Parent A and Parent B?

Baldimo wrote:

DrewDad wrote:
I suspect that as reproductive technology progresses there will be far more options that need to be covered.

If someone were to clone me, would they have to list my parents on the birth certificate?

Mother: Test-tube
Father: Knife

This is the type of stuff that is against nature. We have been getting along just fine for the last hundreds of thousands of years without such types of technology. To have them now is against nature!

They made the same argument against flight, as I recall.

If god made mankind, then god made all of this possible. Why do you hate god?

0 Replies

DrewDad wrote:

Baldimo wrote:
DrewDad wrote:
I suspect that as reproductive technology progresses there will be far more options that need to be covered.

If someone were to clone me, would they have to list my parents on the birth certificate?

Mother: Test-tube
Father: Knife

This is the type of stuff that is against nature. We have been getting along just fine for the last hundreds of thousands of years without such types of technology. To have them now is against nature!

They made the same argument against flight, as I recall.

If god made mankind, then god made all of this possible. Why do you hate god?

If it were I making that type of remark, I'm sure someone would throw some sort of debate term up here to tell me I'm being foolish. Since I'm not the knowledgeable about debate rules, I'm just going to tell you. You're being foolish.

NEXT!

0 Replies

Baldimo wrote:

When it comes to birth yes I prefer natural.

So, prefer away. It's your right. But test tube babies give people the chance to be biological parents when they would hot have the chance otherwise. So don't pass laws preventing people who prefer test tube babies to not having biological children.

As far as cloning goes, if it can be shown to produce healthy children, I don't see that as anything the government need concern itself with, either. Like I said, a clone is just your identical twin, only it can be born years later than you. Nothing wrong with that.

0 Replies

kelticwizard wrote:

Baldimo wrote:
When it comes to birth yes I prefer natural.

So, prefer away. It's your right. But test tube babies give people the chance to be biological parents when they would hot have the chance otherwise. So don't pass laws preventing people who prefer test tube babies to not having biological children.

As far as cloning goes, if it can be shown to produce healthy children, I don't see that as anything the government need concern itself with, either. Like I said, a clone is just your identical twin, only it can be born years later than you. Nothing wrong with that.

Test tube babies still take biological material form a man and a woman. Two women can't have a child and neither can two men. It requires the XX and XY from each not XX-XX or XY-XY.

The govt needs concern itself with cloning. There isn't much that is ethical in cloning except the ability to clone parts and pieces. To clone a whole person is once again going against nature. Sexual activity is once again the way in which people are made, not by taking your own DNA and creating life from nothing.

0 Replies

Baldimo wrote:

Test tube babies still take biological material form a man and a woman. Two women can't have a child and neither can two men. It requires the XX and XY from each not XX-XX or XY-XY.

I am well aware of that. I am only saying that since you seem to prefer only intercourse to conceive a child, it does not follow that other people have to follow your preferences by law.

Quote:

The govt needs concern itself with cloning. There isn't much that is ethical in cloning except the ability to clone parts and pieces. To clone a whole person is once again going against nature.

Please show me anywhere in the Constitution where it says Congress can pass laws against something because some people think it goes against nature.

If the babies from cloning can be shown to be biologically healthy, I see no reason for the governement to tell someone they can't clone.

0 Replies

Quote:

I am well aware of that. I am only saying that since you seem to prefer only intercourse to conceive a child, it does not follow that other people have to follow your preferences by law.

I never said I prefer intercourse to conceive children. I said I prefer the natural way, which is a mother and a father. There is no other way now is there?

Quote:

I am well aware of that. I am only saying that since you seem to prefer only intercourse to conceive a child, it does not follow that other people have to follow your preferences by law.

How do you propose to do testing on this? What happens to all the children that are born who are not healthy? Do we just kill them and start from scratch? The only other way to keep this from happening is to ban cloning of whole babies.

0 Replies

Baldimo wrote:

I never said I prefer intercourse to conceive children. I said I prefer the natural way, which is a mother and a father. There is no other way now is there?

So you have no objection to in vitro methods, then?

Baldimo wrote:

How do you propose to do testing on this [cloning]? What happens to all the children that are born who are not healthy?

I guess the same way in vitro fertilization was tested. I don't have all the details on that. Do you?

0 Replies

Baldimo wrote:

DrewDad wrote:
Baldimo wrote:
DrewDad wrote:
I suspect that as reproductive technology progresses there will be far more options that need to be covered.

If someone were to clone me, would they have to list my parents on the birth certificate?

Mother: Test-tube
Father: Knife

This is the type of stuff that is against nature. We have been getting along just fine for the last hundreds of thousands of years without such types of technology. To have them now is against nature!

They made the same argument against flight, as I recall.

If god made mankind, then god made all of this possible. Why do you hate god?

If it were I making that type of remark, I'm sure someone would throw some sort of debate term up here to tell me I'm being foolish. Since I'm not the knowledgeable about debate rules, I'm just going to tell you. You're being foolish.

There's a difference between being foolish and being obnoxious. Geez.

If a procedure can produce healthy babies, I don't see why anyone should object.

0 Replies

And "because it's natural" isn't a valid argument, as many others have pointed out. It's not "natural" to fly, drive, get dental work, eat bananas or pineapples in the U.S., shoot guns, or take pictures.

Deal with the consequences of technology, or go live in Amish country.

0 Replies

The birth certificate should say the BIRTH father and the BIRTH mother. That's it. Other papers stating guardianship do it just fine.

0 Replies

Bella Dea wrote:

The birth certificate should say the BIRTH father and the BIRTH mother. That's it. Other papers stating guardianship do it just fine.

Yea I am with Bella here.... the point of a birth certificate is to show the birth of a child to two people..... the two that created the child

0 Replies

I thought it was to certify that a live baby was born on such-and-such a date. Other semi-relevant information is attached.

Perhaps we should do away with the parent bit, and just put the baby's genetic code.

0 Replies

Bella Dea wrote:

The birth certificate should say the BIRTH father and the BIRTH mother. That's it. Other papers stating guardianship do it just fine.

That's where I agreed with Baldimo originally.
If genetic material came from two complete strangers, they need to be on the birth certificate by virtue of their "contribution" to the child.

0 Replies

Baldimo wrote:

This is the type of stuff that is against nature. We have been getting along just fine for the last hundreds of thousands of years without such types of technology. To have them now is against nature!

You want to agrue what is and is not "against nature"...perhaps stray into the ethical arguments surrounding "playing God"?
We are so far from a "natural" society that such an assertion about childbirth is selective at best and I doubt very much that outside of this debate, you personally support everything natural.
Blowjobs and masturbation go against nature but you'll see me at the front of that line every time.
You either subscribe to this puritan doctrine fully, or just remove what your palatte can not handle.
When you're in cardiac arrest, we'll be sure to keep you away from all the evil technology that will bring you back to life.

0 Replies

Nearly a third of births in the US are via C-section.

0 Replies

DrewDad wrote:

Nearly a third of births in the US are via C-section.

That is because Dr's have become lazy and don't want to wait for a natural birth. Have that many women started having problems having babies?

0 Replies

Baldimo wrote:

DrewDad wrote:
Nearly a third of births in the US are via C-section.

That is because Dr's have become lazy and don't want to wait for a natural birth. Have that many women started having problems having babies?

Since the C-section rate in the U.S. is more than double that of other industrialized nations, I expect not. Although I think it more a result of doctors becoming lawsuit-averse.

But I was more commenting on how "natural" childbirth is.

0 Replies

Parent A and Parent B?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know