Baby born without cancer gene...

Originally Posted by the_lone_wolf

it gives a zero chance of breast cancer caused by faulty genes,

because embryos with the faulty gene would not be allowed to live. So if this was implemented in a way remove this faulty gene from soceity people like current sufferers would not have been allowed to live.

Im not arguing for or against it. At then end of the day, im working on the same thing!

[the_lone_wolf]

Originally Posted by jamesrichardson

because embryos with the faulty gene would not be allowed to live...

i see your point, but at the end of it all even if each embryo is the same after as it was before, the child - where it refers to the offpring of mum and dad - will have a reduced probability of developing cancer later in life because of the actions of the medical team, and that's the goal

Originally Posted by jamesrichardson

because embryos with the faulty gene would not be allowed to live. So if this was implemented in a way remove this faulty gene from soceity people like current sufferers would not have been allowed to live.

Im not arguing for or against it. At then end of the day, im working on the same thing!

Think of those millions of lives that could have been, that you left on the computer monitor last night It's a tough position to argue.

No matter how much wiping you do with the kleenex; it's not going to impregnate it

Originally Posted by gettin2dizzy

Think of those millions of lives that could have been, that you left on the computer monitor last night It's a tough position to argue.

No matter how much wiping you do with the kleenex; it's not going to impregnate it

lol

as i said, im not arguing either way, without people wanting to do things like this i would be stuck

[the_lone_wolf]

Originally Posted by jamesrichardson

lol

as i said, im not arguing either way, without people wanting to do things like this i would be stuck

it's a sticky situation alright...

Originally Posted by jamesrichardson

lol

as i said, im not arguing either way, without people wanting to do things like this i would be stuck

Originally Posted by the_lone_wolf

it's a sticky situation alright...

it's a mass-debate alright

Originally Posted by gettin2dizzy

it's a mass-debate alright

One which will probably never cum to a conclusion

[ogden]

Originally Posted by SoulKiss

We meddle too much already to worry about this.

If things like cancer are caused by "dirty genes" then without medical intervention these things would go away - people with diabetes would suffer the complications and as such be less likely to breed for example.

Yes and no.

That line of thought only makes sense for conditions which take effect before the sufferer has had a chance to breed. Breast cancer is a particular bad example because the vast majority of people affected are above the average age for having a first child. So on that basis it wouldn't be eliminated by natural selection:

http://www.imaginis.com/breasthealth/statistics.asp#2

The same applies to diabetes:

http://statehealthfacts.org/compareb...22&yr=60&typ=1

There aren't many hereditary conditions I can think of which affect statistically significant numbers of people which would be likely to disappear by natural selection. One example would be haemophilia - typically only affects males, but is carried by the female, so it could linger on pretty much forever despite being potentially fatal from a young age.

[northwind]

Originally Posted by keithd

its the whole "we'll make you live longer" philosophy....doesn't it go against nature?

Yup. So say no to penicillin, and cooking food, and verbal communication All of human existance goes against nature at the end of the day. As a diabetic, if they can come up with some way of ensuring that any kids I have won't develop it, then why would I not take advantage?

[SoulKiss]

Originally Posted by ogden

Yes and no.

That line of thought only makes sense for conditions which take effect before the sufferer has had a chance to breed. Breast cancer is a particular bad example because the vast majority of people affected are above the average age for having a first child. So on that basis it wouldn't be eliminated by natural selection:

http://www.imaginis.com/breasthealth/statistics.asp#2

The same applies to diabetes:

http://statehealthfacts.org/compareb...22&yr=60&typ=1

There aren't many hereditary conditions I can think of which affect statistically significant numbers of people which would be likely to disappear by natural selection. One example would be haemophilia - typically only affects males, but is carried by the female, so it could linger on pretty much forever despite being potentially fatal from a young age.

Ah but society would take care of that - after a couple of generations it would be obvious that someone's bloodline "wasn't right".

However I DID misunderstand the screening vs meddling the original topic was about.

Oh and Northy, my Dad is Type1 I'm Type2