Question for people against abortion

If you're against abortion on the basis of a religious belief that all life is sacred, I was wondering, what do you think of test tube babies? Basically, I can forsee in the future, babies being genetically modified, created in labs, cloned etc. I don't find it hard to imagine the government cloning and modifying stem cells to be super soldiers, for example.

Is this against God's will? And if it is, does that mean they're not god's creation? Or are they still god's creation, but just against his will?

 

Hmm good question, they would be gods creation wouldn't they, but would these test tube babies, have a soul?

 

that which is against god's will never exist ,
shall have never existed . this is faith in god .

i would imagine gmo moonminers would be more
pleasing to god than supersoldiers , just because ,
just because

abortion is never pleasant .
life is sacred o'

in a christian community the women are encouraged and
trusted to be wise in child-bearing . they meet in council
to discuss the rhythms of life and community growth . they
have many wise ways to choose from . surgical abortion is
not their necessity , it's both crude and sorrowful .

 

Christianity is trying to stop science development since its begginings.

 

I'm personally pro-life, politically pro-choice. But yes, I'm against test tube babies, but not because I necessarily think they have a soul at that age. It's more the mentality behind it--I'm infertile, but goddamnit I want a kid, so I will stop at nothing to get one in my uterus, even spending $20,000-$40,000 to get one, despite the fact that I could've used that money to adopt a kid that's already here. That's why I'm against it, but I agree, most pro-life people who support things like IVF are being hypocritical. Even if you "adopted out" the embryos...it amazes me we're so concerned with frozen embryos one day being implanted that we adopt them out...but kids who are already here, not so much.

 

If there is a god is he/she not in control anymore?

 

i have no religious opposition to it,but i would be wary of it merely because it seems to be a step on the road to eugenics...

 

I'm atheist and I don't really agree with unnatural reproduction. Of course I'm pro choice but even more towards selective breeding. The world is overpopulated and now technology is allowing people to reproduce who naturally can not. Every time this is done the human gene pool gets weaker. I don't want a population of weak genetically defective technology dependent humans to evolve. For humans to evolve in a positive way, it can only be accomplished by selecting the healthiest and smartest people. People holding on to some ignorant fantasy that an embryo has a "soul" are only going to hinder and distract real issues of human progress.

 

Am I the only one who sees abortion as a seperate issue in almost every way from genetically modified superhumans?

 

If the issue is the suitability of manipulating the process of reproduction, then there is no difference.

Our ideas about the sanctity of life are probably misplaced. I was talking to an ayurveda devotee who claimed that only fresh vegetables had sufficient vitality to be suitable as food. I asked her if she considered human beings conceived of previously frozen sex cells, less than vital human beings. She seemed to think so based on the doctrines of ayurvedic practice.

 

So no contraception?

 

LOL, That's anti-reproduction, which I fully support 110%!

 

Human progress to what, exactly? What is our end goal? What I find interesting about people who think like you is that those who believe that only strong, intelligent people should be allowed to live NEVER have a disability themselves, or have a loved one who had a disability. Seems rather intellectually dishonest. If you had a brother or sister with Down's syndrome, would you be in favor of them being killed?

And how disabled is too disabled? If I was born with a cleft lip and palate, should I be allowed to starve? What if I have sickle cell anemia? Spina bifida? And don't forget, a lot of disabilities have nothing to do with genetics--deformities that develop in the womb, cerebral palsy from accidents at birth, or just any accident in life can leave you disabled.

Give me a break. The world isn't a logical, neat, tidy stream of progress to some vague, end goal where everyone is genetically perfect. I don't want to live in such a world. I would much rather live in a world where if you're a human being, you matter, not because of something you have "contributed" or will one day contribute, but just because.

If you want to talk about threats to humanity...Sociopaths (those who lack a conscience) are, for the most part, what society would call successful--they're over-represented among CEOs, bankers, and politicians. Yet THESE are the people doing the most damage to society. Joe Dirt living in his trailer may be ignorant or stupid, but he doesn't have any global power. It's a small number of CORPORATIONS that are responsible for 2/3 of the world's pollution, the other third is created by millions of individuals combined.

And you're up in arms over so-called "overpopulation?" The global birth rate has actually gone way down, to only about 2 kids per woman, and that's including the developing world, where even if a woman has 7 kids, those 7 kids still aren't going to be consuming as much as 2 American kids. If your that passionate about overpopulation, why not kill yourself?

In other words, "genetically weak" people aren't a threat to society--assholes are.

 

Precisely this ^

 

this is called eugenics. despite the OBVIOUS moral problems with it, it doesn't work. this is because major genetic mutation often takes place outside of inheritance.

practices by eugenicists are now, (quite rightly) classed as a violation of international law and basic human rights. they are classed as acts of genocide.

it is strongly associated with NAZIsm and social Darwinism.

its a pseudoscience which has, in the past, lead to categorisation and segregation of "defectives" (homosexuals, the blind, the mentally ill, jews, blacks, gypsies etc) as well as forced sterilisation, euthanasia and, (in one, rather famous case) mass extermination.

abuses in the name of eugenics are not merely consigned to NAZI germany. they occured in Australia, America, japan, sweden, canada and brazil. nor are they confined to the history books. atrocities continue to be carried out in the name of furthering genetic purity around the world.

 

well , yes i've accepted this as likely true . it's been mentioned
by scientists often enough lately . genetic changes are observable .

will mass genetic mutations be conciously planned and directed ?
this wise conciousness may well arise in all of us . it will have the
quality of human consensus .

 

You're making some hugely incorrect assumptions while flying off on your tangent. First of all I live in constant pain from health problems. I'm not going to get into it but I'm the perfect example of someone who should have never passed on his miserable health problems to his children. I'm not saying I support murdering or even taking rights but education, support and promotion to change the way society thinks could go a long way. I know society is not ready for such a concept but it is the future. Millions of people are suffering from genetic problems that can be cured for future generation by simply not passing them on. It would be great if 200 years from now, people suffering like myself would be practically unheard of. Of course perfection is impossible, I'm just talking about improving the average quality of life.

Certainly non-genetic, non-inherited problems will always exist but those problems are irrelevant. Why bring up issues that can't be solved by breeding, that's just irrational objection. Eugenics has a bad rap from bad people but the science of selective breeding is rock solid.