Genetically engineering our own mortality

Duke · 05-21-2006, 03:27 PM

I just worry that this pill is yet just another source of "unnatural" body manipulation and worry about the long term affects. You know some women are going to use these pills like vitamins so is sterility a possible long term side-effect?

I think mankind is on a very dangerous path toward our own mortality. It seems to me that we're evolving very quickly and unnaturaly and I have to admit, I worry for the future of our children and our childrens, children.

Vautrin · 05-21-2006, 04:32 PM

I agree with you on the mortality path. And it is worrisome.

Somehow we have no problem feeding our kids and ourselves all kinds of hormones in our meat. Somehow we are not making to much problems of genetically modified plants and foodstuffs, even though the long term consequences are (per definition) unknown. Somehow we do not have problems using all kinds of hormones in our shampoos, and all our hygiene products etc.

Those things are messing with our bodies too. But a lot of people in office who cite possible sources of danger of the pill (and I would not rule that out), also insist on the safety of hormone-laced foods, meats, genetically modified organisms, shampoos et cetera. That does not make much sense. In fact, the current US administation complains a lot that those (in other countries) who have doubts about these technologies and applications thereof are taking an unlawful and illegal stance!

The question is: what is natural these days?

Of course some women are going to use the pill as form of birth control. But you must also consider what you are preventing at the same time. One problem is, that there are hardly reliable statistics on the number of illegal abortions being performed (by the woman themselves), nor of the health consequences if something goes wrong. It is a few bridges too far to assume that there simply is no unsafe abortion in Western-Europe or the US or Canada.

At the same time, the question is how good the quality of life would be for a child that would end up neglected. Would end up abused (something which is more likely if the child was unwanted, I would think), that would be hated by the mom. That would have totally irresponsible parents, who are unable to take care of the kid properly.

Legislation to force the decision does not work. Because a pill is available that does not mean it should be made mandatory to use it. Or not use it. Only the person herself can decide. Supposedly that is what we call personal responsibility.

Duke · 05-21-2006, 05:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vautrin

Somehow we have no problem feeding our kids and ourselves all kinds of hormones in our meat. Somehow we are not making to much problems of genetically modified plants and foodstuffs, even though the long term consequences are (per definition) unknown. Somehow we do not have problems using all kinds of hormones in our shampoos, and all our hygiene products etc.

Those things are messing with our bodies too. But a lot of people in office who cite possible sources of danger of the pill (and I would not rule that out), also insist on the safety of hormone-laced foods, meats, genetically modified organisms, shampoos et cetera. That does not make much sense. In fact, the current US administation complains a lot that those (in other countries) who have doubts about these technologies and applications thereof are taking an unlawful and illegal stance!

The question is: what is natural these days?

All of this bothers me but now trying to find alternatives is useless unless you own your own farm/ranch and use natural means to grow/harvest your fruits/vegetables/meats.

I didn't want to get into it too much because it really is a seperate topic all to it's own. I almost wonder if a topic split is required here so we can discuss this as well.

Vautrin · 05-21-2006, 05:09 PM

Splitting seems like a good thing, as this has gone completely off topic.

Duke · 05-21-2006, 05:27 PM

Done

I think this is a very important topic so I hope it stays alive.

Vautrin · 05-21-2006, 05:40 PM

Self-sustained farming is hardly an alternative for the population as a whole. Imagine the consequences that would have on a city like New York. Or Los Angeles.

.

The problem is that the government is effectively forcing us to accept these health risks as there is no realistic way for all of us to avoid those, but at the same time makes the decision for all of uson the pill, on the basis of allegedly the same health risks, that it should not be readily available.

The two do not add up. It would make more sense to apply a warning label on the pill such as: "Use of this product may have negative consequences for one's health and should not be done lightly." Or something along those lines. If that would be unacceptable for the government, one should simply point to its policies on all kinds of foodstuffs shampoos and all that.

In fact, the food we eat and the products we use have often been implicated in research on the dropping quality of sperm in the past decades.

Just because we have a government, that does not rule out personal responsibility of the citizens of the nation. Including matters like the food we consume the hygiene products we use, or the method of birth control / abortion.

Merika · 05-22-2006, 06:27 AM

If they are going to have sex it would make more sense to go down to any local female clinic and get a free DAP shot that keeps you from getting pregnant for 3 months at a time. Any girl over the age of 12 can get them without parental approval.

I have no idea why a group of people out there simply won't give it up until the rest of the world agrees with them that abortion is a good thing. It's supposed to be a last resort....not a cure all for unwanted pregnancies.

And by the way... all this has done is increase STD's among teenagers. Now, very few are using protection in the form of a condom. So the liberals are all happy that they've shoved their abortion agenda down everyone's throat....but the parents are the ones who have to pick up the financial cost and long term health care of a teen with AIDS.

Good job.

Vautrin · 05-22-2006, 06:41 AM

What protection did people use 60 years ago? Even far less than now. Of course all kinds of STDs were around at the time. It was simply not diagnosed, that is all.

Merika · 05-22-2006, 07:35 AM

Vatrin....you don't have a teen so you don't have anything to go by except what is written on the subject. I don't give a rats a$$ what happened 60 years ago. I DO care that I don't have a teenager who gets AIDS due to an abortion pill being pushed more than the use of condoms. My daugher has a friend now who should be getting her test results back this week. She is 15....

Duke · 05-23-2006, 01:49 AM

You know, kids are going to have sex regardless of whether or not we stock abortion pills, hand out condoms, educate them on the dangers in school, etc., so what good is any of this? In fact, just listen to the radio nowadays, or the TV for that matter, how much of the commercial content is now sexually oriented, 50%, 75%, more?

Then we act shocked when our little girl who is now an anorexic supermodel comes home either knocked up or worse. Does anyone even know what traditional family values are anymore?

While I'm on the topic of radio/TV, what perturbs me the most is bands like Alice in Chains, NiN, Tool, etc., must have the words PHUCK, SH!T, etc., edited out of their music but there's no problem airing a commercial seconds after the song is over about female stimulation from a glow in the dark, vibrating rubber.

Pardon my French but, un-fricking-believable :roll:

Vautrin · 05-23-2006, 11:22 AM

To add to that:
the use of sex, and suggestions of sex, to sell products, such as cars, shampoos (we had a commercial here in which it seemed the woman reaching orgasm, simply by using the freaking shampoo!), is deemed acceptable.

Although it is unlikely the distinction that has been made between commercials and real-life are valid at all: else the commercial would be ineffective, right? We are primed for sex and sexuality, and in order to maintain the semblance of decency content of music gets "beeped."

Yet our governments refuse to take a committed stance on the issue of sex, sexual suggestion, and exploitation thereof in commercials. The situatiion Duke described would not be so bizarre, if the government would be consistent in applying these moral filters thoroughly in the whole of society. And not rule out application of that filter, simply because it is in contradiction with the freedom of initiative / enterprise.

The appaling low probability any sex offender has of being convicted, if the victim and the perpetrator knew each other well, even moreso in dating situations. Estimates (they are hard to come by) in the UK suggest that about 1 in 8 actual rapes leads to a conviction, so there is something seriously flawed there too. If people are not effectively protected against crimes like that, our governments do not deserve to remain in office.

I'd rather see a commercial for a vibrator, than to live in a culture which pretends those tools are not around, leaving people with the erronous idea that stimulation = unsafe sex.

Duke · 05-23-2006, 11:34 AM

BTW, so everyone knows, I didn't make up the commercial either; I hear it 4 nights a week on a popular, local radio station. I only thing I did embellish is that it glows in the dark.

Merika · 05-24-2006, 08:46 PM

We have commercials and songs like that because the liberals called it freedom of speech and art.

We can't tell our children not to listen to it because the liberals have told them they have rights and parents shouldn't shove morality on them.

We now have confused children in a nasty a$$ed world having sex, dealing with gay issues, having babies, and getting STD's at the ripe age of 13.

I'm sorry....the whole liberal thing isn't working for me. It's a pile of crap.