Hey, Post is dead? Fun! *steals his name*

So our acceptance of deformities is essentially damning the human race?

Yeah, how can we evolve if we ignore all our problems?

But this way is more humane than evolving.

Sounds about right, Luciene. Being humane may damage the human race.

What happened to:

"the strength to change what we can, the courage to accept what we can't, and the wisdom to know the difference?"

Serenity to accept the things we cannot change, Courage to change the things we can, and wisdom to know the difference.

What about it?

Random wrote: Sounds about right, Luciene. Being humane may damage the human race.

Indeed. Thousands of genetic conditions which would have been selected out in the past are now treated. The people with them survive, breed, pass the diseases onto their kids. Incidence of genetic diseases skyrockets with advances in medicine. Embryo selection based on a large archive of genetic diseases or gene therapy to correct them needs to come in to fix this. Anyone who accuses such messing around as playing "god" needs to realise that saving people who would ordinarily have been killed, directly or indirectly, by their genetic diseases is in itself playing "god".

*drags back on topic* i dont like the new theme...the orange burns!

*drags back off topic*

Doesn't stem-cell thingy kill innocent babies or whatever?

I wasn't talking about stem cell therapy.. but no. Embryonic stem cells are taken from cloned embryos (which likely wouldn't survive anyway), but there are hundreds of other types of stem cells, and science is getting better and better at tricking them into being as versatile as ESCs.

I thought it picked babies, so you might chose one that may not have actually lived, so the baby who may have lived doesn't get a life, so I guess it's your religious opinion if it kills innocent babies.

But I could be wrong.

That's not stem cells. That's embryo selection, which is what I *was* talking about. And sure, some embryos are killed. Most embryos die anyway. This just ensures that the ones that survive aren't the ones with nasty genetic diseases that will then propagate (and incidentally, would have killed them in a "natural" environment without fancy healthcare).

But since we do have fancy healthcare, shouldn't we use it to help the innocent people with genetic diseases? Even if we are evolving backwards?

Here we go.

So when are we going to be going to be converted?

Yes, yes we should. But if we can prevent them being born in the first place we don't have to spend vast amounts of money supporting people who will by definition have a poorer quality of life anyway, while meaning less are conceived in the future.
The ideal completely humane solution that doesn't "kill" any embryos (remember we're talking clusters of a mere handful of cells here - most of which would naturally die anyway - amd can hardly be called a person) is gene therapy, specifically fixing those genes, but that's much further off than simply screening out embryos with the diseases. Gene therapy is coming (see the recent case where they helped someone with a genetic eye disease by injecting a virus into the eye that replaces the faulty genes) but we're far from the stage where we can fix all genetic conditions before a baby's born (and the treatment has to be applied in the very early stages of development or it won't fix the genes in the sex cells, so it can still be passed on to children).
I should point out that IVF screens out certain serious genetic conditions already.

Grrrr. I am not preaching any religion. I have a handicapped friend.

I thought Apollo was referring to the topic (new theme and ZetaBoards) rather than your post. If I am reading that right, the answer is Soon™. Apparently the converter is done and working, and will be applied across the board (pun intended) shortly..

Oh.

Apologies, Apollo.

Sentynel wrote: Yes, yes we should. But if we can prevent them being born in the first place we don't have to spend vast amounts of money supporting people who will by definition have a poorer quality of life anyway, while meaning less are conceived in the future.

The don't necessarily have a poorer quality of life. I knew this kid in elementary school who's left arm ended just after the elbow, and he's like one of the most amazing people I've ever met. He's an incredible public speaker, I remember in when we were nine, he gave this speech and all the teachers and everyone were crying.

And he doesn't require vast amounts of money to be supported. He's just like a regular person. Where do you draw the line?

i dont think it is fair that children have to grow up with mental disabilities or serious physical ones.