| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
11 May 2006 10:48:42 AM |
| Object: |
Yea! DESIGNER BABIES Are HERE! |
AT LAST, true non-believers will have an opportunity to order blond,
blue-eyed babies, non-deformed babies, pretty babies,
genetically-"clean" babies! Whatvever we want in offspring. And
religionists and other duped and fearful fools can't do anything to
stop us!
====
"Human Embryos in Britain May Be Screened for Cancer Risk"
By Rick Weiss
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, May 11, 2006; A12
British regulators yesterday ruled that fertility clinics may screen
out human embryos carrying genes that raise the risk of cancer in
adulthood -- a move the government said could prevent future suffering
but that others said was proof that the age of handpicked, "designer"
babies is at hand.
The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, which oversees tests
involving human embryos in Britain, had previously allowed the use of
genetic tests only to eliminate "test tube" embryos bearing genes for
fatal childhood diseases.
The new decision expands that policy to include some genes that
significantly increase the odds -- but do not guarantee -- that a
person will get cancer. The policy also for the first time includes
diseases -- primarily breast, ovarian and colon cancer -- that do not
strike until adulthood and often respond to treatment.
Similar embryo screening tests have been used in the United States for
years. But because they are not regulated or tracked, no one knows how
often they are performed or the full range of conditions being screened
for.
Some experts fear that as scientists discover genes affecting traits
such as obesity, addiction, intelligence or height, a market in
elective embryo screening may emerge -- backed by evidence that
selected children would be healthier, happier and more successful.
The kind of testing in question, known as preimplantation genetic
diagnosis, is conducted on one or two cells removed harmlessly from a
three-day-old test tube embryo created by in vitro fertilization. If a
cell is found to harbor an unwanted gene, that embryo is not used.
"The role of medicine has always been to try to relieve pain and
suffering and to try to improve the quality of life for people," said
HFEA chair Suzi Leather, in a statement. "The decision today deals only
with serious genetic conditions that we have a single-gene test for. We
would not consider mild conditions -- like asthma and eczema -- which
can be well-managed. . . . We would not consider conditions like
schizophrenia where a number of genes have been identified but there is
no single gene that dictates the condition."
The genes noted in the decision are BRCA1 and BRCA2 -- which confer an
approximately 80 percent lifetime risk of breast cancer (and, with
BRCA1, a 40 percent chance of ovarian cancer) -- and HNPCC, which
carries a 78 percent lifetime risk of colon cancer. BRCA cancers can
strike women in their thirties and forties. Half of the people carrying
HNPCC get colon cancer by age 50.
The ruling is not a blanket acceptance but means the HFEA will now
consider screening requests on a case-by-case basis.
"It raises a number of obvious ethical issues," said Bert Vogelstein, a
medical geneticist at Johns Hopkins University and a co-discoverer of
the HNPCC gene. Most people he has spoken with, including patients and
their relatives, don't think embryo screening for the disease is
justified, Vogelstein said. "But there are some who have seen their
families devastated by these diseases . . . and they are not so sure."
Some groups in Britain had vigorously opposed the move. And in the
United States, the ruling was lambasted by the Catholic Church.
"There does seem to be grade inflation here," said Richard Doerflinger,
deputy director of pro-life activities for the U.S. Conference of
Catholic Bishops. "You need fewer and fewer things wrong with you to
fail to measure up."
The British Medical Association said it welcomed the decision "to
extend the criteria for embryo selection." Its chief of ethics and
science, Vivienne Nathanson, tried to allay fears of a slippery slope.
"We do not see that today's decision is moving towards 'designer
babies,' " she said in a statement. "There is a world of difference
between a parent not wanting their child to develop breast cancer and
someone wanting a child with blue eyes and blond hair."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/10/AR2006051001811.html
.
|
|
| User: "kathryn" |
|
| Title: Re: Yea! DESIGNER BABIES Are HERE! |
12 May 2006 01:23:31 AM |
|
|
<kinkysr@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1147362522.329172.95530@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
AT LAST, true non-believers will have an opportunity to order blond,
blue-eyed babies, non-deformed babies, pretty babies,
genetically-"clean" babies! Whatvever we want in offspring. And
religionists and other duped and fearful fools can't do anything to
stop us!
or just ones that won't die of cancer.
Would having your ovaries removed make you less hysterical?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Samuel W. Heywood" |
|
| Title: Re: Yea! DESIGNER BABIES Are HERE! |
11 May 2006 08:12:52 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 11 May 2006 wrote:
AT LAST, true non-believers will have an opportunity to order blond,
blue-eyed babies, non-deformed babies, pretty babies,
genetically-"clean" babies! Whatvever we want in offspring. And
religionists and other duped and fearful fools can't do anything to
stop us!
And what is foolish about trying to stop it?
There are a lot of people opposed to this kind of thing on ethical
geounds and they might be able to garner enough popular support to
pass laws against it.
You don't even have to be a religious person to have very strong
feelings against this kind of thing. You just have to be a person
with a strong moral sense to distinguish right from wrong.
Sam Heywood
-- Message handled by Pine, Version 4.62
.
|
|
|
| User: "AlanS" |
|
| Title: Re: Yea! DESIGNER BABIES Are HERE! |
12 May 2006 06:58:56 AM |
|
|
"Samuel W. Heywood" <sheywood@MyRealBox.com> wrote:
On Thu, 11 May 2006 wrote:
AT LAST, true non-believers will have an opportunity to order blond,
blue-eyed babies, non-deformed babies, pretty babies,
genetically-"clean" babies! Whatvever we want in offspring. And
religionists and other duped and fearful fools can't do anything to
stop us!
And what is foolish about trying to stop it?
There are a lot of people opposed to this kind of thing on ethical
geounds and they might be able to garner enough popular support to
pass laws against it.
You don't even have to be a religious person to have very strong
feelings against this kind of thing. You just have to be a person
with a strong moral sense to distinguish right from wrong.
What's wrong about preventing suffering and improving the gene pool?
.
|
|
|
| User: "geopelia" |
|
| Title: Re: Yea! DESIGNER BABIES Are HERE! |
12 May 2006 07:40:39 AM |
|
|
AlanS wrote:
"Samuel W. Heywood" <sheywood@MyRealBox.com> wrote:
On Thu, 11 May 2006 wrote:
AT LAST, true non-believers will have an opportunity to order blond,
blue-eyed babies, non-deformed babies, pretty babies,
genetically-"clean" babies! Whatvever we want in offspring. And
religionists and other duped and fearful fools can't do anything to
stop us!
And what is foolish about trying to stop it?
There are a lot of people opposed to this kind of thing on ethical
geounds and they might be able to garner enough popular support to
pass laws against it.
You don't even have to be a religious person to have very strong
feelings against this kind of thing. You just have to be a person
with a strong moral sense to distinguish right from wrong.
What's wrong about preventing suffering and improving the gene pool?
Now so many people can only afford one or two children, what is wrong
with trying to get the best possible offspring?
Only the rich will be able to afford IVF anyway. Most people will still
have to accept whatever they get by natural means.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Yea! DESIGNER BABIES Are HERE! |
12 May 2006 05:22:37 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 12 May 2006 11:58:56 GMT, AlanS <none@nowhere.com> wrote:
What's wrong about preventing suffering and improving the gene pool?
Why not leave nature alone instead of implying any human can 'improve
on it' ???
Thanks to human 'improvements' -
cattle are fed chemicals and hormones to make their meat more tasty,
and make more of it, etc- and humans ingest it ...
Thanks to human 'improvements' -
even veggies and fruits are not really all that safe to eat unless you
grow them yourself...
Thanks to human 'improvements' -
The water on the planet is being ruined...
Thanks to human 'improvements' -
The ground itself is being poisoned...
Thanks to human 'improvements' -
The air we breathe is contaminated.
No, no- human 'improvements' won't fill the bill...... humans have
been plundering this planet for far too long, and now Nature is
retaliating.
.
|
|
|
| User: "AlanS" |
|
| Title: Re: Yea! DESIGNER BABIES Are HERE! |
12 May 2006 08:22:05 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 12 May 2006 18:22:37 -0400, wrote:
On Fri, 12 May 2006 11:58:56 GMT, AlanS <none@nowhere.com> wrote:
What's wrong about preventing suffering and improving the gene pool?
Why not leave nature alone instead of implying any human can 'improve
on it' ???
Thanks to human 'improvements' -
Thanks to human 'improvements' -
Thanks to human 'improvements' -
Thanks to human 'improvements' -
Thanks to human 'improvements' -
[...]
Since you are not a hypocrite, I suppose you don't eat food humans
grow, live in a house humans built, visit human doctors when you get
sick, use any technological products including computers - oops.
Leave nature alone yourself and go back to your cave.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Yea! DESIGNER BABIES Are HERE! |
13 May 2006 02:11:20 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 13 May 2006 01:22:05 GMT, AlanS <none@nowhere.com> wrote:
Leave nature alone yourself and go back to your cave.
nice try, but it won't work.
.
|
|
|
| User: "AlanS" |
|
| Title: Re: Yea! DESIGNER BABIES Are HERE! |
16 May 2006 05:13:33 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 13 May 2006 15:11:20 -0400, wrote:
On Sat, 13 May 2006 01:22:05 GMT, AlanS <none@nowhere.com> wrote:
Leave nature alone yourself and go back to your cave.
nice try, but it won't work.
Yes, I knew that you were a hypocrite.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
