Science told: hands off gay sheep!

Originally posted by PVS
well, lets be non-scifi for a moment here. the likely beginner would be manipulation of a childs hormones through developement. that is a very real and very close possibility.

but for the sake of discussion fine:
it is just a cell in the mother's body. however imho so long as it will become a human being with a will of its own then it is up to that human being alone what sexuality it will be...and basically who it will be. a parents role is to guide their child, not force it to be something it might not want to be on the level of their own psyche... and on the level of altering their very being in essense. i think thats abuse, isnt it?

you cant use the logic of 'my body my choice' here since there will be another human being produced which will be directly effected by your decision. like, what if someone genetically enhanced their daughter to grow huge **** because they felt it would just be easier for them to adjust to society. would that be right?

shut up backfire

to purposely make gay babies is also human engineering

You are right.

What should be done in your opinion? A full ban on every genetic engineering?

its odd that nobody has pointed out the hilarity of this thread and article title.

Originally posted by PVS
well, lets be non-scifi for a moment here. the likely beginner would be manipulation of a child's hormones through developement. that is a very real and very close possibility.

but for the sake of discussion fine:
it is just a cell in the mother's body. however imho so long as it will become a human being with a will of its own then it is up to that human being alone what sexuality it will be...and basically who it will be. a parents role is to guide their child, not force it to be something it might not want to be on the level of their own psyche... and on the level of altering their very being in essense. i think thats abuse, isnt it?

you cant use the logic of 'my body my choice' here since there will be another human being produced which will be directly effected by your decision. like, what if someone genetically enhanced their daughter to grow huge **** because they felt it would just be easier for them to adjust to society. would that be right?

shut up backfire

While I do agree with you that genetic engineering is wrong (medical/disease reasons withstanding) and especially wrong in your "child's hormones" scenario; the fetus one still makes no sense in regards to abortion.

If a woman is allowed to what she will with her fetus since it is considered an extension of her body and not a separate living entity with it's own rights, then why should a woman not be allowed to alter it how she she's fit, considering she does it in the allotted time she would be allowed to have an abortion? If she is allowed to determine if her child lives or dies, why shouldn't she theoretically be allowed to determine how her child lives?

Originally posted by Strangelove
A sad day there is when people think that can cure people of who they are.

What's next? A cure for people who enjoy caviar? A cure for people who like a TV show? A cure for people with freckles?

A sad day indeed ❌

Originally posted by BackFire
You poor, ignorant soul.

Originally posted by Robtard
If a woman is allowed to what she will with her fetus since it is considered an extension of her body and not a separate living entity with it's own rights, then why should a woman not be allowed to alter it how she she's fit, considering she does it in the allotted time she would be allowed to have an abortion? If she is allowed to determine if her child lives or dies, why shouldn't she theoretically be allowed to determine how her child lives?

if she kills a ball of cells, she's killing a ball of cells and nothing more.
plus to forbid it would be forcing a person to give birth which is quite sadistic since we're not primates.

if she genetically manipulates a child to her superficial likings, she is taking part in playing god. "taking part" meaning that many would follow suit.

:edit: i cant articulate at the moment the severity and importance of not allowing people to flaunt with superficial human engineering. i thought history was good enough evidence of that so im caught by surprise.

I vote we just hire some wizards to solve the problem.

or better yet pat robertson...did you know he talked to god a few days ago?

Originally posted by PVS
if she kills a ball of cells, she's killing a ball of cells and nothing more.
plus to forbid it would be forcing a person to give birth which is quite sadistic since we're not primates.

if she genetically manipulates a child to her superficial likings, she is taking part in playing god. "taking part" meaning that many would follow suit.

:edit: i cant articulate at the moment the severity and importance of not allowing people to flaunt with superficial human engineering. i thought history was good enough evidence of that so im caught by surprise.

I disagree and agree...

Point there is, why is she allowed to kill "a ball of cells" but not allowed to alter a "ball of cells"... Mind you, I disagree with genetic manipulation and I disagree with abortion how it stands, but logically speaking, if you allow her to "play God" and she decides if her childs lives or dies then why can't she be allowed to "play God" on how her child lives?

I completely understand the Pandora's Box of genetic manipulation.

Originally posted by PVS
or better yet pat robertson...did you know he talked to god a few days ago?

Originally posted by FeceMan
He doesn't have class levels.

Pat would easily translate to a 20th level Cleric of the Chaotic Evil alignment.

Originally posted by Robtard
Pat would easily translate to a 20th level Cleric of the Chaotic Evil alignment.

Anyway, if he was a level twenty cleric, he could simply beat up countries. Since he hasn't beaten up countries, he's not a level twenty cleric.

Originally posted by Robtard
I disagree and agree...

Point there is, why is she allowed to kill "a ball of cells" but not allowed to alter a "ball of cells"... Mind you, I disagree with genetic manipulation and I disagree with abortion how it stands, but logically speaking, if you allow her to "play God" and she decides if her childs lives or dies then why can't she be allowed to "play God" on how her child lives?

I completely understand the Pandora's Box of genetic manipulation.

like i said, if the fetus becomes a sentient being capable of making its own preferences, then thats what it is. whether or not it is just a ball of cells depends on whether or not it is destined to be born into consciousness or die as a ball of cells.

a sentient being who's nature has been willingly altered, and who's body chemistry was altered for purely selfish and unnecessary reasons. thats beyond superficial manipulation and well into personna manipulation. i cant see how this could be ethically justified in any way.

Originally posted by FeceMan
Lawful evil, not chaotic evil. Probably a worshiper of St. Cuthbert.

Anyway, if he was a level twenty cleric, he could simply beat up countries. Since he hasn't beaten up countries, he's not a level twenty cleric.

I've seen Pat Robertson rant on and on, there's nothing Lawful about him.

Originally posted by PVS
like i said, if the fetus becomes a sentient being capable of making its own preferences, then thats what it is. whether or not it is just a ball of cells depends on whether or not it is destined to be born into consciousness or die as a ball of cells.

a sentient being who's nature has been willingly altered, and who's body chemistry was altered for purely selfish and unnecessary reasons. thats beyond superficial manipulation and well into personna manipulation. i cant see how this could be ethically justified in any way.

And abortion/no abortion is controlling it's destiny. Control over life and death is ultimately playing God.

I completely see and agree with your assessment, but it is asinine to say "you have the right over your childs life/death but damn you if you plan on changing a few things about it."

Originally posted by Robtard
I've seen Pat Robertson rant on and on, there's nothing Lawful about him.

Lawful Evil is measured calm evil. Not evil that obeys rational or governmental laws.

As for him being a cleric

Well he's probably in the trickery domain at about level two or three (level twenty and he'd be bringing back the dead and killing people by pointing at them)

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Lawful Evil is measured calm evil. Not evil that obeys rational or governmental laws.

As for him being a cleric

Well he's probably in the trickery domain at about level two or three (level twenty and he'd be bringing back the dead and killing people by pointing at them)

Yea, thanks for pointing that out... Pat isn't a calm man, he's a frothy mouthed nut who thinks God speaks directly to him.

you have to get the existant or future existance of a "sentient being" part or we're at a dead end.

a ball of cells is not a sentient being. it may become one but its not. to kill a ball of cells is not to kill a sentient being....thats really as clear as i can put it.

to alter a fetus to effect a future sentient being is another matter entirely.

dont make me say "sentient being" again!

Originally posted by PVS
you have to get the existant or future existance of a "sentient being" part or we're at a dead end.

a ball of cells is not a sentient being. it may become one but its not. to kill a ball of cells is not to kill a sentient being....thats really as clear as i can put it.

to alter a fetus to effect a future sentient being is another matter entirely.

dont make me say "sentient being" again!

I due understand your point of 'it's not a human now so no harm no fowl' but the point I am making is, if that "ball of cells" is allowed to develope and become a "sentient being" who should have the right to not be altered against it's will even back when it was just a "ball of cells" then why shouldn't that "ball of cells" have the right to become a human in the first place? -"existant or future existanceof a sentient being"

And on a side not, abortions are allowed long after the fetus is a "ball of cells".

Don't make me say "ball of cells" again...

Originally posted by Robtard
I due understand your point of 'it's not a human now so no harm no fowl' but the point I am making is, if that "ball of cells" is allowed to develope and become a "sentient being" who should have the right to not be altered against it's will even back when it was just a "ball of cells" then why shouldn't that "ball of cells" have the right to become a human in the first place? -"existant or future existanceof a sentient being"

because the choice of its existance is up to the parents to make given the conundrum left in leaving it up to a nonexistant zygote.

Originally posted by Robtard
And on a side not, abortions are allowed long after the fetus is a "ball of cells".

thats an issue of law. i personally think that once the fetus gains a basic state of consciousness it should have the protections of a born person. [edit: barring any immediate unforseen threat to the life of the mother] however we go off topic

Originally posted by Robtard
Don't make me say "ball of cells" again...

sentient beings

sentient beings

sentient beings