'd have more of a problem with it being changed into a healthy one. Again, this is not a religous thing.

Der Übermensch · 06-19-2006, 03:11 PM

Quote:

Would it slow down evolution, if most all babies were born perfect healthy creatures? Or does it just speed up evolution, and let science take care of what nature would eventually?

Evolution is already messed up from the invention of soap, penecillin, and all that other stuff that keeps the weak alive.

RNR · 06-19-2006, 03:17 PM

Mankind has to stop playing god and start being god.

Jharaski · 06-19-2006, 04:41 PM

Or just take a single cell from the embryo when it's at the eight cell stage. The seven remaining cells will normally develop normally, and the other cell can be used for medicine. And all without killing a fetus! (though that single cell can multiply too, as if it's at the one cell stage and become a baby too, I think)

peeted · 06-19-2006, 05:11 PM

im not just for embryo testing and treatment but it drives me nuts that people are actualy against it, complete retards who arecosting lives through there petty demonstrations based mainley on stupid religious nonsense.

peon · 06-19-2006, 05:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peeted

im not just for embryo testing and treatment but it drives me nuts that people are actualy against it, complete retards who arecosting lives through there petty demonstrations based mainley on stupid religious nonsense.

this basically mirrors my view

neal_672 · 06-19-2006, 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peeted

im not just for embryo testing and treatment but it drives me nuts that people are actualy against it, complete retards who arecosting lives through there petty demonstrations based mainley on stupid religious nonsense.

Bingo.

I hate the idea that people are against trying to prevent genetic diseases such as the aformentioned Harlequin Fetus. It's just horrible, it's like people not wanting to cure cancer, just really really daft.

Atomic Rain · 06-19-2006, 05:47 PM

I drown in the irony that the same people who say abortion is playing god say embryo selection is playing god.

Embryo selection is fine as long as it is regulated to keep it within diseases and out of inteligence, looks, etc.

neal_672 · 06-19-2006, 06:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Atomic Rain

I drown in the irony that the same people who say abortion is playing god say embryo selection is playing god.

Embryo selection is fine as long as it is regulated to keep it within diseases and out of inteligence, looks, etc.

Unfortunately the "slippery slope" argument is usually brought into the case at this point....

PerpetualBurn · 06-19-2006, 06:09 PM

Well it's daft to try that right now, because we can only test an embryo for something like 3 or 4 genes, I think.

Edit: In fact scrap that, I was thinking of something completely different.

peeted · 06-19-2006, 06:16 PM

shurley saving thousands of lives is worth the tiney risk that it might be missused for something thats arguabley imoral (allthough its not even that imoral, your still bringing life into the world, just life that automaticley has physical fetures wich society deames desirable. wich would arguabley mean everyone would have a happier life any way)

its like leting people die to prevent the slight chance of customised life. apart from the fact that it just seems wered as **** my only real problem with this custom baby stuff is that some will be able to aford it and others wont wich will end up in a middle class with diffrent phyisical charictaristics than most working class people wich cant be a good thing. it would end up completley eletist.

06-19-2006, 10:00 AM	#1
neal_672 Mx Bob Dylan Obsessive Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: North East England Posts: 8,656	Embryo Testing http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/5079802.stm Interesting, it gives people the choice. But what do you think? Is changing/destroying embryo's with genetic deficiencies playing God? Or, like me, do you think it can save the parents the un-neccessary pain of seeing their young child die. Discuss.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

06-19-2006, 10:11 AM	#2
peon Banned Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 479	i'm all for medical advancements, its only cloning thats playing God in my eyes

06-19-2006, 10:11 AM	#3
Matt? Registered User Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: nh/ny Posts: 6,644	i don't have a stance on this really. can embryos feel pain?

06-19-2006, 10:24 AM	#4
peon Banned Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 479	no of course not

06-19-2006, 10:36 AM	#5
italic zero klik Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Boston Posts: 7,353	sounds like a good idea

06-19-2006, 11:03 AM	#6
Der Übermensch Best taken in moderation Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: DC, via Maine Posts: 11,063	Read up on Harlequin Fetus, and you'll know why its a good idea.

06-19-2006, 11:05 AM	#7
PerpetualBurn Like a greasy chip butty Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Highway 61 (again) Posts: 9,447	Well currently I believe it's just a screening process, and a somewhat limited one. You can't choose your kid's eye colour by altering the embryo and the likes, all you can do is choose the traits from the existing ones. This means that if you are a possible carrier for some genetic disease, you can choose not to impregnated with an embryo that would inevitably become ill with that disease. For instance, instead of terminating a foetus with a hereditary illness, the embryo need never be implanted. As far as I'm aware, you can only actually test for a few genes, so it isn't "designer babies" made-to-order quite yet. I'm sure the "slippery slope" argument will come out though, and perhaps not without merit.

06-19-2006, 02:01 PM	#9
Against Miik! Registered User Join Date: May 2003 Location: Athens Posts: 18,231	All common sense tells you this is a good idea. No more genetic diseases!! What could be better! But aside from "playing God", doesn't this kind of go against Darwins theories? Would it slow down evolution, if most all babies were born perfect healthy creatures? Or does it just speed up evolution, and let science take care of what nature would eventually?

06-19-2006, 03:17 PM	#12
RNR Stabbing tha raccoons Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Calgary, Canada Posts: 19,146	Mankind has to stop playing god and start being god.

06-19-2006, 04:41 PM	#13
Jharaski No more lobster Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Hillsborough NJ Posts: 3,447	Or just take a single cell from the embryo when it's at the eight cell stage. The seven remaining cells will normally develop normally, and the other cell can be used for medicine. And all without killing a fetus! (though that single cell can multiply too, as if it's at the one cell stage and become a baby too, I think)

06-19-2006, 05:11 PM	#14
peeted O.o Join Date: May 2004 Location: Leeds UK Posts: 5,389	im not just for embryo testing and treatment but it drives me nuts that people are actualy against it, complete retards who arecosting lives through there petty demonstrations based mainley on stupid religious nonsense.

06-19-2006, 05:47 PM	#17
Atomic Rain Do you know science? Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: UK Posts: 1,140	I drown in the irony that the same people who say abortion is playing god say embryo selection is playing god. Embryo selection is fine as long as it is regulated to keep it within diseases and out of inteligence, looks, etc.

06-19-2006, 06:09 PM	#19
PerpetualBurn Like a greasy chip butty Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Highway 61 (again) Posts: 9,447	Well it's daft to try that right now, because we can only test an embryo for something like 3 or 4 genes, I think. Edit: In fact scrap that, I was thinking of something completely different.

06-19-2006, 06:16 PM	#20
peeted O.o Join Date: May 2004 Location: Leeds UK Posts: 5,389	shurley saving thousands of lives is worth the tiney risk that it might be missused for something thats arguabley imoral (allthough its not even that imoral, your still bringing life into the world, just life that automaticley has physical fetures wich society deames desirable. wich would arguabley mean everyone would have a happier life any way) its like leting people die to prevent the slight chance of customised life. apart from the fact that it just seems wered as **** my only real problem with this custom baby stuff is that some will be able to aford it and others wont wich will end up in a middle class with diffrent phyisical charictaristics than most working class people wich cant be a good thing. it would end up completley eletist.