Abortion: for or against

Yes, it's their baby and their body, but it's not their life that they are ending by aborting the fetus. As for your ovulation/masturbation argument, please read my post on the previous page.

Genes are in every lifeform on this planet, intelligence is not. I weigh the "moral" value of an organism in its current ntelligence, not its genetics.

Genes are in every lifeform on this planet, intelligence is not. I weigh the "moral" value of an organism in its current ntelligence, not its genetics.

I have more to say than what I'm going to post here on that comment, but newborn babies, by that standard, should have no value to their parents whatsoever, certainly less value than a monkey or a dog.

Anyways, I need to shop for christmas gifts. Be back to post more in a few.

Genes are in every lifeform on this planet, intelligence is not. I weigh the "moral" value of an organism in its current ntelligence, not its genetics.

So it should be alright to kill retarded people then, right?

Genes are in every lifeform on this planet, intelligence is not. I weigh the "moral" value of an organism in its current ntelligence, not its genetics.

Out of curiosity, would you be in favor of praciticing eugenics?

That's what happens in nature. Eugenics is just a fancy word for human evolution. We're however smart enough to make evolution happen a whole lot faster then nature would normally. Ontop of that, we may also find ways to avoid negative eugenics all together by snipping out the bad parts of people's DNA.

That's what happens in nature. Eugenics is just a fancy word for human evolution. We're however smart enough to make evolution happen a whole lot faster then nature would normally. Ontop of that, we may also find ways to avoid negative eugenics all together by snipping out the bad parts of people's DNA.

That may be true, but you did not answer my question.

"yes"

yeah....umm yeah....

To say over half of the posters here seem to be in favour of Abortion, I doubt you'll find many who agree with "snipping out the bad parts of people's DNA".

I do believe it's illegal in Britain, but not in America - 'tailor-made' babies. You have your eggs screened for certain signs that indicate whether the child will be male or female. And if you want a female child, one of the relevant eggs is used, ditto for if you want a male child. That's the main thing they do... but some clinics also offer the option, for an exorbitant amount of money, to have your eggs screened for signs of genetic diseases. Should an egg show a sign of a genetic disease, then they either destroy the egg or cut out the bad DNA (I don't know enough of the process to say for sure).

Thinking about it, I've probably just described, in basic terms, eugenics... but, still, I think it's wrong. A lot of people think it's wrong, in fact. And then they associate it with things like stem cell research, simply because both play around with gametes and embryos. In essence, bad feelings towards eugenics is giving stem cell research a bad name. A totally uncalled for bad name.

It also conveys the feeling that people with disabilities, or with genetic diseases, are inferior to other people - hence the trying to remove the chance of people being born into society with disabilities or genetic diseases. Don't forget that a sizeable chunk of the world was put through a more crude version of this by Hitler. It doesn't matter that it was over 60 years ago. A lot of people just think of the Holocaust, but Hitler also had people with disabilities and genetic diseases rounded up and murdered, simply because he didn't want them in his "perfect society".

I think that I'm just doomsaying here, so I'll just stop.

It may be an American attitude to things that means a lot of you might agree with abortion, or eugenics, but to me both are wrong. I'm in no way religious, but I do have some morals. How both can be thought of as justified is completely beyond me.

Whether a baby is male or female is determined by the sperm, not the egg.

And choosing the gender of your baby doesn't have much to do with DNA if I remember right, they just separate the sperm into "likely" groups of female and male. It isn't even 100% right, just a try at it. I think it's 96% correct. Then again I was looking into this stuff about a year ago, it could have changed since then.

Me and Nikki are planning on having that done if we can afford it in any way. We've both pretty much agreed that little boys are a bit too crazy. Not that we wont be happy with one if we get one.

Hitler was stupid. Mass murder isn't the answer, it NEVER is (well, unless its like, a bad disease, or a plague of killer bees, or something like that. Then? OKAY.). Forced adoption and controlled breeding is much, much, much better.