I felt you out a little with the typical flame posts. But I don't really buy into Internet tough-guy behavior. I was testing you. So here is some debate material:

You claim that babies born with severe genetic defects should be put to sleep within a week of birth. I suppose you claim they have nothing to contribute to society, since they really can't have a normal life.

A baby born with severe problems doesn't grow up the way we did. It spends most of its time being cared for, in hospitals, speical ed classes (maybe) etc. The seriously malformed "freaks" (your word) spend most of their time in hospitals.

These "freaks" are the ones that teach science the most about genetics. Science and doctors already know what it takes to create a "normal" human being. Surely you know what the Human Genome Project is.

But occasionally, and sadly, Nature creates one of us with genetic differences. Maybe it's "an IQ of 40". Maybe it is some other horror. Nature can be cruel.

But these "freaks" are the ones from whom doctors learn the most. The ones with "different" genetic makeup (your freaks) ARE THE ONES WHO TEACH SCIENCE THE MOST ABOUT OUR GENETIC BLUEPRINT.

Never before has any medical development offered as much hope as gene therapy. This progress can be attributed to hard-working doctors, as well as these "freaks", who lived lives you would have ended, to allow for these breakthroughs.

In the not too distant future, we will eliminate many types of cancers with gene therapy. That may save a friend or relative of yours - one of those "normal" ones. If it does, make sure you thank a freak.

Extremely premature babies usually don't have a chance now. Yet there are gene therapies in the works that will stimulate cell development in these babies, and give them a chance. Thank a freak, especially if it's your child.

When your buddy gets HIV 10 years from now on that vacation to Thailand, (not wishing it, just making a point), and he gets it cured with a needle, make sure you thank a freak.

You know would be really funny? If a baby identified with an IQ of 40 was given gene therapy that raised his IQ to 240. Farfetched? Only a little. Then he might lobby for your extermination. But I would defend you.

Remember Dread, that it is the "defects" that teach scientists about the real Nature of people. Your life expectancy will be over 100, maybe even 150. When you're blowing out the candles on your 100th birthday cake, think back about that "cancer pill" you took at 73, and the hormone therapies you got at 96. And think of a freak, and be sure to thank him.

EVERYONE has something to contribute. People like you seek to deprive the world of the contributions that others could make. How foolish of you.

Matt

Good post matt.

If something cannot fly, what shall I do but make it fall faster?

Do you realize how much money is involved with funding? Not to mention the theory that aids was an epedemic willfully released by humans.

Think about it. Billions of dollars are donated to find a cure. But they can't even cure the common cold? And what happens if they DO find a cure? They give it away for free? Hahahahaha. Can you imagine the outcry if you had to pay for it? It won't happen in our life time. That's for sure.

And besides, all this technology will eventually be our downfall. Mother Earth will outlast us by far. It's already begun ...

There is a movie called Gattica. IT is a very dry movie as far as action goes, but the message it delivers is a very powerful and prophetic one.

Only the elite, genetically engineered to succeed are allowed to join the space program to colonize other worlds. When someone becomes pregnant there DNA is tested and all the defects, cancers and longevity are given to the parents. They are then given the choice of genetic tampering to remove all of the "bad" stuff or have a normal unmodified baby. The catch is this, a "normal" person cannot ever amount to anything other than being a servant of some sort. While the gentetic "freaks" are allowed to go on to achieve their dreams.

We are headed for a society such as this, especially with the thinking of people such as dread lord guy. This is a debate that should continue to be discussed, regardless of who started it. This is one of the few meaningul debates I have read.

chesty

------------------
If you run from a Marine, you will only die tired.

Ys I do think there will be a cure for cancer, for AIDS, etc. People used to think the world was flat. People used to be crippled from polio - as recently as FDR - that was like 70 years ago.

You should check into stem cells. From what I read in your previous posts - you're an IT guy (like me) and you have some extra cash to invest. Stem cells seem to be very promising for cancer and other afflictions.

But I digress.

We put a man on the moon with computers less powerful than the one you work at. The resources involved in this research are more powerful than ever.

The amount of money involved in funding is staggering. Exactly what this has to do with my post I am not sure. Cures will be very expensive. Again, the relevance to my post is non-existent.

It is likely that mother earth will outlast us.

CAESAR, RESPECTFULLY, START YOUR OWN THREAD. MINE WAS ABOUT A LOGICAL OBJECTION TO DREAD'S THEORY THAT PEOPLE BORN WITH GENETIC DEFECTS SHOULD BE PUT TO SLEEP. YOU RAISE GOOD POINTS, BUT THEY DON'T BELONG IN THIS THREAD.

Matt

You claim that babies born with severe genetic defects should be put to sleep within a week of birth. I suppose you claim they have nothing to contribute to society, since they really can't have a normal life.
(I take the position that babies birthed with immediate severe defects lead a fruitless life. They use valuable societal resources without contributing back.)

A baby born with severe problems doesn't grow up the way we did. It spends most of its time being cared for, in hospitals, speical ed classes (maybe) etc. The seriously malformed "freaks" (your word) spend most of their time in hospitals.
(That is quite correct. These hospitals are usually state run with deplorable living conditions. Society as a whole turns its back upon the criminals, insane, and deformed.)

These "freaks" are the ones that teach science the most about genetics. Science and doctors already know what it takes to create a "normal" human being. Surely you know what the Human Genome Project is.
(This statement you make is pulled out of thin air. Science via the Genome project has learned genetics. Scientists are then able to match up the malfunctioned genes to the disorder. This is the same as saying which gene causes you to have green or blue eyes. It does not teach anything other than what we already know the gene does. Since a gene is basically an on and off switch.)

But occasionally, and sadly, Nature creates one of us with genetic differences. Maybe it's "an IQ of 40". Maybe it is some other horror. Nature can be cruel.
(Nature creates genetic differences with each birth. These differences and mutations are what got us to the top of the food chain. Unfortunately most mutations do not work. The difference between a retard and a mutation is simple. Retardation is classified by causes. The same pattern of �screw up� occurs for each different type of retardation. Therefore this is not a mutation but a baby the body did not discard before birth. Miscarriage is caused by the body disregarding an unhealthy baby. The body disregards the fetus because it is �bad.� Sometimes the body just does not know the baby needs to be miscarriaged.)

But these "freaks" are the ones from whom doctors learn the most. The ones with "different" genetic makeup (your freaks) ARE THE ONES WHO TEACH SCIENCE THE MOST ABOUT OUR GENETIC BLUEPRINT.
(This is a false statement. You must back this up with proof before you can make sure a sweeping claim.)

Never before has any medical development offered as much hope as gene therapy. This progress can be attributed to hard-working doctors, as well as these "freaks", who lived lives you would have ended, to allow for these breakthroughs.
(Doctors are the result of our progress, not retards. Back this up with proof.)

In the not too distant future, we will eliminate many types of cancers with gene therapy. That may save a friend or relative of yours - one of those "normal" ones. If it does, make sure you thank a freak.
(Gene manipulation is the future, but is not the result of retards.)

Extremely premature babies usually don't have a chance now. Yet there are gene therapies in the works that will stimulate cell development in these babies, and give them a chance. Thank a freak, especially if it's your child.
(Why would we want to save a baby in whom the body decided to discard. The emotions of the parents over whelm the logical choice.)

When your buddy gets HIV 10 years from now on that vacation to Thailand, (not wishing it, just making a point), and he gets it cured with a needle, make sure you thank a freak.
(Once again you are claiming things that are false. Provide proof for this statement.)

You know would be really funny? If a baby identified with an IQ of 40 was given gene therapy that raised his IQ to 240. Farfetched? Only a little. Then he might lobby for your extermination. But I would defend you.
(You are now just talking into the wind. I might as well say what if the water was not H2O but it really is HCO. The statement makes as much sense as yours above.)

Remember Dread, that it is the "defects" that teach scientists about the real Nature of people. Your life expectancy will be over 100, maybe even 150. When you're blowing out the candles on your 100th birthday cake, think back about that "cancer pill" you took at 73, and the hormone therapies you got at 96. And think of a freak, and be sure to thank him.
(Provide proof retards help science cure humanities problems. Yes, I believe in the developed countries life expectancy will raise dramatically in the near future.)

(So you just bluff every guy that comes your way to see if they will whoop your ass or not. Though when it comes down to it, you will run off before a confrontation.)

Actually no. I am a moderator here and I needed to see what you were up to. We get a lot of people who come on here and talk a bunch of crap with no purpose. You are trying to express an opinion, though unpopular. You aren't just here to annoy the rest of us. I need to know the difference before acting appropriately.

Also - as far as running off....that was inaccurate. I am the only one who presented a cogent argument against you. Read your other responses - from others here. No one there is seeking a discussion-style confrontation. They're mainly just calling you names, and asking that you be banned/deleted, etc. Not only did I hear you out, I asked you for more. So cut that shit about me running off.

(I take the position that babies birthed with immediate severe defects lead a fruitless life. They use valuable societal resources without contributing back.)

I understand your position clearly.

(That is quite correct. These hospitals are usually state run with deplorable living conditions. Society as a whole turns its back upon the criminals, insane, and deformed.)

I know this. I have seen one such place. It was shocking. Those are truly the people that "we don't see" in everyday life. These are not the down-syndrome children or the guy with no legs.

(This statement you make is pulled out of thin air. Science via the Genome project has learned genetics. Scientists are then able to match up the malfunctioned genes to the disorder. This is the same as saying which gene causes you to have green or blue eyes. It does not teach anything other than what we already know the gene does. Since a gene is basically an on and off switch.)

What I am saying is that the genetic differences are just as important as a learning point for scientists as the similarities.

(Nature creates genetic differences with each birth. These differences and mutations are what got us to the top of the food chain. Unfortunately most mutations do not work. The difference between a retard and a mutation is simple. Retardation is classified by causes. The same pattern of �screw up� occurs for each different type of retardation. Therefore this is not a mutation but a baby the body did not discard before birth. Miscarriage is caused by the body disregarding an unhealthy baby. The body disregards the fetus because it is �bad.� Sometimes the body just does not know the baby needs to be miscarriaged.)

You introduced the word mutation, in order to arrive at a spurious conclusion. There is no necessary correlation between miscarriage and the genetic problems with the baby. In other words, not every miscarriage results because the baby is unhealthy. That claim is fiction. Many factors are related to the wellness of the mother, or environmental factors.

You seem to be claiming that your policy of "putting them to sleep" corrects the body's own oversights. There is no truth to that whatsoever. There are other causes for miscarriage than unhealthy babies. Is that your thought or was it in the book you got this from?

But these "freaks" are the ones from whom doctors learn the most. The ones with "different" genetic makeup (your freaks) ARE THE ONES WHO TEACH SCIENCE THE MOST ABOUT OUR GENETIC BLUEPRINT.
(This is a false statement. You must back this up with proof before you can make sure a sweeping claim.)

The existence of the "freaks" gives us the chance to learn about the freaks. Science, in trying to treat them may develop treatment for other things. Is that possibilty one that you really want to eliminate. Why close a door?

Differences are noticed, catalogued, and studied. So it is in any discipline. Differences are what lead doctors to try new treatments, some of which are successful, or have successful side effects. Why are they different? How can it be corrected? In the process of correcting it, what can we learn? These questions are at the heart of medical and scientific progress. Why stop asking these questions, especially of our most sick?

(Doctors are the result of our progress, not retards. Back this up with proof.)

I ask you, what is a doctor without patients? Nothing. All these genetic freaks have gien us much insight into the way the genome works. Why flush the insight?

Just because the genome is mapped, is there nothing else we can learn about it? is it done? Do we pack it up and move on? Of course not. We look to study those whose genomes don't conform to the "norm" and observe the differences. These "freaks" are a resource. Nature has provided in them tremndous insight into genetic manipulation. See, if we kill them, we lose that resource.

Genetic anomalies need to be looked at as a condition that can be treated. By doing so, we will continue to pursue new treatments for these conditions, which may lead to other treatments for entirely unrelated conditions. If we just say, "fuck it, he's got a rare brain disease, he'll be dead by 18 so kill him now", we lose the opportunity to try and treat that disease. We lose the chance to learn from what happens when we try to treat the disease.

(Gene manipulation is the future, but is not the result of retards.)

I am beginning to think you have given this precious little thought. And it may have sounded so good in your book. I think I have explained how the presence of these "retards" is to our benefit as a resource from which to learn, as well as a reason to continue to attempt to discover and implement new treatments.

(Why would we want to save a baby in whom the body decided to discard. The emotions of the parents over whelm the logical choice.)

The baby may also be choosing to escape an unhealthy environment inside the mother. But if the baby can be treated and grow up "normally", then why not?

I accidentally deleted my initial statement. This is your response to my claim of a not too distant injectable AIDS cure for your buddy after his Thailand trip:
(Once again you are claiming things that are false. Provide proof for this statement.)

You said above that gene manipulation is the future. You are SPECULATING. I, too, am speculating on a possible manifestation of this future, an HIV cure. The fact that you cauldn't draw that conclusion leads me to believe you are just spewing from a book and really haven't thought this through very much.

You know would be really funny? If a baby identified with an IQ of 40 was given gene therapy that raised his IQ to 240. Farfetched? Only a little. Then he might lobby for your extermination. But I would defend you.
(You are now just talking into the wind. I might as well say what if the water was not H2O but it really is HCO. The statement makes as much sense as yours above.)

Speculating again based on the future of gene therapy. This IS pushing it I know. Also wanted to make the point that I am not afraid of confrontation in this manner. However, that statement is not remotely akin to arguing the molecular structure of water. It may be one day possible to increase IQ by gene manipulation.

(Provide proof retards help science cure humanities problems. Yes, I believe in the developed countries life expectancy will raise dramatically in the near future.)

You ask again, Iexaplain again. Those who lose the genetic lottery are an invaluable resource. KILL THEM AND YOU KILL THE RESOURCE. What resource? A chance to attempt to treat the most hideous diseases, and knowing that even if you fail, you may learn something which can be applied elsewhere. It is often true in medicine that what is intended as a treatment for one thing will help another.

(Jeffery Dalmer, Charles Manson and Lenin gave a contribution to the world. Do you want those contributions?)

Dread, I know that Dahmer did not have chromosomal or genetic disorders. I actually read about him a bit. Manson may have had the "xyy" chromosome that may lead to violent behavior in some men, regardless, there are men who have this who are not violent killers, so this correlation would certainly lack the strength to "put him to sleep" even if your will was imposed as the law of the land.

Talk about "talking into the wind". when I made the farfetched claim of increasing an IQ by 200 points, at least they were within the bounds of the discussion: the almost limitless potential of genetic manipulation.

You, on the other hand, pulled two serial killers out of the air, completely ignoring the fact that their environments had considerably more to do with their behavior than anything else.

Lenin? Could modern science (much less that of the 1800's when Lenin was born) have looked at little Vladimir's DNA structure and said, "Yep, it looks like this little baby will take over after the Czar is deposed, and institute many of Marx's beliefs"?

In review:

Your miscarriage argument is farce. A miscarriage is not necessarily the body ridding itself of a bad baby. There are many other causes, whether they be related to the mother's health or the environment.

Killing the genetic misfits deprives us of a resource from which to learn.

Invoking Dahmer, Manson, and Lenin is pointless. Their genetic makeup does nto necessiate anything - even if Manson did have an extra chromosome. Others have this and they are not killers. The argument involving them has no clout whatsoever. It kind of made your other arguments -which were shit- look good actually.

Your ball.

Matt

What I am saying is that the genetic differences are just as important as a learning point for scientists as the similarities.
(I disagree with this. What is important in science is to learn the facts. The genome project is the key instrument providing these facts concerning genetics. Science could care less about the differences or similarities when it comes to the basic attempt to map and understand the human genes. We as a race are trying to eliminate disease and human suffering. We as a race enjoy complicate and normalcy. We wish all people would live normal happy productive lives. The ultimate goal is to eliminate these problems, which keep a human from being �normal.�)

You introduced the word mutation, in order to arrive at a spurious conclusion. There is no necessary correlation between miscarriage and the genetic problems with the baby. In other words, not every miscarriage results because the baby is unhealthy. That claim is fiction. Many factors are related to the wellness of the mother, or environmental factors.
(http://www.bidmc.harvard.edu/obgyn/pted/gyn/healthinfo/miscarriage.html Most often, miscarriage occurs when there is a problem with the pregnancy causing the baby not to develop normally. While others may feel that they could have done something to prevent it. Neither is the case. Miscarriage is the body's natural response to a pregnancy in trouble. & http://www.modimes.org/healthlibrary2/FactSheets/Miscarriage.htm How-ever, most miscarriages occur when a pregnancy is not developing normally. Now my words� if the baby is growing in the mothers womb as a utter freak of nature, of course the body will miscarriage. The body does not know sometimes if the baby is not healthy so sometimes bad babies are born. In nature, these babies would die. That is natural selection at work. Life is hard. Just look at any other species.)

You seem to be claiming that your policy of "putting them to sleep" corrects the body's own oversights. There is no truth to that whatsoever. There are other causes for miscarriage than unhealthy babies. Is that your thought or was it in the book you got this from?
(Yes there are other causes for miscarriage. One cause is simply some women have unbalanced hormones and blood cell ratios. This can be corrected with medication.)

The existence of the "freaks" gives us the chance to learn about the freaks. Science, in trying to treat them may develop treatment for other things. Is that possibilty one that you really want to eliminate. Why close a door?
Differences are noticed, catalogued, and studied. So it is in any discipline. Differences are what lead doctors to try new treatments, some of which are successful, or have successful side effects. Why are they different? How can it be corrected? In the process of correcting it, what can we learn? These questions are at the heart of medical and scientific progress. Why stop asking these questions, especially of our most sick?
(You speak as if these babies and adults are sliced up and put away for studying. If that was the case when these people with severe defects died than I would agree with you entirely. In reality what really happens is that the Dr. has to juggle the parents while trying to treat and understand the patient. When the patient dies he or she is than buried, proof and all 6 feet under. We used to experiment on people, and still do under black projects. Those days are over though, publicly. To answer your tort, in today�s society this does not occur.)

I ask you, what is a doctor without patients? Nothing. All these genetic freaks have gien us much insight into the way the genome works. Why flush the insight?
Just because the genome is mapped, is there nothing else we can learn about it? is it done? Do we pack it up and move on? Of course not. We look to study those whose genomes don't conform to the "norm" and observe the differences. These "freaks" are a resource. Nature has provided in them tremndous insight into genetic manipulation. See, if we kill them, we lose that resource.

Genetic anomalies need to be looked at as a condition that can be treated. By doing so, we will continue to pursue new treatments for these conditions, which may lead to other treatments for entirely unrelated conditions. If we just say, "fuck it, he's got a rare brain disease, he'll be dead by 18 so kill him now", we lose the opportunity to try and treat that disease. We lose the chance to learn from what happens when we try to treat the disease.
(This is a bit of a different statement than you usually claim. At this point in time we are several decades away from serious genetic engineering. On average I have heard one hundred and fifty years. We will not have the ability to treat disorders like retardation for a long time ahead. By birthing them we do not help ourselves. Would a policy in America as killing all retards born work, no. This is because Americans would revolt. If a parent was giving the choice at birth to decide if the child can live or die than I believe that would work. Honestly we do not need retards running around using money and resources. I could create my own disorder by feeding children some space age poison while they grow up. Then they would turn into freaks. New freaks science could study and learn from. It just does not make since keeping a birthed retard around for the sake of studying it since we do not need them in the first place. Not to mention several thousand baby retards could be let birthed and studied on instead of 10�000 retards. This is just a huge moral and ideological issue.)

I am beginning to think you have given this precious little thought. And it may have sounded so good in your book. I think I have explained how the presence of these "retards" is to our benefit as a resource from which to learn, as well as a reason to continue to attempt to discover and implement new treatments.

(I do not see any proof society would be at a loss for losing all retards. We were not at a loose when polo was eradicated. Retardation is nothing more than a problem that should be eradicated as well. At this point in time the only solution and cheapest is to keep unproductive retards from birthing.)

The baby may also be choosing to escape an unhealthy environment inside the mother. But if the baby can be treated and grow up "normally", then why not?
(If the bay can grow up and be productive than of course. If not than no.)

I accidentally deleted my initial statement. This is your response to my claim of a not too distant injectable AIDS cure for your buddy after his Thailand trip:
(Once again you are claiming things that are false. Provide proof for this statement.)
You said above that gene manipulation is the future. You are SPECULATING. I, too, am speculating on a possible manifestation of this future, an HIV cure. The fact that you cauldn't draw that conclusion leads me to believe you are just spewing from a book and really haven't thought this through very much.
(An HIV cure will be either in two forms. One: genetic manipulation for each person for each strain of HIV so that the HIV virus cannot attach itself onto cell walls. Two: nanotechnology in which a small machine goes into the body and destroys the HIV cells. These both are well over 100 years in the future.)

Speculating again based on the future of gene therapy. This IS pushing it I know. Also wanted to make the point that I am not afraid of confrontation in this manner. However, that statement is not remotely akin to arguing the molecular structure of water. It may be one day possible to increase IQ by gene manipulation.
(To increase IQ by gene alteration is the future. Do not forget �brain drugs.� It is exciting.)

You ask again, Iexaplain again. Those who lose the genetic lottery are an invaluable resource. KILL THEM AND YOU KILL THE RESOURCE. What resource? A chance to attempt to treat the most hideous diseases, and knowing that even if you fail, you may learn something which can be applied elsewhere. It is often true in medicine that what is intended as a treatment for one thing will help another.
(At this point we cannot treat them. We can also let a few births each year just to test on them. In the future (and I will use the word) when we can help these people without draining societies resources than of course we help them.)

(Jeffery Dalmer, Charles Manson and Lenin gave a contribution to the world. Do you want those contributions?)
Dread, I know that Dahmer did not have chromosomal or genetic disorders. I actually read about him a bit. Manson may have had the "xyy" chromosome that may lead to violent behavior in some men, regardless, there are men who have this who are not violent killers, so this correlation would certainly lack the strength to "put him to sleep" even if your will was imposed as the law of the land.
Talk about "talking into the wind". when I made the farfetched claim of increasing an IQ by 200 points, at least they were within the bounds of the discussion: the almost limitless potential of genetic manipulation.
You, on the other hand, pulled two serial killers out of the air, completely ignoring the fact that their environments had considerably more to do with their behavior than anything else.
Lenin? Could modern science (much less that of the 1800's when Lenin was born) have looked at little Vladimir's DNA structure and said, "Yep, it looks like this little baby will take over after the Czar is deposed, and institute many of Marx's beliefs"?

(I am pointing out that your idea of a retard contributing to society could mean something far different than what I would define as contribution.)

In review:
Your miscarriage argument is farce. A miscarriage is not necessarily the body ridding itself of a bad baby. There are many other causes, whether they be related to the mother's health or the environment.

(I disproved this claim, but do agree there are other causes.)

Killing the genetic misfits deprives us of a resource from which to learn.

(I disagree entirely since nature would kill them off anyhow.)

Invoking Dahmer, Manson, and Lenin is pointless. Their genetic makeup does nto necessiate anything - even if Manson did have an extra chromosome. Others have this and they are not killers. The argument involving them has no clout whatsoever. It kind of made your other arguments -which were shit- look good actually.

(Genetic makeup is everything and your life experience is everything as well. Your genes control who you are and what you do. True it is not 100% but from all my reading it seems to be 50% to 60%. Retards are natures fuck up. We do not have the ability to help them now so I do not believe we should try. In the future when medical ability can succeed I say go for it as long as society benefits.

You see clearly why my idea would not work in today�s America. The government cannot take that kind of authority. I speak hypothetically in a different world. If society accepted the moral of putting the (unable to be helped) to death at birth than many valuable epochs of time would be freed to do other things.)

I throw the murf ball back 2 you.
Dread Lord GG
BTW, you people can just call me GG. It was an old UO name.

[This message has been edited by Dread Lord Good Guy (edited September 17, 2000).]

[This message has been edited by Dread Lord Good Guy (edited September 17, 2000).]

you just typed a fucking book,,,,get a fucking life!!!

------------------
-----------------------
Weights before dates

Bros before Hos

typing a book would be effortless

whats a life? he doesnt know

Some I suppose we will agree to disagree on. I continue to beleive that by examining these "retards" we will only hasten the day when genetic treatments for many diseases is upon us.

I also believe that although bad babies that were not removed via miscarriage would die if left alone in Nature,(natural selection as you claim) so would healthy babies. A human baby is incapable of doing anything for itself. Retards just need considerably mroe attention for longer in life.

I suppose that what I am propogating does rely on the existence of experimenting on humans, but surely this goes on, and not only under black projects. New and experimental treatments will be tried on those with the worst disorders. Of course this requires the consent of a guardian but what is the incentive to say no, if a doctor has said, "This can't get any worse".

We may be about 150 years from serious genetic engineering - I have read that figure as well. I tend to think that the 150 number fails to account for advances in technology along the way, but still, it is not "around the corner". I know this. But if we were to put the genetic misfit problem on the shelf for a while, we would be pushing the advent of those treatments further away. This may be a point we will continue to disagree on.

I understand that your suggestion is at best a hypothetical. But I didn't want to ignore it just because it can't happen in our society right now. I would rather argue like this than just wave the flag of ethics and write oiff the discussion. This is good brain work.

it is true that we lost nothing with the eradication of polio and smallpox, etc. But we eraidcated that with a vaccine which we developed based on cases of polio. I tend to believe that even though genetic engineering is a different kind of treatment, it will come about the same way. Again, this seems to be our chief disagreement.

You mentioned nanotechnology. Another very fascinating subject. Do you have any links to any sites that describe it in greater detail?

Our definitions of the word contribute seems to differ also.

well, I comprehend your argument and I disagree with it, although some of your points about miscarriage were excellent. But I thank you for the brain exercise.

Any other topic, no matter how unpopular, just post it.

i didn't see dread's original post...i'm curious as to how the "cutoff point" for putting these babies to sleep should be decided upon?