Reversed Evolution

[kwhilborn]

@ spidergoat,
Yes. I agree. deformed breeders will do nothingmore than create hell on earth for a deformed child. It is true it would take a lot to affect humanity as a whole, and that is why this is on the ethics and not genetics section of the forum.

@ sarkus,
Yes. The couple in the OP (topic here) was setting out to have a deformed child on purpose. I would sterilize that lady in a heartbeat if it were allowed. Deformed children must suffer abuse and bullying in many cases. Maybe I would not sterilize them, but I would certainly think they deserved jail time had they done so.

I said "reverse evolution" because we are allowing ourselves to introduce DNA into our children that might not normally survive in historical settings. I am not going to dumb it down any further and thought the title was self explanatory. Try a dictionary for further information.

If someone was abusing a child would authorities intervene? I see no difference between breeding a deformed child on purpose and child abuse, and think the courts would agree.

p.s. I think some skeptics lack mental capacity to see things as they are and often consider them mentally handicapped, so I can see your reverse view.

 

[kx000]

p.s. I think some skeptics lack mental capacity to see things as they are and often consider them mentally handicapped, so I can see your reverse view

Does this include you who talks NOT with God? Faith, and Imagination to God.

 

[Sarkus]

Yes. The couple in the OP (topic here) was setting out to have a deformed child on purpose. I would sterilize that lady in a heartbeat if it were allowed. Deformed children must suffer abuse and bullying in many cases. Maybe I would not sterilize them, but I would certainly think they deserved jail time had they done so.

Then I am rather glad that you are not in any position of real power.
The issue is somewhat more grey than your blinkered black and white thinking, and hinges (among other things) on the difference between what you and such a person as a dwarf consider to be "normal".

I said "reverse evolution" because we are allowing ourselves to introduce DNA into our children that might not normally survive in historical settings. I am not going to dumb it down any further and thought the title was self explanatory. Try a dictionary for further information.

I know what the two words mean, but put together as you have done they mean very little to anyone with more than even the most basic understanding of evolution.
By introducing DNA, as you seem to see it, all we are doing is introducing artificial mutations. There is no "reverse" aspect to it.

If someone was abusing a child would authorities intervene? I see no difference between breeding a deformed child on purpose and child abuse, and think the courts would agree.

The issue isn't really whether what they are doing is illegal or not - and is no worse than aborting foetuses until one takes that tests positive for the genetic mutation they are hoping for - but with your vitriol and contempt for those people, and your eagerness to sterilise such people.
And I see it as very different to child abuse: you are not inflicting a deformity upon a child, but are merely choosing an embryo that already has the genetic abnormality. Or do you perhaps see all parents of children with deformities as child-abusers? If not, where is the line? Is it that they choose one with certain genetic traits over another? That they choose to give life to an embryo that will only ever be what it is... as noone is suggesting yet the altering of the DNA of the actual embryo... merely screening the embryos.

 

[The Marquis]

Who defines what needs to be fixed? Slippery slope.

No, it isn't.
Decisions as to what needs to be fixed are being made every day, only now those decisions are based more on ideology than physicality.

It is no longer about whether or not we're going to live long enough to pass genes along, in most cases.
We are, however, still acting as if it were.

I could take on that "slippery slope" tomorrow.