Opinion of Cory

[Cory]

I don't see how supporting "an ideology which advocates the use of reproductive and genetic technologies where the choice of enhancing human characteristics and capacities is left to the individual preferences of parents acting as consumers, rather than the public health policies of the state" is so horrible. Maybe if you actually knew what the phrase meant you wouldn't draw such asinine conclusions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_eugenics

You people are confusing "liberal eugenics" with the old school eugenics of early 20th century America (hence the association with liberalism) and 1930's/40's Germany. Stop being silly. Parents being able to make their children the best they can be with genetic enhancements is not a bad thing.

Also: I am not an anti-Semite and being annoyed by someone who's signature clearly was meant to imply a child being molested is not a "prude".

[Cory]

Cory, to what extent do you think this should be allowed?  If you're referring to the option of having bad genes deleted (i.e. the ones that cause cancer, Alzheimer's, etc.), then I don't think most people here would object to that.  What's controversial is the idea that parents should be allowed to choose how their children look, how smart they are, their gender, sexual orientation, etc.  I do not see what good can come out of allowing human beings to control every single aspect of a person's nature, and I for one oppose that from both a religious and scientific standpoint.

I strongly support actively making people smarter, better looking, more fit, ect. It would almost be a waste of the technology not to exploit it to this level. As for other issues, I think there would be no need for things like homosexuality (once the gay gene is isolated no straight people will make their kids gay, and gays will be de facto socially pressured to make their kids straight to conform. I'm not saying this is a goal, just a side-effect) and I don't have a problem with parents choosing their kids gender.

In the world if the future peoples genes will only help them, not hurt them.

The only rules (in my theory) would be:

-You can't deliberately make your kid "dumber" or give them unhealthy traits.

-This technology would be available to everyone, subsidized by the state.

[Cory]

This was Hitler's dream.

No it wasn't. Don't be stupid. Hitler would probably consider my ideology to be a form of "Bolshevism".

[Cory]

You really don't see how horrifyingly dehumanizing your "ideal society" sounds? Really?

It isn't "dehumanizing". If anything we are unlocking the full potential of our human genes. When people say things like "but what about our humanity!" they are missing the point in that we would still be human. There is nothing inherently good about remaining "natural", if anything I find such a view to be extremely limiting.

[Cory]

I guess that's what it comes down to.  I am frightened that there are some (but fortunately not many) people who think we should exchange life for a human ideal of physical perfection, and that some of those people think they can make it more attractive by calling it a "liberal" view.  In fact, it's a downright embarrassment. 

How are we "exchanging life"? If anything we are making life better.

[Cory]

Cory wants to make a super species through genetic engineering, weeding out inter alia that gay gene he assumes exists? Assuming that I have one (and males were the bods to whom I was attracted from day one thinking back on it), I guess that means I would not have made the cut, and the planet would be Torie free. Somehow that program does not thrill me too much. I can like hanging around, hectoring the youngs, and in fact all generations come to think of it.

A.) Are you saying you chose to be gay? Or do you think there is a social reason for homosexuality?

B.) "Made the cut". Stop implying an "exterminationist" ideology on my behalf. I am a staunch supporter of marriage equality and an non-discrimination act for gays. As I literally bolded in my statement, I simply think homosexuality would phase out for sociological reasons, not out of a personal animosity for gays.

C.) Is anyone honestly going to say that how people look doesn't affect life? Why should people have to be "ugly" (yes, there is such a thing, let's not kid ourselves)?

By the way: This isn't something "I believe". It is something that is going to happen regardless of anyone's opinion. I just want it to be available to everyone.

[Cory]

Given the quantifiable mental health, lifestyle, and income benefits this would accrue I hardly see how anyone could tell me no.

Because it makes you a "Horrible Person", apparently.