Genetic testing
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-11-2013, 07:19 AM
RE: Genetic testing
(15-11-2013 07:06 AM)Chippy Wrote:  
(15-11-2013 07:00 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Is that completely true? My genetic dad was 6 feet tall. My mother is 5.6. I am 5 foot, six inches shorter than my mother.

Stature is a complicated trait not only because of its polygenicity but also because it is heavily influenced by many developmental factors. If both of your parents were 6' tall and you turned out 5' that would be unusual. See here.

Well thank you very much for the link. Like I said, I have only a layman's understanding of genetics but I am facinated by the dice roll.

A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day - Bill Watterson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-11-2013, 07:36 AM
RE: Genetic testing
(15-11-2013 06:41 AM)Chippy Wrote:  But the rich always have and always will have more reproductive options. The average-looking wealthy male has always been able to produce above-average looking children by marrying a well-above-average female.

That's a good point. Never really considered it that way.

Except that I wouldn't necessarily consider the rich to be more attractive. Donald trump's face looks like a box of smashed assholes.

Now actors and actresses grew to be rich because they were attractive to begin with. With the exception of children of actors (blith danner (sp?) and HoC's beloved Gwen).

Also, I know you are using universal assumptions for the sake of simplifying the argument but what I find attractive and what you find attractive can be polar opposite. You might prefer angular and sharp features, I might prefer more rounded and soft.

Just out of curiosity, who do you find to be the most attractive man and woman in the world?

For me,
Chris Hemsworth and Elisa dushku .

A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day - Bill Watterson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Cathym112's post
15-11-2013, 07:37 AM
RE: Genetic testing
(15-11-2013 06:41 AM)Chippy Wrote:  But the rich always have and always will have more reproductive options. The average-looking wealthy male has always been able to produce above-average looking children by marrying a well-above-average female.

That's a good point. Never really considered it that way.

Except that I wouldn't necessarily consider the rich to be more attractive. Donald trump's face looks like a box of smashed assholes.

Now actors and actresses grew to be rich because they were attractive to begin with. With the exception of children of actors (blith danner (sp?) and HoC's beloved Gwen).

Also, I know you are using universal assumptions for the sake of simplifying the argument but what I find attractive and what you find attractive can be polar opposite. You might prefer angular and sharp features, I might prefer more rounded and soft.

Just out of curiosity, who do you find to be the most attractive man and woman in the world?

For me,
Chris Hemsworth and Elisa dushku .

A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day - Bill Watterson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-11-2013, 07:38 PM
RE: Genetic testing
(15-11-2013 07:37 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Just out of curiosity, who do you find to be the most attractive man and woman in the world?

I don't have a single choice for either sex. Amongst others, I think Emilia Clarke and Miranda Kerr are beautiful women. David Gandy and David Beckham are very handsome men.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-11-2013, 09:53 PM
RE: Genetic testing
(15-11-2013 05:14 AM)Chippy Wrote:  
(15-11-2013 04:29 AM)PursuingTruth Wrote:  If we terminate embryo's because they are a boy or girl, how long until we terminate an embryo because its ginger?

The embryos that are produced by IVF aren't persons so it doesn't matter what criterion is employed to decide which will be implanted and which will be discarded. There is nothing morally problematic about refusing to implant a "ginger" embryo. We aren't talking about a ~3rd trimester foetus, we are talking about a 3-day old embryo.

This is what 3-day old embryos look like:
[Image: 3-day-old-embryos.jpg]

In what sense do these collections of undifferentiated cells possess personhood?

The problem with personhood is that it is nebulous. Is a 40 year old man under general anesthesia a person? Is a new born? I would venture to say a new born is more self aware then a person under general anesthesia.

I prefer to draw the line at granting all human beings moral protection for a couple of reasons. First, in my opinion(for what it is worth) the ideology that has lead to the most evil in the world is the one whereby it is determined that some human beings are more valuable than others. Americans slaughtered Indians because they were "savages". Second, we pretty much know when a human being comes into existence. You can open up a high school biology book and look at the picture of the lifecycle of a human being. There is no ambiguity, no fuzzy line, no arbitrary point that some yahoo dressed in a black robe decides like there is with personhood.

Vosur, Anjele, Hanoff.....have you learned nothing in my absence?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-11-2013, 10:45 PM
RE: Genetic testing
(15-11-2013 09:53 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Is a 40 year old man under general anesthesia a person?

Yes.

Quote: Is a new born?

Yes.

Quote:I would venture to say a new born is more self aware then a person under general anesthesia.

General anaesthesia is a temporary drug-induced state it doesn't reflect the person's normal cognitive capacities.

Quote:I prefer to draw the line at granting all human beings moral protection for a couple of reasons.

You aren't avoiding the issue of personhood you are just renaming it. A blastocyte isn't a human being. A corpse is a "human being" but we don't regard it as having any interests.

Quote:Second, we pretty much know when a human being comes into existence. You can open up a high school biology book and look at the picture of the lifecycle of a human being. There is no ambiguity, no fuzzy line, no arbitrary point that some yahoo dressed in a black robe decides like there is with personhood.

To be a human person is to have a particular type of nervous system. The exact details remain to be specified but there is no other (natural) human attribute which personhood can be non-arbitrarily associated with. A nervous system appears to be the only essential component.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chippy's post
15-11-2013, 11:16 PM
RE: Genetic testing
(15-11-2013 10:45 PM)Chippy Wrote:  General anaesthesia is a temporary drug-induced state it doesn't reflect the person's normal cognitive capacities......

......To be a human person is to have a particular type of nervous system. The exact details remain to be specified but there is no other (natural) human attribute which personhood can be non-arbitrarily associated with. A nervous system appears to be the only essential component.

Lacking a nervous system is a temporary state as well. You wouldn't terminate an ethopian because there is a person that if you traveled through time and space you could meet. In a real physical sense, the exact same is true for a blastocyst.

The 40 year old under general anesthesia isn't a person anymore than the blastocyst. You are happy to grant that 40 year old under general anesthesia moral protection because they were a person before and will be a person again. Presumably you do not grant a corpse moral protection because although they were a person before, they are not a person now and won't be in the future. Thus it seems that the standard by which you grant moral protection is not past personhood, but future personhood. If I am correct, then shouldn't you also grant moral protection to the blastocyst?

Vosur, Anjele, Hanoff.....have you learned nothing in my absence?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2013, 07:03 AM
RE: Genetic testing
(15-11-2013 11:16 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(15-11-2013 10:45 PM)Chippy Wrote:  General anaesthesia is a temporary drug-induced state it doesn't reflect the person's normal cognitive capacities......

......To be a human person is to have a particular type of nervous system. The exact details remain to be specified but there is no other (natural) human attribute which personhood can be non-arbitrarily associated with. A nervous system appears to be the only essential component.

Lacking a nervous system is a temporary state as well. You wouldn't terminate an ethopian because there is a person that if you traveled through time and space you could meet. In a real physical sense, the exact same is true for a blastocyst.

The 40 year old under general anesthesia isn't a person anymore than the blastocyst. You are happy to grant that 40 year old under general anesthesia moral protection because they were a person before and will be a person again. Presumably you do not grant a corpse moral protection because although they were a person before, they are not a person now and won't be in the future. Thus it seems that the standard by which you grant moral protection is not past personhood, but future personhood. If I am correct, then shouldn't you also grant moral protection to the blastocyst?

a person under general doesn't lack a nervous system, all systems are under temporary suspension. The same suspension, although to a lesser degree, that you achieve during rem sleep.

A blastocyst has no heart, no brain, no kidneys. It is a cluster of undifferentiated cells.

"You wouldn't terminate an ethopian because there is a person that if you tra that if you traveled through time and space you could meet." What does this mean? Seriously? Are you implying that if we one day figure out space and time travel, we do it without our bodies?

You should be all for genetic testing. This would increase your perceived shrinking population by producing only healthy fetuses. A child with CF will most likely will not survive until a ripe old age.

A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day - Bill Watterson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2013, 11:28 PM
RE: Genetic testing
(15-11-2013 11:16 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Lacking a nervous system is a temporary state as well.

A person under GA doesn't lack a nervous system, as Cathym already stated it is merely in a state of suspension, its functioning has been modified.

A blastocyst--a clump of blastyocytes--is literally a an aggregation of undifferentiated cells. Yes, if it is allowed to mature it will--all things being equal--develop a nervous system but that is besides the point that it has no nervous system. What it could become is irrelevant.

The logical extension of your argument is that the moral thing to do is extract all of the ova of a woman and try and fertilise each and every one because each ovum has the potential to become a mature foetus. A ovum isn't a "half-person" and neither is a spermatozoon. A zygote isn't a person and neither is a blastocyst.

Quote:You wouldn't terminate an ethopian because there is a person that if you traveled through time and space you could meet. In a real physical sense, the exact same is true for a blastocyst.

I don't understand the example or the analogy.

Quote:The 40 year old under general anesthesia isn't a person anymore than the blastocyst.

A temporarily non-conscious person with a healthy nervous system is qualitatively different from a clump of blastocytes. I don't know how else to put this fundamental point. Ova are not homunculi, sperm are not homunculi and blastocysts are not homunculi. Referring to these clumps of cells as if they are homunculi, i.e. little people, is a pre-scientific idea.

Quote:You are happy to grant that 40 year old under general anesthesia moral protection because they were a person before and will be a person again.

Yes.

Quote:Presumably you do not grant a corpse moral protection because although they were a person before, they are not a person now and won't be in the future.

Yes.

Quote:Thus it seems that the standard by which you grant moral protection is not past personhood, but future personhood. If I am correct, then shouldn't you also grant moral protection to the blastocyst?

No, moral rights extend to current persons.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chippy's post
16-11-2013, 11:59 PM
RE: Genetic testing
Am I the only person who thinks this might be used for nefarious purposes?

Like if you were a presidential candidate and your opponent procured your genetic map, they might try to convince the public you aren't worthy of their vote because you have a predisposition towards <insert any mental illness or disorder here.> Or if you marry someone who is very serious about becoming a parent and you pass something undesirable to the baby, could they divorce & sue you for never getting yourself mapped to check for it? (Yes, I know in the second case, they probably would have made sure you were mapped to begin with. Those were just the first two specific examples that sprang to mind on the spot.)

Maybe even job discrimination or the like could occur. Idk. Am I just being negative here?

THIS USER IS NO LONGER ACTIVE. THANK YOU, AND HAVE A GREAT DAY! http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...a-few-days
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: