Genetically selecting 'gay' embryos?

[Confederate Kahanist]

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=254861

By Drew Zahn
© 2011 WorldNetDaily




If two homosexual men want to use in vitro fertilization to conceive a baby and then use genetics technology to ensure the baby is also "gay," while disposing of any "straight" embryos, would the law have any ethical problems with that?

America's leading ethicist in the field of human reproduction has written a paper that argues future homosexual couples should have "the right" to do exactly that.

John A. Robertson of the University of Texas Law School is the chair of the Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine and an advocate of what his book "Children of Choice" calls "procreative liberty."

In a paper for the Washington, D.C., think tank Brookings Institution, Robertson presents a futuristic scenario where advancing science and society's evolving morality could create a once only dreamed-of ethical dilemma:

"Larry, a pediatrician, and David, a wills lawyer, meet in their late 20s, fall in love, and marry on June 15, 2025, in Indianapolis," Robertson writes. "By 2030, they are well-enough established in their careers to think about having their own child. Larry's 24-year-old sister Marge has agreed to donate her eggs, and David will provide the sperm, so that each partner will have a genetic connection with the child. … In the process, Larry and David come to realize that they would prefer to have a male child that shares their sexual orientation."

He continues, "The clinic doctors are experts in embryo screening and alteration, but cannot guarantee that the resulting embryos will in fact turn out to be homosexual. To increase the certainty, they will insert additional 'gay gene' sequences in the embryos."

While Robertson admits no such "gay gene" has yet been identified, he argues that genomic knowledge is "mushrooming."

The paper, titled "Reproductive Rights and Reproductive Technology in 2030," is actually the seventh in a Brookings series on the future of the U.S. Constitution, which asks a dozen scholars "of diverse political and jurisprudential worldviews" to imagine technological developments that will "stress" current constitutional law.

In his paper, Robertson argues that the Supreme Court may not want to consider the ethical implications of his theoretical scenario, or if it does, may step gingerly to avoid recognizing the full implications of what he calls the "constitutional doctrine of procreative liberty."

And if that doctrine is extended to assisted reproductive technology, Robertson says, it could result in "the surprising conclusion that what Larry and David propose may by 2030 fit within the mainstream of reproductive choice."

Robertson writes that technology will push our value system and our laws to include many things now considered "outré," but then asks, "Will this be bad?"

It depends, he answers.

"Two decades may also be too brief a time for social and cultural norms about parental choice to change and develop in the direction described here," he admits. "But … as technical developments occur, technology will exert hydraulic pressure on procreative practices and the legal rights that protect them. As conceptions of family and parental choice change, courts and legislatures will respond accordingly."

He concludes, "By 2030 the logic of procreative freedom should recognize the right of Larry and David to use the technologies available to have the family they choose."

Read more: Genetically selecting 'gay' embryos? http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=254861#ixzz1C0XG4y5t

[Lewinsky Stinks, Dr. Brennan Rocks]

In the immortal words of Homer Simpson, "Has the whole world gone gay?"
 

[muman613]

This is the sickness which modern science has unleashed on us. Humans believing that they are god and rewriting ethics in their own depraved image...

This kind of thing must stop!

[Meerkat]

coming from a person who is both supportive of gay rights and is fascinated by the theories of genetic engineering: HELL NO! you can't just impose that on your kid!

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

This is the sickness which modern science has unleashed on us. Humans believing that they are G-d and rewriting ethics in their own depraved image...

This kind of thing must stop!

You mistakenly blame "modern science" for the crimes of gay people and immoral atheism-based so-called ethicists.  THAT is what has to stop.

[Rubystars]

If they can tamper with genes to make people gay, then they should be able to tamper with genes to make people straight.

What would be hilarious about this is that liberals would say that's bigoted. I think many of them actually think being gay is preferable.

The worst possible type of person to them is a normal person.

[muman613]

You mistakenly blame "modern science" for the crimes of gay people and immoral atheism-based so-called ethicists.  THAT is what has to stop.

Science does not answer any questions concerning ethics. This is why placing trust in Science is foolish. In the case of geneticly engineering gay humans science has no concern, only whether it is technically possible or not. I still believe you KWRBT are a bit naive to believe that the scientists will be constrained by any moral code.

Have any scientists stood up and called this immoral? I surely doubt it..

[Kerber]

This is the sickness which modern science has unleashed on us. Humans believing that they are G-d and rewriting ethics in their own depraved image...

This kind of thing must stop!

You can't stop it.

Destructive demonic ideas of Roman Empire, Babylonian, and furthermore to Sodom and Gomorrah are on power today. Those kind of people are in charge. They are recreating a world wide ethical Sodom and religious Babylon.

During Hitler's era, a company called "I.G. Farben" have been producing a known killing gas - Cyclon B.
"Cyclone B was the trade name of a cyanide-based pesticide infamous for its use by Nazi Germany against human beings in gas chambers of extermination camps during the Holocaust."(Wikipedia)
Today that company is called "Novartis" and Novartis was main supplier of vaccines for so called imaginary "swine flu". Donald Rumsfeld represents the interests of that company in USA.

It's a small example of who is (again)in charge, and it's a global situation. So, it is no wonder when they are trying to spread homosexuality.

Wisdom is "a fear of Creator and departure from evil". That's what we can do - to stay away from widespread depravity, because a majority of humans are not aware of it nor able and willing to fight it.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

Science does not answer any questions concerning ethics. This is why placing trust in Science is foolish. 

  Trust in science to do what?

It becomes clearer and clearer to me that you don't know what science is.

Science exists whether it succeeds or it doesn't succeed, whether it's used to do bad or to do good -  it's a discipline for arriving at facts about the living world.   There is nothing to trust or not trust.  It's a method to arrive at knowledge.

Science doesn't answer questions concerning ethics.  Yeah, I've said that here before.   Science is not a discipline to determine ethics.  It's used to determine facts about the natural world.
Now, think about what YOU said.   

A.   Science does not evaluate questions of ethics.

B.  In an article, a so-called "ethicist" who bases his 'ethics' on humanism and atheism, claims people have a right to make gay babies, in his subjective personal EVALUATION OF THE ETHICAL QUESTION.

C.  Muman Blames Science.
   

See how what you are saying is not consistent but a rant instead?

In the case of geneticly engineering gay humans science has no concern,

   Which is why you cannot blame science, but you can blame human beings who promote engineering of gayness.

only whether it is technically possible or not.

Science isn't "concerned" with that either because it's not a living person with concerns.  It's a discipline that may at some point accumulate information which people can use to determine whether or not something like this is possible.    So should we ban information?    Because information might lead people to do something bad or against the law?   How do you propose we LIVE?

I still believe you KWRBT are a bit naive to believe that the scientists will be constrained by any moral code.

And I believe you have no idea what you are saying.

[Kerber]

Science does not answer any questions concerning ethics. This is why placing trust in Science is foolish. In the case of geneticly engineering gay humans science has no concern, only whether it is technically possible or not. I still believe you KWRBT are a bit naive to believe that the scientists will be constrained by any moral code.

Have any scientists stood up and called this immoral? I surely doubt it..

Of course not.

They are not free men. They will do everything for money and career.
Intellectual prostitutes...

Here's an example in journalism. The same thing is in mafia controlled conventional science ->

Responding to a toast to the "free press,"  near the end of his illustrious career, John Swinton, former Chief of Staff of the New York Times, told an assembly of newsmen at the New York Press Club:

     There is no such thing, at this date of the world's history, as an
     independent press. You know it and I know it. There is not one of you
     who dares to write your honest opinions, and if you did, you know
     beforehand that it would never appear in print. I am paid weekly for
     keeping my honest opinions out of the paper I am connected with. Others
     of you are paid similar salaries for similar things, and any of you who
     would be so foolish as to write honest opinions would be out on the
     streets looking for another job.

     If I allowed my honest opinions to appear in one issue of my paper,
     before twenty-four hours my occupation would be gone. The business of
     the journalist is to destroy the truth; to lie outright; to pervert; to
     vilify; to fawn at the feet of mammon, and to sell the country for his
     daily bread. You know it and I know it and what folly is this toasting
     an independent press. We are the tools and vassals of the rich men
     behind the scenes. We are the jumping jacks, they pull the strings and
     we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the
     property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

"Science does not answer any questions concerning ethics. This is why placing trust in Science is foolish. In the case of geneticly engineering gay humans science has no concern, only whether it is technically possible or not. I still believe you KWRBT are a bit naive to believe that the scientists will be constrained by any moral code."

Muman, all that you've said here has nothing to do with the thread.

A so-called "ethicist" who bases his judgments on atheism, has called for "logic" to dictate that gays (or whoever) can have the right to make gay babies.   There is nothing to do with science or scientists but you have gone on another of your rants.




As to, "has any scientist called this immoral,"  - Why is that relevant?  Maybe the scientists are all busy doing their jobs and don't want to waste their time pontificating about gay babies.

Have any computer scientists come out and said this is immoral?   I highly doubt it!

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

Of course not.

They are not free men. They will do everything for money and career.  

Really?  Wow, so let's exterminate them, you nutcase.   Did you finish writing mein kampf yet about all those greedy scientist bankers who bankrupted your country and steal your pure blood to dilute it?

Why do I have a feeling you've never once in your life met a person involved with science.  Have you even been to a university before?     It can only be made into such a boogeyman by a person who's never seen it but only heard doom and gloom lectures about it from jonathan edwards-type preachers about how much the "devil" is in it.

[Lewinsky Stinks, Dr. Brennan Rocks]

Really?  Wow, so let's exterminate them, you nutcase.   Did you finish writing mein kampf yet about all those greedy scientist bankers who bankrupted your country and steal your pure blood to dilute it?

Why do I have a feeling you've never once in your life met a person involved with science.  Have you even been to a university before?     It can only be made into such a boogeyman by a person who's never seen it but only heard doom and gloom lectures about it from jonathan edwards-type preachers about how much the "devil" is in it.

I don't get anything anti-Semitic in what he wrote. Can you explain why you went off on him like this?

[Kerber]

Really?  Wow, so let's exterminate them, you nutcase.   Did you finish writing mein kampf yet about all those greedy scientist bankers who bankrupted your country and steal your pure blood to dilute it?

Take it easy.
We are not talking about banks nor my country. But, when you mentioned it, after US-NATO aggression on my country, all domestic banks were eliminated, and today in Serbia we have about 40+ all foreign(mostly EU) banks with the highest loan interest rates in Europe. A hole economy is in foreign hands. May be it is funny to you, bu it wouldn't be if you are in the same position.

Yes, most of the scientists today are puppets. Everywhere in the world. Very rare are able to resist. When you depend on payments , you are going to work on every immoral thing just to keep your job. If you cannot understand that, than I'm sorry.

[Lewinsky Stinks, Dr. Brennan Rocks]

I can't say I find much to disagree with in what Kerber wrote, especially considering his country's perspective.

[Kerber]

...

Why do I have a feeling you've never once in your life met a person involved with science.  Have you even been to a university before?     It can only be made into such a boogeyman by a person who's never seen it but only heard doom and gloom lectures about it from jonathan edwards-type preachers about how much the "devil" is in it.

I've worked in University. You are not called here to teach me about science.

I can confirm from my personal experience everything I've said.

[JTFenthusiast2]

It's far more likely people would get rid of the gay embryos.  Wasn't this same idea brought up a few years back about people who were against abortion but pro-abortion if the fetus was deemed to likely have a future homosexual orientation.  Either way, they're hypocrites, this gay couple or the abortionists.  G-d gave you the child He gave you, be thankful.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

I've worked in University. You are not called to teach me about science.

You worked there?

What did you do?    Were you a teacher?   


If you thought my previous post was making fun, you completely misread it.   There is absolutely nothing funny about the way you demonize scientists.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

btw, puppets of whom exactly?

[Lewinsky Stinks, Dr. Brennan Rocks]

There is absolutely nothing funny about the way you demonize scientists.

There wasn't anything funny about you insinuating that he is a Nazi because he is against scientists.

Scientists can be good or bad, but we all know what human nature is and what most secular human beings choose with their free will.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

There wasn't anything funny about you insinuating that he is a Nazi because he is against scientists.

The way he spoke about them was similar to language used by the german nazis to scapegoat Jews. 
Like they are evil babylon-possessed greedy bloodsuckers who do everything for money.   How can you label a group of people like this and think that's logical or accurate and not nazi-like thing to say?

 It wasn't supposed to be funny, and I didn't insinuate anything, he spoke that way himself.

Scientists can be good or bad, but we all know what human nature is and what most secular human beings choose with their free will.

He didn't say that, he said they all sell out their souls for money like greedy mamzerim.   So that does not include good.

Second of all, not all scientists are secular.

Thirdly, the intimation that a secular person will naturally choose to be greedy, but a religious person won't, is preposterous.

[Kerber]

You worked there?

What did you do?    Were you a teacher?  


If you thought my previous post was making fun, you completely misread it.   There is absolutely nothing funny about the way you demonize scientists.

I was an assistant, not a professor. But, if I was a puppet enough, in a few years I could make a professor.

I'm not demonizing scientists. There are good and honest people, but the situation is very bad considering conventional science, especially in Universities where teachers are learned and asked to spread half-truths to students in many areas, including natural and social science(like history or physics).

Majority of such people do depend of the state(payments). If you know who controls the state, you'll understand what I'm talking about.
All  official researches are under control and coordination of the state. This gay-case is directed from the top also, but if you don't know how the control and coordination(and hierarchy) works then you can't understand.

[Kerber]

The way he spoke about them was similar to language used by the german nazis to scapegoat Jews.  
Like they are evil babylon-possessed greedy bloodsuckers who do everything for money.   How can you label a group of people like this and think that's logical or accurate and not nazi-like thing to say?

 It wasn't supposed to be funny, and I didn't insinuate anything, he spoke that way himself.

He didn't say that, he said they all sell out their souls for money like greedy mamzerim.   So that does not include good.

Second of all, not all scientists are secular.

Thirdly, the intimation that a secular person will naturally choose to be greedy, but a religious person won't, is preposterous.

Hahaha... And you think I'm accusing Jews like in the times of Nazi Germany??? Chill out, will you? Go for some fresh air man.  

[muman613]

 Trust in science to do what?

It becomes clearer and clearer to me that you don't know what science is.

Science exists whether it succeeds or it doesn't succeed, whether it's used to do bad or to do good -  it's a discipline for arriving at facts about the living world.   There is nothing to trust or not trust.  It's a method to arrive at knowledge.

Science doesn't answer questions concerning ethics.  Yeah, I've said that here before.   Science is not a discipline to determine ethics.  It's used to determine facts about the natural world.
Now, think about what YOU said.  

A.   Science does not evaluate questions of ethics.

B.  In an article, a so-called "ethicist" who bases his 'ethics' on humanism and atheism, claims people have a right to make gay babies, in his subjective personal EVALUATION OF THE ETHICAL QUESTION.

C.  Muman Blames Science.
   

See how what you are saying is not consistent but a rant instead?
   Which is why you cannot blame science, but you can blame human beings who promote engineering of gayness.

Science isn't "concerned" with that either because it's not a living person with concerns.  It's a discipline that may at some point accumulate information which people can use to determine whether or not something like this is possible.    So should we ban information?    Because information might lead people to do something bad or against the law?   How do you propose we LIVE?


And I believe you have no idea what you are saying.

So you confirm what I said, you place your faith in science instead of in man....

I did not say that science is inherently wrong on the topic. I said that science is incapable of determining moral right or wrong. If they are unable to prove that Hashem exists then they are unable to say what is morally right or wrong. All they can say is whether or not it is technically possible to do something. For instance concerning pirating music or software.... When a person pirates movies or music they are ethically doing the wrong thing but the technology does not care one way or the other.

Science in the hands of man is a very, very dangerous tool. You think that science is in the best interest of mankind, but this has been shown over and over again to be foolish.

As I have said many times before. Technology is a very powerful tool, one which can be used to the detriment of mankind...

And I am entirely sure you are naive when it comes to the nature of mankind...

[muman613]

KWRBT,

Answer this question: Where does 'Science' get ethics from?

I suspect scientific ethics are based on whatever the prevailing popular opinion is at the time.... As as result these are not moral codes but just public opinion which changes with the wind...

Science is also greatly influenced by where the money comes from. Look at the Pharmacuetical companies and their unholy alliance with the medical profession. Also look at the popular Global Warming scientists who line up for grants to study that fallacy.