Genetically Modified Kids
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 26, 2024, 08:58:10 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Debate (Moderator: Torie)
  Genetically Modified Kids
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]
Author Topic: Genetically Modified Kids  (Read 5000 times)
Cory
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,708


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #75 on: May 18, 2013, 10:29:09 AM »

Point taken. But you're also missing my point that if this is optional, it would be the exact opposite. It would cause LITERAL INEQUALITY. I'm all for fixing genetic disorders with this. Being healthy as possible is important, but if they are not disabled, why do they need to be "better looking." Can't you just accept people the way they are? Wouldn't it be better for society if we accept diversity rather than remove it from our society?

But why shouldn't we be better looking? Why should we "accept the way we are"? It's not as simple as just "accepting diversity". The fact of the matter that people do get judged on their looks (studies verify this) and no amount of education will change this. It's evolutionary.

Also the idea is (for me at least) that this kind of advance would be universally available to all. Another reason why real universal health care is of the utmost importance. 
Logged
Link
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,426
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #76 on: May 18, 2013, 01:54:05 PM »

The beauty of this thread is it's obvious that the participants are unaware the very act of in vitro fertilization (a necessary step in "genetically modified kids") actually increase the number of birth defects.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://healthland.time.com/2012/10/22/ivf-linked-to-more-birth-defects/

Please continue arguing gentlemen.
Logged
Tetro Kornbluth
Gully Foyle
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,853
Ireland, Republic of


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #77 on: May 18, 2013, 02:25:18 PM »

Crude understandings of Evolution are the worst...
Logged
PJ
Politics Junkie
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,806
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #78 on: May 18, 2013, 03:52:18 PM »

You're right that this should be universally available if it is available at all. That was one of my primary concerns. But who is to determine who is ugly and who is beautiful?
Point taken. But you're also missing my point that if this is optional, it would be the exact opposite. It would cause LITERAL INEQUALITY. I'm all for fixing genetic disorders with this. Being healthy as possible is important, but if they are not disabled, why do they need to be "better looking." Can't you just accept people the way they are? Wouldn't it be better for society if we accept diversity rather than remove it from our society?

But why shouldn't we be better looking? Why should we "accept the way we are"? It's not as simple as just "accepting diversity". The fact of the matter that people do get judged on their looks (studies verify this) and no amount of education will change this. It's evolutionary.

Also the idea is (for me at least) that this kind of advance would be universally available to all. Another reason why real universal health care is of the utmost importance. 
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.231 seconds with 12 queries.