noelle

obviously i respect the freedom to choose; i am not trying to force everyone along my path. and so i have every right to argue my viewpoint. sure, you can choose to ignore it, too. but i had to say something -- "it's playing God" has got to be the worse excuse i've seen and i see it all the time when this comes up. we have been given the brainpower to make and use special tools to improve our condition, and no one would condemn the use of other medical practices like they do this one. i have even explained that the method of genetically altering babies to save them from inevitable defects does not involve killing any of them, but changing the gametes. but even that was rejected, and i don't know why. i don't know why anyone would choose the possibility to have their children endure extensive radiation and drug therapy to treat cancer, when instead we can make it so the cancer does not happen. how is that the better way? also, is there any bible quote that would even address this? does it ever say that humans should not try to combat the plagues that they suffer, but rather submit to them? and i'm not discussing the historical aspect, or what people's feelings about it were then. the concept of eugenics was to sterilize groups that were thought to be genetically inferior... and in extreme cases, such as the holocaust, to exterminate them. THAT is nothing at all like what scientists wish to do today. they wish to kill or sterilize no one -- only to provide technology that can improve the circumstance of all people who would accept it.

that's a sucky situation...i'm lucky i never had it forced on me. soon as i realized i wasn't for it, i just stopped tagging along with my friend and that was that. maybe all you need is a bit of time away from it and soul searching, as soon as it's possible.

or perhaps, there is no conspiracy. perhaps these scientists genuinely care about humanity and wish to put all their life into improving it through rational and non-violent methods.

alright, to be honest i didn't really bother with the article, so please see my argument as seperate. i didn't mean to address embryonic screening -- just wanted to explain the most likely method scientists would be going into as far as genetically modifying babies go. as far not wanting to alter the gametes...i'm sorry, i can never agree with you on that. i refuse to believe some individuals' religious beliefs are enough to justify the perpetuation of human suffering. even still, it's not something that will ever be forced upon everyone. you have the right to procreate as you wish, as i have the right to do it as i wish. and no, disabled people are not less than perfect. their situation is simply not ideal... why not save them from it? i'm sure most would tell you that if their handicap could be taken away, they would be glad for it. there's just no good reason to condemn future generations to cancer and mental illness and disfigurement rather than helping them. not one.

i feel you josh, i used to be really religious at one point.. but yes, just too much off-putting stuff. i still do like the main idea of it, as jay explains it. i've alot more to say on the matter, but really i'm just here to see what others might feel here.

hello again people, i know i've been gone a long time. but hi hah. curious to see how many new non-religious types have joined since. any?

this is literally the kind of work i will be directly involving myself with in the future as a geneticist and it pAINS me to see people saying it is "playing god." if using technology to reduce/eliminate the risks for disease and defect is playing god, i want you to all stop visiting hospitals. no more surgery and no more medication, under that principle. we would have to accept our circumstance as something beyond our power. no, i think as a developed and highly evolved species we should seek methods to improve our circumstance. our brains and our spirits would be strange gifts then, if we didn't put them to use. and i don't know why abortion became a part of this discussion -- that is a whole other issue. this sort of practice does not affect post-embryonic humans; genetic modification to this extent would have to occur through direct manipulation of the gametes. most likely, they would use a slightly altered version of somatic cell nuclear transfer (which is used in cloning), by taking a base somatic cell, genetically altering it, stuffing it in an unused egg, and hoping it will divide normally, basically. it's not that successful though, and a lot of the eggs don't take. hopefully research can lead us to a better method or some unseen solution. but yes, the change the recipe; they don't hack up the cake. also, "the perfect race" argument? do you really think if given this option, every couple is going to even seize it? and as for the ones that do -- you think they will all choose the same set of characteristics for their child? why would you think that? genetic diversity would not suffer, for as long as our ideals and preferences remain diverse.

okay..but your claims remain invalidated. the science you speak of that supports them is rooted in evolutionary biology and sociology. social science, in the form of small and imperfect surveys don't stand up to theories supported by logic. and on the flip, i can't see how creationism could possibly support them. as a side note..the theories behind evolution do not necessarily preclude the book of genesis. in fact, it makes much sense with it, and genesis can't possibly be understood in a literal sense.

the way i grew up made me realize that kids won't be damaged by a hands-off approach. of course, some may need it more than others, but my house has no leader and my parents involve themselves very little in my personal affairs and i'm fine: i have a good sense of the world around me and have had some success, making it near the top of my class so far. also, i have not killed my siblings or been killed, despite that my parents have been too passive to correctly punish and discipline us. that being said, as long as i find someone ideologically similar to me and who is similarly balanced in temper(can be the active presence sometimes and the passive at others), i don't see the need for a head. neither of us has any right to a higher position over the other regarding the governance of our children(..though if one HAD to be chosen, i don't know why the father would be chosen before the mother: she contributed more to their being and the mother-child bond is often most fundamental to the family's structure). i'd favor a team structure to a governmental structure effecting my personal life.

lonelyknight...if you don't accept the theory of evolution then none of that holds up. 1.) if true, the biological reason for this difference likely goes back to our reproductive strategies -- the male who saw more did more, the female who was able to make a deeper connection was most likely to recruit the male to actually help rear their offspring. evolution would explain this: they were successful reproductive strategies for each gender to adopt. how would creationism support this? if anything wouldn't creationism make women out to be the more visual, the more easily tempted as eve was? 2.) well..if you find the theory faulty or untrue, how can you use it to support your claim? of course what you said in accordance with evolution makes sense, but i don't understand why on the flip, creationism would've created men to be "weaker" or be more promiscuous. 3.) pretty much goes back to1. i'm willing to contest this as a matter of evolutionary biology..but it would be all for naught if you won't recognize it as valid.

ohmercyme..that story's sadly hilarious haha. i want to defend truelovewaits: stop saying that its harder for men! it is ridiculously hard for many of us too -- we want sex and love just as much as men do, as we are all sexually reproducing beings. the biggest difference is simply that men don't require the level of inhibitions we do, because they don't pay the same price by being promiscuous. i truly resent this attitude of entitlement, because i know that most men do not need it or want it any more than i do. but i want to find love rightly by me, and that's not a choice i'm going to hold over anyone or complain about as no one forced me into it. by suggesting men fight a harder battle is sad to me, a fellow wanderer on the same path who somehow deserves less credit for taking it. trust me. i'm 18 and at the prime of my reproductive years.

sophie is proof that people can disagree on something so core to one's beliefs and still get along; even be great friends. if some have chosen to completely abandon you because they couldn't reconcile your differences, they were likely either too immature to handle the situation or were never good friends from the start. but then, maybe there is a point when people are simply too different to do more than tolerate each other. maybe they were so passionate about taking the antagonistic view that you became a foe to them. whatever it is, i think it's a natural response for some that is to be expected and accepted.

ehh..no offense, but the ring could be sabotaging you lol.

you might also want to examine how you bring up your sexual status to potential partners. while bluntness can be a good thing, to just come out and say "i'm waiting for marriage to have sex" to the average young guy, who thinks about sex 1000% more than he thinks about his romantic ideals, would probably turn him right off. if you got close to him, established a friendship..and soon after had an intimate conversation explaining your views in-depth, you'd have a better chance of convincing someone to accept and even embrace the idea of waiting.

http://thoughtcatalog.com/2012/why-being-a-romantic-isnt-hopeless/ awesome blog post i thought i'd share. :]