JTF.ORG Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Confederate Kahanist on January 24, 2011, 08:46:31 PM
-
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
-
In the immortal words of Homer Simpson, "Has the whole world gone gay?"
:o >:( :o >:( :o >:( :o >:( :o >:( :o >:( :o >:( :o
-
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!
-
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!
-
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.
-
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.
-
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..
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
"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!
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
I can't say I find much to disagree with in what Kerber wrote, especially considering his country's perspective.
-
...
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
btw, puppets of whom exactly?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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. :)
-
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...
-
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.
-
And let me clear up one fallacy which you promoted KWRBT... I am not against technology in the slightest. I work as a software engineer and I have a degree as a 'Computer Scientist'. My work doesn't overstep any ethical or moral boundaries so I don't have many challenges in this area. As I stated before I consider piracy to be theft and on that I have not changed my opinion. The fact that a majority of kids today do not consider this theft is a very bad sign to me that morals are only influenced by the public opinion and not based on immutable ideals as morality in the Torah is.
-
So you confirm what I said, you place your faith in science instead of in man....
???
When did that happen? Quote me, please!
Do you just distort the conversation as the way to make your point?
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.
What did I say different?
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.
Like I said, how do you propose that we live? Should we ban information because people use it for evil?
Should we also ban the newspaper because sometimes people use it to speak lashon hara. While we are at it, let's ban language itself since Hashem forbade us from speaking Lashon Hara.
BUT HOWCOME GOD DIDN'T BAN US FROM SPEAKING?
ARE YOU GETTING MY POINT YET? I SURE HOPE SO.
And I am entirely sure you are naive when it comes to the nature of mankind...
This insult adds nothing to the discussion, but I am entirely sure you put words in my mouth and it really ticks me off. And I'm not the only person you do this to, Muman.
-
???
When did that happen? Quote me, please!
Do you just distort the conversation as the way to make your point?
What did I say different?
Like I said, how do you propose that we live? Should we ban information because people use it for evil?
Should we also ban the newspaper because sometimes people use it to speak lashon hara. While we are at it, let's ban language itself since Hashem forbade us from speaking Lashon Hara.
BUT HOWCOME G-d DIDN'T BAN US FROM SPEAKING?
ARE YOU GETTING MY POINT YET? I SURE HOPE SO.
This insult adds nothing to the discussion, but I am entirely sure you put words in my mouth and it really ticks me off. And I'm not the only person you do this to, Muman.
Just as the insult at the end of your previous post added nothing to the discussion, but I figured if you could inject such an insult so could I...
And I believe you have no idea what you are saying.
-
KWRBT,
Answer this question: Where does 'Science' get ethics from?
You obviously didn't read my post.
Let me quote myself for you: I said: "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."
I think I've said this so many times on the forum to explain to you why science, the discipline, cannot be blamed or negated for the rants and philosophical speculations of atheists and individual scientists, since those things exist outside of the scientific method. But I think that I've said it so many times that you are now mimicking me by saying that science does not determine ethics, and yet you are twisting those words to make them say something else, which really is unclear at this point. What point are you making about ethics? And do you acknowledge that you are adopting my own language now?
Ethics can only come from God. Even the philosopher Kant acknowledged that point, and he was not a believer.
So what is it that you are saying and why do you bring science into the discussion of ethics? It is YOU who are conflating the two!
I suspect scientific ethics are based on whatever the prevailing popular opinion is at the time....
What are "scientific ethics?" I've never heard of this. Is this an Oprah show?
As as result these are not moral codes but just public opinion which changes with the wind...
I know I'm making a mistake by indulging you in this tangent, but scientists are bound by more than just the wind. They are bound by law. Like most other professions.
Science is also greatly influenced by where the money comes from.
So is every profession, especially yours.
Look at the Pharmacuetical companies
and their unholy alliance with the medical profession.
And look at the legislation and punishments against this. If you would work in a company like this, you would see that companies have rules to prevent this.
Of course not all science is done in industry. There is also academic work. Oh, but the industry is evil for making money off their work, constructing their own business models and entrepreneurial endeavors to take in profits for their achievements, but the academics are evil for accepting handouts (aka grants) to do theirs. So really all scientists should jump off a bridge instead according to you? But why are computer scientists exempt?
And look at all those computer programmers wreaking havoc on innocent people by designing viruses and stealing identities with their hacking and programming. LET'S BURN ALL THE COMPUTERS. BURN BABY BURN
-
I do not suggest that people give up on technology. But each person needs to consider it for what it is. People today seem to expect that they can live longer, live happier, and do what they want when they want to using the modern technologies including computers, audio & video, cellphones and networks, and medicine. It is incorrect, from a Jewish perspective, to place any trust in these things. When our sages talked about idolatry they were talking about people who placed their trust in forces or objects which were created by man. Today we see a modern form of Idolatry...
People cannot live without their cellphone. They are overloaded with information from the internet which often causes interpersonal problems at home {a big problem between husband and wife often involves the computer}. People are taking medicines which they should not be taking only because they 'feel better' when they use these chemicals.
I do not trust most people who call themselves scientists because I realize that they intend on making money through researching their particular field. Of course there is incentive to exagerate claims, as has happened with the quest for nuclear fusion {see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion }. I believe that science can be a tool which will assist the human race to advance. But I also have reservations about the current bad state of moral decay in the world today...
-
The issue of morality and ethics entered this discussion because I consider it immoral to genetically engineer gay children. Science is unable to decide if it is immoral because there is no moral code which science is bound to. Regarding laws in order to keep scientists ethical, I think it is naive again. People do illegal things all the time, the law does not prevent them from doing the deed. As I mentioned concerning pirating software or dvd movies...
-
Just as the insult at the end of your previous post added nothing to the discussion, but I figured if you could inject such an insult so could I...
Now you are just being dishonest.
You excuse your own insult because I supposedly insulted you first. Wow kids, here's a lesson on how to be disingenuous.
Surely, Muman, you know what my comment was in response to - YOUR OWN INSULT OF ME! So don't play dumb and act like you added it because you're some kind of victim but knew it was useless.
Your insults add nothing to the discussion - that is the salient fact. That you feel you've done something wrong and need to "excuse" the behavior by blaming me is not my concern. The fact remains however, that I can't be blamed for your own words.
Muman: "I still believe you KWRBT are a bit naive to believe that the scientists will be constrained by any moral code."
My response: "And I believe you have no idea what you are saying."
Muman "And I am entirely sure you are naive when it comes to the nature of mankind..."
Oops! No excuses Muman, no one wants to hear them. Please stay focused on the topic instead of trying to assert who is righteous or not.
-
The issue of morality and ethics entered this discussion because I consider it immoral to genetically engineer gay children. Science is unable to decide if it is immoral because there is no moral code which science is bound to. Regarding laws in order to keep scientists ethical, I think it is naive again. People do illegal things all the time, the law does not prevent them from doing the deed. As I mentioned concerning pirating software or dvd movies...
Right, and for this reason, since evil people will get guns illegally, even though there are laws on how to acquire them in a legal fashion, we must ban guns and we must condemn guns as illegal because there will always be some lawbreaker who not only breaks the law to get a gun, but uses the gun in an unlawful manner. Guns are therefore evil. Same warped logic.
And everything is evil because evil people will misuse the things and so everything must be banned and condemned. That's quite a world to live in.
-
I do not trust most people who call themselves scientists because I realize that they intend on making money through researching their particular field.
And I do not trust people who call themselves computer scientists because I realize that they intend on making money through researching their particular field.
And I do not trust people who call themselves policemen because I realize that they intend on making money through researching their particular field.
And I do not trust people who call themselves historians because I realize that they intend on making money through researching their particular field.
And I do not trust people who call themselves RABBIS because I realize that they intend on making money through researching their particular field.
Ooops, forgot about that one, didn't we? Rabbis also make money, muman. And when did making money become a crime which erodes a person's reputation?
-
Now you are just being dishonest.
You excuse your own insult because I supposedly insulted you first. Wow kids, here's a lesson on how to be disingenuous.
Surely, Muman, you know what my comment was in response to - YOUR OWN INSULT OF ME! So don't play dumb and act like you added it because you're some kind of victim but knew it was useless.
Your insults add nothing to the discussion - that is the salient fact. That you feel you've done something wrong and need to "excuse" the behavior by blaming me is not my concern. The fact remains however, that I can't be blamed for your own words.
Muman: "I still believe you KWRBT are a bit naive to believe that the scientists will be constrained by any moral code."
My response: "And I believe you have no idea what you are saying."
Muman "And I am entirely sure you are naive when it comes to the nature of mankind..."
Oops! No excuses Muman, no one wants to hear them. Please stay focused on the topic instead of trying to assert who is righteous or not.
Oh, so you considered the fact that I think you are naive to be an insult. Honestly it was not intended as one. Just that in the past you have argued about this in the same manner. Expecting scientists and industry to conform to laws created by the government... I just don't think that is a realistic explanation.
I also do not intend to get into any kind of insult competition with you. I have always considered you to be a great JTF member and someone whom I agree with most of the time.
What I said in my first post is:
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!
And it is true that modern science has unleashed these problems.... When humans believe that they are like Hashem, able to select the traits which are desirable in children, they are rewriting ethics in their own image...
Have you studied the story of the Tower of Babel? What lessons are learned from that story?
-
Oh, so you considered the fact that I think you are naive to be an insult. Honestly it was not intended as one. Just that in the past you have argued about this in the same manner.
And when I said you had no clue what you were saying, it was also not intended as an insult. It was an honest conviction that I shared as a description of reality based on your comments in this thread.
-
And when I said you had no clue what you were saying, it was also not intended as an insult. It was an honest conviction that I shared as a description of reality based on your comments in this thread.
I just hope that you are responsible in any science you are involved with. I suspect as you go out to work you will run into scientists who are not as moral and righteous as yourself. I sincerely hope that you will be able to influence others to do the right thing..
-
I work as a software engineer and I have a degree as a 'Computer Scientist'. My work doesn't overstep any ethical or moral boundaries
That's debatable!
See, you want to take the easy way out. Everyone else's profession is subject to scrutiny but not yours.
But those who are scientists (other types, such as biologists, chemists, biochemists, etc), and who are personally abiding by ethical guidelines and ethical commonsense, would say the same thing about their work that you claim about your own work!
And they would also be saying 'who the hell is this guy to cast aspersions on what we do?'
-
I just hope that you are responsible in any science you are involved with.
Then I hope for the same thing from you. Because as we all know, software can be used for good or for bad.
-
science only answers the questions of how the world functions
ethics questions, which a lot of times involve the right ways to use science, are answered by consumers or voters.
-
Then I hope for the same thing from you. Because as we all know, software can be used for good or for bad.
You don't think I worry about that too? I think of the negative uses of the technology I work on and it bothers me. Also when I worked in the defense industry {in the late 80s} I also worried that the weapons systems I worked on might be used to kill innocent people.... This is why I am happy that I got out of the defense sector over 20 years ago.
Actually I also feel bad because most of the technology I work on goes into TV, DVD, and set-top IPTV boxes.... I do not watch TV or cable in my house because there is no good programming on. It bothers me that a lot of the programming which will be displayed through the audio/video technology I work on will end up causing kids to follow the wrong path {the path of sexual immorality and consumerism}.... But I am consoled that the technology can also be used to learn Torah and spread wisdom..
-
I noticed that some of my most substantial points you choose not to address. Oh well.
-
I noticed that some of my most substantial points you choose not to address. Oh well.
If you would like... But I basically have expressed what I think needed to be expressed.
I do not think that technology or science is inherently evil. As I said many times technology is a tool which can be used for good or bad. But I have grown out of my idealistic phase where I believed that a majority of people have the best interest of the society in mind. I have become a bit leery because over time I witnessed science not being as 'solid' as it implied it was. Many theories have fallen by the wayside. Many ideas which government started to become involved with {such as Global Warming, Global Cooling, Population explosion, etc.} have been shown to be false. Politicians such as Al Gore are prepared to use science in order to cause social changes in America and around the world. Doctors today rely way too much on drugs which are basically given like candy to them from the Pharma companies. You say there are laws against this... But my experience at the Doctors office is the opposite... They give me sample drugs virtually every time I visit the doctor. I refused to take some of the medicines which they were handing out... The doctors office has posters of new drugs with the expression "Ask your doctor about XYZZY!"...
So if you want to civilly discuss my opinion I will gladly engage in the discussion. If you intend on trying to prove I am wrong and denigrate me {I am not accusing you of this} then I will not go along...
-
science only answers the questions of how the world functions
ethics questions, which a lot of times involve the right ways to use science, are answered by consumers or voters.
My point exactly... 'consumers or voters' who blow with the wind of politics...
-
It's not science our technology that is evil. It's evil puerile which is evil. You dont stop technology and science because it could be used for evil. You stop evil puerile from being evil.
And religion can be used for evil. Look what mohammad did to twist judaism into his satanic theology.
As far as creating gay genes and gay parents who want to have genetic engineered gay kids the more it seems that if given the choice to those sickos to be straight if they had the will, the more likely they would choose to be homosexual.
-
I doubt that it is possible to isolate a "gay gene" but if it became possible, it would be a disgusting thing to do to impose that gene artificially on your child.