• Hello, this board in now turned off and no new posting.
    Please REGISTER at Anabolic Steroid Forums, and become a member of our NEW community!
  • Check Out IronMag Labs® KSM-66 Max - Recovery and Anabolic Growth Complex

Build-A-Baby...

Should we be able to customize our babies

  • Yes

    Votes: 3 27.3%
  • No

    Votes: 8 72.7%

  • Total voters
    11

min0 lee

Senior Member
Elite Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2004
Messages
14,803
Reaction score
1,587
Points
113
Age
60
Location
The Bronx, NYC
Custom-made babies delivered: Fertility clinic doctor's design-a-kid offer creates uproar

http://[B]www.nydailynews.com[/B]/news/2009/03/02/2009-03-02_custommade_babies_delivered_fertility_cl.html


BY GINA SALAMONE
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER

Tuesday, March 3rd 2009, 3:06 AM


Dr. Jeff Steinberg has already let thousands decide their kids' gender. Now he says that within the next six months, the Manhattan and L.A. offices of his Fertility Institutes will let would-be moms and dads pick whether junior has blue or brown eyes or black or blond hair.

"In the process of doing gender selection ... we've also uncovered the technology [to] characterize things like eye and hair color," said Steinberg, 54.

The idea of a Build-A-Bear style baby was slammed Monday by bioethicists and right-to-life groups - and Pope Benedict has warned against it for years.

The Pope railed against the "obsessive search for the perfect child" just two weekends ago. "A new mentality is creeping in that tends to justify a different consideration of life and personal dignity," he said.

Steinberg countered that reproductive technologies aren't about to go away.

"Genetic health is the wave of the future," he said. "It's already happening and it's not going to go away. It's going to expand. So if they've got major problems with it, they need to sit down and really examine their own consciences because there's nothing that's going to stop it."

Custom-made kids will be achieved through preimplantation genetic diagnosis, or PGD, the procedure used to weed out problem embryos and to allow parents to choose a gender.

In letting parents decide what traits their kids have, doctors will examine the genetic makeup of embryos created in the lab and implant the ones that have the best chance of giving mom and dad what they want.

Some doctors question Steinberg's ability to give parents their pick of traits.

"He's the only one offering this because you can't yet do it," said Sean Tipton of the American Society for Reproductive Technology. "Nobody can do this right now."

Dr. William Kearns, head of the Shady Grove Center for Preimplantation Genetics in Rockville, Md., disagrees. His research has identified genes relating to northern European skin, hair and eye pigmentation, but he won't use it to let parents design their kids.

Steinberg, one of the doctors who helped produce the first test-tube baby, admits the technology isn't 100% - and says for now the best results are with couples of Scandinavian heritage, whose gene pools are the least diluted.

"Say you made seven embryos, and one of them has got the highest chance of green eyes, and that chance is 80%. It's not perfect science because eye and hair color are not perfect genetics," said Steinberg, who opened an office on E. 40th St. two months ago.

There are no laws in New York that address how PGD testing can be used. Opponents say there should be.

Lori Kehoe, executive director of the New York State Right to Life Committee, is upset that the embryos deemed undesirable will be destroyed.

She said it is "sickening to flush a member of the human family down the drain" because they are not considered perfect.

Prof. Alexander Capron, bioethicist and professor of law and medicine at the University of Southern California, called Steinberg's procedure problematic. "The notion of unconditional love and support - which is assumed to be what parents owe their children - is totally undermined here," he said.

"You're saying I want to order up just what I want and that's what I'll love."

One New York doctor even likened it to the pursuit of a master race.

"We're crossing the line into eugenics, the theory of trying to give people enhanced characteristics - genetic engineering to make sort of the superman or superwoman," said Dr. Daniel Sulmasy, director of ethics at New York Medical College and St. Vincent's Hospital.

gsalamone@nydailynews.com
 
No, it is against nature and evolution.

However we should continue to devolop the technology as we dont know what other techniques we might master that may be required sometime in the future.
 
Eugenics
 
Instead of cosmetic shit that means nothing, maybe they should focus this effort, manpower, and money, into curing genetically inherited diseases.

I couldnt care less what my future child looks like so long as it's healthy.
 
whats wrong with building a baby thats resistant to contracting certain deadly viruses or cancer?

how is this against nature and evolution? The human species brain and ingenuity is part of nature; therefore, what we create is part of nature as well...who is to say that "natural" evolution can only happen with out the interference of man? What about the interference of a meteorite? What makes that more natural?
 
Yes, for the love of god, we can end world ugliness forever. A hot blue eyed blond with big tits for every guy who wants one, but personally I want a brown skin big booty green eyed Latin girl. Women could have their choice of Brad Pitts and Mat Damons, or whatever you girls find hot. It would be fucking great.
 
Yes, for the love of god, we can end world ugliness forever. A hot blue eyed blond with big tits for every guy who wants one, but personally I want a brown skin big booty green eyed Latin girl. Women could have their choice of Brad Pitts and Mat Damons, or whatever you girls find hot. It would be fucking great.

There he is! We began to worry about you dude, we missed your honesty.
 
whats wrong with building a baby thats resistant to contracting certain deadly viruses or cancer?

how is this against nature and evolution? The human species brain and ingenuity is part of nature; therefore, what we create is part of nature as well...who is to say that "natural" evolution can only happen with out the interference of man? What about the interference of a meteorite? What makes that more natural?

Nothing whatsoever, I only scanned over the article however I got the impression that it was more about cosmetic changes as opposed to changes to prevent gentic disorders. I also said we should continue devoloping the technology to the point where it can be useful, e.g. the reasons you stated above. If we already are already able to do that then I appologies.

However the interference of a meterorite is very different from changing the chromosomal properties of the embryo before it is implanted into the womb.;)
 
Yes, for the love of god, we can end world ugliness forever. A hot blue eyed blond with big tits for every guy who wants one, but personally I want a brown skin big booty green eyed Latin girl. Women could have their choice of Brad Pitts and Mat Damons, or whatever you girls find hot. It would be fucking great.

Was beginning to think the ''minorities'' might have gotten you.....lol
 
No, it is against nature and evolution.
How's that? If man is a natural organism produced through the process of evolution then how is something we do against nature and evolution? That's something I never quite understood, how man can be so arrogant as to believe he is above nature and natural processes, if some other being were to come and observe us they would characterize everything we do and make as being an inclusive process of the whole evolutionary process in nature. From way up in the sky we look like colonies of ants busily scampering about to do what has to be done to ensure the continuation of our species.....
 
Muscle Gelz Transdermals
IronMag Labs Prohormones
Instead of cosmetic shit that means nothing, maybe they should focus this effort, manpower, and money, into curing genetically inherited diseases.

I couldnt care less what my future child looks like so long as it's healthy.


+1
 
Instead of cosmetic shit that means nothing, maybe they should focus this effort, manpower, and money, into curing genetically inherited diseases.

I couldnt care less what my future child looks like so long as it's healthy.
Maybe this is a step in that direction?


Besides, if God doesn't roll dice then why should man have to?
 
How's that? If man is a natural organism produced through the process of evolution then how is something we do against nature and evolution? That's something I never quite understood, how man can be so arrogant as to believe he is above nature and natural processes, if some other being were to come and observe us they would characterize everything we do and make as being an inclusive process of the whole evolutionary process in nature. From way up in the sky we look like colonies of ants busily scampering about to do what has to be done to ensure the continuation of our species.....

We are far less useful than ants, we are lazy, wasteful, envious, greedy, selfish ect.ect. Stephen Hawking has stated that he does not believe that we are an overly intelligent lifeform, that a more intelligent species is yet to come. I tend to agree with that.

To be honest, I probably phrased that wrong, nothing we do is against evolution, we are a species and so determine our own path. However the decision we make may eventually lead to our downfall. It begins with the changing of eye colour or alteration of defective chromosomes, but who knows where this could lead us in the future and what successes/failures it may have? (Though I would like to add, in the short term at least, I am all for alteration of defective chromosomes)

My original statement was against the alteration of eye/hair colour, as this effects natural selection. And although we as a species have done you best to do away with nat. selection, it still does exist to a certain degree. I dont particularly care either way, I have already been born and none of these changes will affect me.

Slight change of direction, but maniclion I think you are a good person to discuss this with. I often wonder what effect modern medicine will have on the human race in the long run? I also find it funny that after a couple of hundred years of scientific research we feel that we know better than evolution. You will of course be familiar with Darwins 'survival of the fittest' in which only the best adapted (biggest, strongest, best looking, best mating dance, most intelligent ect.) get to pass on their DNA to the next generation. However modern medicine is now keeping people alive (millions upon millions) that would have died a few hundred years ago. In essence with every passing generation we are weakening our gene pool!! Our population has soared to the point where we are over using our resources, stretching them to the limit, and with the global pop. set to sky rocket over the next fifty years, something will have to give at some points.

Think about it, if any other species over populated and abused their resources like we did, nature would bite back in order to restore the natural order of things. Now were are different from other species, due to our intelligence, so we have been able to look after ourselves so far. My worry is are we intelligent enough to correct this overpopulation and overuse ourselves? Or will something give and the decision is taken out of our hands?

There is so much more I would like to write about this topic, however I would like to hear some other opinions first.
 
im genetically engineered, so yes
 
i can see it now a couple sues because their child has brown eyes not blue then the kid grows up thinking what?
 
My original statement was against the alteration of eye/hair colour, as this effects natural selection. And although we as a species have done you best to do away with nat. selection, it still does exist to a certain degree. I dont particularly care either way, I have already been born and none of these changes will affect me.

It's just accelerated natural selection, what if a global wide catastrophe comes and we have to adapt quickly? Say the sun is blocked out by dust, we could engineer ourselves to survive like deep sea creatures, maybe even make our hands bio-luminesce s owe have built in flash lights, splice cat pupil genes with our eyes to see in the darkened conditions.........of course their could be draw backs, glowing hands might make us more susceptible to predators, or say one clan of us chooses the glow-hand and the other cats-eyes, the glowing hand people war with the cats-eye folk and the glow-hand people just put their hands in the others faces and temporarily blind them, I think the key to such a thing would be to have a continuance of bio-diversity. I really don't think thats a problem because not everyone likes the same things in a person, some like blue eyes, some like albino red eyes. So I wouldn't fear for an all blue eyed blond haired society unless it's forced on us, but even without genetic eng. the simple low-tech aproach of selective breeding could force that same change on our species....we've done it with almost every domestic animal. I think as long as we don't go fucking around in the brain to switch off and on peoples sexual preferences then we will always have the chance for mutts to be born.....of course some church group will try to fix gayness and fucking lead to everyone being attracted to one skin, hair, eyebody type and bio-diversity could go out the window......

Slight change of direction, but maniclion I think you are a good person to discuss this with. I often wonder what effect modern medicine will have on the human race in the long run? I also find it funny that after a couple of hundred years of scientific research we feel that we know better than evolution. You will of course be familiar with Darwins 'survival of the fittest' in which only the best adapted (biggest, strongest, best looking, best mating dance, most intelligent ect.) get to pass on their DNA to the next generation. However modern medicine is now keeping people alive (millions upon millions) that would have died a few hundred years ago. In essence with every passing generation we are weakening our gene pool!! Our population has soared to the point where we are over using our resources, stretching them to the limit, and with the global pop. set to sky rocket over the next fifty years, something will have to give at some points.

As far as medicine and over-population we are going to have to adapt, we have plenty of vertical space, we'll just have to learn how to utilize it, maybe like the japanese pyramid city where self-sustaining mega communities rise up on a town sized plot of land, they have tiers for agriculture, living, business, parks & recreation. There are vast stretches of desert we could use all it needs is some irrigation. We could also start preloading aquifers by manually extracting water from lakes and whereever and pouring them down on mountains and other lands which generally filter rainwater into the water tables. A great idea I have is finding some microbe or bacteria or maybe engineer nano bots that love oil and dump them into tapped out oil cavities in the middle east, once we can verify the hole void is clean start pumping filtered water in we could also dump them into oil cavities where ground water has already refilled it but is contaminated.

On another subject of medicine are you aware of Terrance McKenna's Stoned Ape Theory? He stated that after the most recent major ice age nomadic hominids struck out from their forest homes into plains area and hit upon psychoactive mushrooms. After adding them to their diet they evolved a higher consciousness and began to percieve a world beyond what anyother species had before. Ethiopia spread way into what is now west asia, but in the area where they found Lucy and the oldest known civilisation they also believe they found the Garden of Eden. What if the apple from Genesis was actually a mushroom? These nomadic people who followed herds of animals more likely to produce the dung on which such fungi would grow could likely have likely eaten the dung because it was thought to have medicinal quality or just eaten the intestines of a cow who had eaten it's own, or simply saw the shroom and ate it. I could see this happening, I have had profound thoughts while in that realm of thought, this well could have led to first domestication of live-stock, then religion and so on. Perhaps over generations we passed along the way to tap into our own minds to "trip" without the chemical catalyst and passed it down until it became second nature by unlocking genetic markers, or maybe the use of larger quantities started killing off small minded and only the minds that could tolerate survuved to pass on their code.....
 
Back
Top