|
Post by Stribog on Dec 9, 2003 20:13:35 GMT -5
We could call it 'ElimiMate'
|
|
|
Post by JohnnyReb on Dec 10, 2003 0:26:33 GMT -5
I get to validate all the chicks! I suppose there would have to be different sections, for European preservationists, and those who don't care about race.
|
|
|
Post by TSUNTZU on Dec 11, 2003 22:16:55 GMT -5
I vote no because the best thing to do is the simplest, don't racemix. Good breeding habits should suffice.
|
|
|
Post by SKADI JU87 on May 5, 2004 10:32:03 GMT -5
Why should Genetical Engineering be necessary if people just followed the rules of sticking to their own race. Playing around with nature usually causes more damage than good anyway...
|
|
|
Post by TSUNTZU the CulturalAntiSemite on Jun 12, 2004 4:19:29 GMT -5
I would always say no not only because its messing with nature, but because although a kid never can choose what they are born with, I have no right to choose for them However, you can choose to do the right thing for the WHITE RACE and not soil the white gene pool by not breeding with whites.
|
|
|
Post by geirr on Jun 12, 2004 5:06:29 GMT -5
However, you can choose to do the right thing for the WHITE RACE and not soil the white gene pool by not breeding with whites. How ironic that in Hitler's day people with mental illnesses were euthanised because they were considered genetically inferior.
|
|
|
Post by Graeme on Jun 12, 2004 11:53:22 GMT -5
I voted No, even though I have engaged in genetic engineering via molecular biology on microorganisms, mice and rats. I don't think we have enough knowledge to do it properly or non deleteriously. Moving genes or removing them or splicing additional ones don't always produce the desired result. Transferring the blue colour gene of Petunias to Carnations did not produce deep blue carnations just dull mauve ones. It seems very trivial to tamper with an embryo's genome just to give it green eyes. Genetics is complex, the same genes do not express themselves the same way even in identical twins. There are cascade effects, genes that influence other genes or are part of necessary physiological functions.
Then again if I knew my four children from four women will all have redhair maybe I would have engaged in some human genetic engineering to prevent that occurring or worn a condom.
|
|
|
Post by TSUNTZU the CulturalAntiSemite on Jun 12, 2004 12:45:27 GMT -5
How ironic that in Hitler's day people with mental illnesses were euthanised because they were considered genetically inferior. What is ironic? People with mental illness are defects. They were not euthanised, they were sterilized. Try not to spread Talmudic paranoia with such exaggerations.
|
|
Afro
Full Member
Posts: 248
|
Post by Afro on Jun 20, 2004 17:54:01 GMT -5
No.
Unless it is something small like removing a family birthmark or something I don't want to mess with it.
|
|
|
Post by GreatLor on Aug 17, 2004 12:20:45 GMT -5
If the risks were so low that one could imgine them virtually nonexistant then DEFINATELY yes.
|
|
|
Post by MC anunnaki on Nov 7, 2004 3:15:39 GMT -5
I voted "Yes, if the risks were negligible", but this applies only to the health aspect. I couldn't care less what eye or hair colour my children would or could have. Health is the most important thing. I'd rather have ten brown-eyed healthy kids than one blue-eyed dying of some disease that can't be cured.
|
|
Mutt
New Member
Mongrels have more fun
Posts: 25
|
Post by Mutt on Nov 23, 2004 0:38:39 GMT -5
I voted "yes if the risks were negligible" also. I guess if scientists reach the point where they know enough about genetic engineering that the risks involved are significantly reduced or eliminated than its okay with me.
|
|
|
Post by LibLabDog on Dec 17, 2004 1:14:50 GMT -5
YES!!! Of course. Why wouldn't you?
DNA is a VAST pallette. If they influence a few genes, it would still OVERWHELMINGLY be your child. Why wouldn't you do this?
HigherIQ, well worth it. Green Eyes, Curly hair, ...well, personally not what I'd choose to influence.
Religious fanatacism... gone. Get rid of those genes. Bedwetting... ...gone.
But seriously folks, why WOULDN'T you do this? The only reason I can think of is pride, or lack of faith in the technology to make these kinds of determinations. (Or if you're European, out of a fear that it's all an American-Jewish conspiracy.)
|
|
Mutt
New Member
Mongrels have more fun
Posts: 25
|
Post by Mutt on Dec 20, 2004 2:33:21 GMT -5
Yeah it sounds good to me, I don't see a problem with it especially if it can erase genetic predispositons for certain diseases and disorders that might run in a family, and even if it is for cosmetic reasons I don't see any legitimate reason why anyone else should have a problem with it. If some purists are worried about their kids not having blonde or red hair they could got to some clinic and fix that.
|
|