I would like to know how you see the idea of designing your own baby. If your family has a trait you do not want a child to carry that big nose that makes you cringe each time you see it, that big head that seems to stick more than your surname, would you consider doing it? What religious roadblocks would you hit?

If they come in religious-crap-impermeability models, i'd gladly take it.

None.

Some childrens are unfortunate because they are born infected with christianity at birth, it is a form of handicap.

I think we humans are playing play Russian Roulette with nature.

*moved*

spikedcylinder:

I will definitely do it if technology allows and if there are no adverse side effects. Think about the possibility of avoiding birthing children that have downs syndrome, autism, various forms of handicap etc.

Should this be in religion or health, by the way?

I would have have put it up there but I want to know how people see it morally and that is mostly from a religious stand point, in has already been done though a couple in australia did it to use their new babies tissue to save their other child who had a blood disorder. In essence they made sure their new child did not carry the disease and that he had the capability to cure his elder brother with his tissues.

http://www.phgfoundation.org/news/1326/ that is where you will find the full story.
So I was thinking does man have the moral responsibility to finally wipe out certain ailments, we can surely start from wiping out autism, downs syndrome and all that maybe even sickle cell anaemia.

Common people what are the moral implications.

Tudór:

If they come in religious-crap-impermeability models, i'd gladly take it.

How body?
LOL there is no escaping this one oh bro, tell me if you will really do it, what ethical issues will you go through, surely even if you do not believe in God what is your stance on issues such as right to life and all that. Because IVF is going to be used and loads of fertilized embryos would be destroyed, do you have any objections at all? how would the earth look like to you where you can make your child as fast a usain bolt with skills like lionel messi and the body of danny shittu?  

I would like to appeal to the Mods not to move the topic, what I want to get from people is what the moral implications would be I really do not know much about the technical analysis would be, are there any religions that would object to it and where your personal moral compass moves you.
Thanks.

Chrisbenogor:

How body?

Mehn i'm cool. . .work is really hectic these days. How are you?

LOL there is no escaping this one oh bro, tell me if you will really do it,

I will do it absolutely.

what ethical issues will you go through, surely even if you do not believe in God what is your stance on issues such as right to life and all that.

You have no right to life until you're alive. Designer babier violate no "right to life principles"-

Because IVF is going to be used and loads of fertilized embryos would be destroyed, do you have any objections at all?

A fertilized embryo is of no difference than any other living cell. You aint alive until you're born. Till then you're just a bunch of tissues like a tumour.

how would the earth look like to you where you can make your child as fast a usain bolt with skills like lionel messi and the body of danny shittu?  

So wonderful!
We should all strive for perfection and since God is so incompetent we might as well do it for him.
Imagine a world without birth defects and diseases, everyone with superior intelligence where people would be smart enough to seek for solutions to their problems rather than waiting for a magician to come from above.

Body dey oh my brother, I just watch the program for nat geo and my mind just blow.
They even said very soon it will be possible to grow eggs from stem cells and then the possibilities would be endless, maybe we will be able to make humans that can conquer other planets.
I share most of your opinions my only problem is that it might be for the rich.

Ofcourse every new discovery starts out for the rich. In this age of commercialisation everything starts out expensive in order to recoup investments made in the research. But with time it will be available for everyone.

The only solution is for the government to fund such research.

Chrisbenogor:

I would like to know how you see the idea of designing your own baby. If your family has a trait you do not want a child to carry that big nose that makes you cringe each time you see it, that big head that seems to stick more than your surname, would you consider doing it? What religious roadblocks would you hit?

Hi Chris. As usual, you raise posts that have significant ethical, moral and spiritual implication. Some genetic diseases are meant to be cured but designing a baby to cure those diseases is morally and spiritaully wrong. Any cure or treatment can only be morally and spiritually correct if life is not sacrificed to achieve the process. There are those that argue that a fertilized egg is a bunch of cells. I simply disagree. Without going into the spiritual details of what a foetus is, let me say that a fertilized egg is alife and abortion at any stage of pregnancy, from conception to birth is murder. Abortion in my view should only be undertaken to save the life of the mother. All other reasons are immoral. A human being goes through conception, embryogenesis, birth, childhood, youth, adulthood and old age. It is a continum and any interuption at what ever stage is unethical and spiritually wrong. Spiritually there is essentially no difference between the killing of a fertilized egg, an embryo, a baby, a child, a tenager, an adult or a 100 year old man. In each of the case, the body that housed the soul is forcebly destroyed.
Couples should be encouraged to go for genetic testing but if the result shows  genetic abnormalities, then they have no right to terminate the pregnancy. Science should seek for a cure of those diseases without aborting the baby.  Thus until their are technigues that can correct genetic disorders in embryos in situ, designing of babies is not the answer. Designing a baby is to open up a pandora box that is capable of ending the human race. Your topic concerns only designing incase of diseases. You also forgot that the same technology (if available) can be used to alter anything else from intellegence to eye colour. What happens if such a technology is used by a dictator to mass produce zombie humans that only carry out the macabre wishes of the dictator.
The glamour of designing babies may be appealing to non-sciientists, but the scientific hurdle to cross is enormouous. Many of the genetic disorders arise from a complex interaction of genes in different loci as well as epigenetic factors like regulatory RNAs. The public is always sold this naieve notion, that you just remove an unhealthy gene and replace it with a healthy one. In many cases, the story is much, more complicated. While the genetic basis of Down Syndrome is known, others like autism is unknown inspite of very large studies. The promise of stem cells is also largely over-estimated. Even if thses hurdles are overcome, the core to your post is whether a fertilized egg is a developmental stage in the biological evolution of the human body. My point is that it is, just like the body of a child  or an adult. Thus any scientific technigue or procedure that will require the killing of a foetus to cure a disease, give babies to infertile couples and similar things is wrong.

I am a molecular biologist and support research aimed at eradicating genetic as well as infectious diseases. But in the process, embryoes should not be murdered to achieve the purpose. Alternatives should be explored. The argument that only cells harvested from aborted or frozen embryoes is the gold standard for biomedical research is nonsense. If scientists look for alternatives, they will surely find them.
There is no doubt that living with a handicapped child is an enormous challenge. But it is a challenge that should bring joy instead of saddness and despair. All children, healthy or unhealthy are gifts from God and parents should see it that way. There is no point lamenting.

To answer you question, I will not look for a cure of any disease that involves the killing of an embryo for that is against the laws of God. I will also not involve myself with research dealing with embroyonic stem cells. Stay blessed.

Good afternoon Mr. Nwankwo, hope you are having a good day. I am trying to get everyone to drop the whole my religion is better than yours threads and deal with issues that face us today.
Now to what you said any cure or treatment can only be morally wrong if life is not sacrificed in the process, further down you also admitted that you would endorse remove a foetus to save the life of its mother, I see that as a gray area and more and more it can be stretched. The other embryos that will be destroyed still go back to the issue of at what point does life start and I think that is the biggest challenge this thing will face, I think we all have different points where we believe life starts, a fine line to me is after the child has been born, during an election pregnant women are not counted as two.
But is this not the price we have to pay for freedom? Allowing others do things we do not agree with?
Cheers.

Good afternoon Mr. Nwankwo, hope you are having a good day. I am trying to get everyone to drop the whole my religion is better than yours threads and deal with issues that face us today.
Now to what you said any cure or treatment can only be morally wrong if life is not sacrificed in the process, further down you also admitted that you would endorse remove a foetus to save the life of its mother, I see that as a gray area and more and more it can be stretched. The other embryos that will be destroyed still go back to the issue of at what point does life start and I think that is the biggest challenge this thing will face, I think we all have different points where we believe life starts, a fine line to me is after the child has been born, during an election pregnant women are not counted as two.
But is this not the price we have to pay for freedom? Allowing others do things we do not agree with?
Cheers.

OMO IBO:

I think we humans are playing play Russian Roulette with nature.

which is both good and bad. There are lots of ethical issues involved but hey it's worth a try.

I think Nwankwo has said it all.

The end does not always justify the means. While the intent is noble - to save a life - the repercussions of going down this slippery slope of 'designing' your own baby are immense. Where does one then draw the line? like Nwankwo noted this is like opening Pandora's box, it could have serious and severe implications.

But I suspect the practice will not stop or subside, as long as people can argue a life is being saved it will be hard to disencourage. And I sympathize with those parents, I can see how the heart would overrule the ethical concerns.

Chrisbenogor:

Good afternoon Mr. Nwankwo, hope you are having a good day. I am trying to get everyone to drop the whole my religion is better than yours threads and deal with issues that face us today.
Now to what you said any cure or treatment can only be morally wrong if life is not sacrificed in the process, further down you also admitted that you would endorse remove a foetus to save the life of its mother, I see that as a gray area and more and more it can be stretched. The other embryos that will be destroyed still go back to the issue of at what point does life start and I think that is the biggest challenge this thing will face, I think we all have different points where we believe life starts, a fine line to me is after the child has been born, during an election pregnant women are not counted as two.
But is this not the price we have to pay for freedom? Allowing others do things we do not agree with?
Cheers.

Hi Chris. I am fine over here. The summer here is unusually hot. I guess we enjoy it while it lasts. I do not see a gray area that can be stretched. People clamouring for designer babies are not doing so to save the life of the mother. I also think that because a pregnant woman is not counted as two during election is not relevant in my view to the topic. Aferall, it is the mother that votes, not the baby. My point is that fertilization of an egg by a sperm starts a stupendous process that leads to the birth of a child. I do not see a separation between fertilization, embryo, a child, a tenager or an old man. The same life force or spirit is in all of them. I am yet to see any logical or scientific evidence to show that a foetus is not alife in a way similar to that of a child, a tenageer, an adult or an old man.

I do not think that most people understand the implication of selecting genetic traits as it suits our desires. They are presented with the beautiful picture that it can help cure hereditary diseases but the are not told that it can also be used to create zombie humans, wipe out an ethnic or racial group etc. Why do we need to kill a foetus to cure a disease or genetically engineer an embryo to produce spare body parts for other human beings? The bottom line is that if one does not consider a foetus a human body, then one can do whatever one likes. The paradox is that each of us started our physical journey with conception and yet we want to deny this starting process as not having anything to do with us. Stay blessed.

m_nwankwo pls allow me to make a few notes

m_nwankwo:

Hi Chris. I am fine over here. The summer here is unusually hot. I guess we enjoy it while it lasts. I do not see a gray area that can be stretched. People clamouring for designer babies are not doing so to save the life of the mother. I also think that because a pregnant woman is not counted as two during election is not relevant in my view to the topic. Aferall, it is the mother that votes, not the baby. My point is that fertilization of an egg by a sperm starts a stupendous process that leads to the birth of a child. I do not see a separation between fertilization, embryo, a child, a tenager or an old man. The same life force or spirit is in all of them.

These are your spiritual convictions and you're entitled to them

I am yet to see any logical or scientific evidence to show that a foetus is not alife in a way similar to that of a child, a tenageer, an adult or an old man.

A foetus is alive quite all right but it's the same way a single cell is alive there's no difference.
Going by your argument one can say throwing away sperms is throwing children too.
The main issue here should be when does a collection of tissues become an individual and that to me is after one is born.

I do not think that most people understand the implication of selecting genetic traits as it suits our desires. They are presented with the beautiful picture that it can help cure hereditary diseases but the are not told that it can also be used to create zombie humans, wipe out an ethnic or racial group etc.

Many other discoveries have their potentially dangerous uses. Vaccines could be used as a bio weapon too to wipe out races, nuclear physics inaddition to providing energy can be used for atomic bombs- That didn't stop us from exploiting them, did it?
It all boils down to regulation as if we always pre-consider the potential dangers of each discovery most useful discoveries will never be made

Why do we need to kill a foetus to cure a disease or genetically engineer an embryo to produce spare body parts for other human beings?

I See this in the same light as abortion to save the life of a mother. It's all the same sacrifice.

The bottom line is that if one does not consider a foetus a human body, then one can do whatever one likes. The paradox is that each of us started our physical journey with conception and yet we want to deny this starting process as not having anything to do with us. Stay blessed.

One can go back and say we started our physical journey with the formation of the sperm cell and ovum afterall we're made up of both components- Are we also wrong in denying this starting point as having anything to do with us?

Hello Chris, The topic is very interesting.

As for me, I support such research, but with very tight control to prevent misuse.
I am a Pro Abortionists so to me the ethical question is not exactly the discarded a fertilized egg, but know how science can be abused, experiments might go further to experimenting with advanced fetuses and actual babies.

Also i might have problems with the procedure of designing babies. If the required trait can be obtained from a few fetuses in very early stage of development, i would not have problems with it, but with my little understanding of genetic, i know that getting specific genetic trait is a very low probability hit and miss procedure, how many fetuses would be required to obtained a desired result, and how developed would the fetuses have to be before it is to be discarded. Because it would be wrong to discard hundreds or even thousands of fetuses at very late stages in their development just to obtain one well designed baby.

So for me to completely support the experiment, i need to have answers to those questions.

Well done guys.

Hi Tudor,

These are my views on the issue you raised

[quoteA foetus is alive quite all right but it's the same way a single cell is alive there's no difference.
Going by your argument one can say throwing away sperms is throwing children too.
The main issue here should be when does a collection of tissues become an individual and that to me is after one is born]

[/quote]

No, a foetus is not like any other somatic  cell or even a gamete. Neither sperm or egg can develop to a foetus. A fertilized egg is not a body tissue for it contains the entire genetic program which if not prevented from expression results in the birth of a child. Egg and sperm are gametes but once a fertilization takes place, constitute the starting point of biological life.

[quote] Many other discoveries have their potentially dangerous uses. Vaccines could be used as a bio weapon too to wipe out races, nuclear physics inaddition to providing energy can be used for atomic bombs- That didn't stop us from exploiting them, did it?
It all boils down to regulation as if we always pre-consider the potential dangers of each discovery most useful discoveries will never be made

There is no point regulating what one does not understand. Gene therapy with respect to humans is still at its infancy. What scientists are offering are simply possibilities. There is not yet experimental evidence to show that they will work as happened with vaccines. Sure, a virus can engineered as a bioweapon but atleast we  understand how the virus or  other biological agents work, and thus can re-engineer an anti-bioweapon.

I See this in the same light as abortion to save the life of a mother. It's all the same sacrifice

No, it is not. Doctors will only consider abortion to save the life of the mother when there are no other alternatives. Their are alternatives to embryonic stem cells. You can use adult stem cells. There are alternatives to programing an embryo to become a spare part workshop for human parts. You can harvest adult stem cells from the sick person and program it to mature into the required organ replacement.

One can go back and say we started our physical journey with the formation of the sperm cell and ovum afterall we're made up of both components- Are we also wrong in denying this starting point as having anything to do with us?

A sperm cell and an egg does not make us for neither on its own will develope into a baby. It is the union of these two gametes that starts our biological life. I do not see why you cannot see the difference between an egg, a sperm and a ferilized egg. Stay blessed.

m_nwankwo:

Hi Tudor,

These are my views on the issue you raised

No, a foetus is not like any other somatic  cell or even a gamete. Neither sperm or egg can develop to a foetus. A fertilized egg is not a body tissue for it contains the entire genetic program which if not prevented from expression results in the birth of a child. Egg and sperm are gametes but once a fertilization takes place, constitute the starting point of[b] biological life.[/b]

Biological life,hmmmm. . . . . I would hold the view that the sperm and ovum have biological life in the first place, they perform the entire characteristics of living things as do other cells.
The union of the two cells forms the embryo. The genetic program for the development into a child as contained in the embryo comes from these two cells it doesn't just magically appear.
So again if i wanted to use your logic i'd hold that life starts from the formation of the sperm and ovum.

There is no point regulating what one does not understand. Gene therapy with respect to humans is still at its infancy. What scientists are offering are simply possibilities. There is not yet experimental evidence to show that they will work as happened with vaccines. Sure, a virus can engineered as a bioweapon but atleast we  understand how the virus or  other biological agents work, and thus can re-engineer an anti-bioweapon.

I will hold that understanding comes from experimentation and exploration.
How would you expect us to know of the nature of viruses if not from research conducted by experiments.
There was no scientific evidence either that vaccination would work. It took putting the hypothesis to work by experimentation and observation.

No, it is not. Doctors will only consider abortion to save the life of the mother when there are no other alternatives. Their are alternatives to embryonic stem cells. You can use adult stem cells. There are alternatives to programing an embryo to become a spare part workshop for human parts. You can harvest adult stem cells from the sick person and program it to mature into the required organ replacement.

If it were that easy, you wouldn't have them experimenting with embryonic stem cells. Clearly the Adult stem cells are much more difficult to work with or manipulate. I even read somewhere that studying embryonic stem cells holds the key to how we can use adult stem cells because obviously the adult cells are products of the embryonic stem cells.

A sperm cell and an egg does not make us for neither on its own will develope into a baby. It is the union of these two gametes that starts our biological life. I do not see why you cannot see the difference between an egg, a sperm and a ferilized egg. Stay blessed.

Pls refer to my earlier reply as regards this.

Chrisbenogor:

I would like to know how you see the idea of designing your own baby. If your family has a trait you do not want a child to carry that big nose that makes you cringe each time you see it, that big head that seems to stick more than your surname, would you consider doing it? What religious roadblocks would you hit?

I do not completely agree with any poster in this thread. I think both sides are exaggerating. Based on the information we have about “designing a baby,” I cannot say about the morality of it. If a naturally fertilized egg is engineered to inhibit certain traits, what exactly does this engineering involve? Based on what we know so far, it’s not enough to make conclusive statements. Since even adults undergo treatments to inhibit certain genetic illnesses.

If one sees nothing wrong with in-vitro fertilization, then one should also accommodate this idea of “designing a baby.” Also, if one sees nothing wrong with “gender selection” he should accommodate this idea of “designing a baby,” they are basically the same. To agree with one and refuse the other shows inconsistency in understanding.

I personally do not think that the idea of “designing a baby” and in-vitro fert. is right. Artificial insemination is okay because in this case the sperm is introduced inside the woman and allowed to fertilize an egg. But incases where the fertilization is done on a test tube is very wrong. I have worked in an in-vitro clinic and I have witnessed in-vitro fert. first hand. Here are the reasons why I think it is wrong:

(1) There is no way the doctor can ensure that only one embryo will be formed in the test tube. Doctors generally mix many sperms and eggs together in a test tube and allow them to fertilize(Incubation). It usually happens that at the end they will end up with more than 20 embryos; out of these twenty, they will select the best ones and freeze them. The bad ones are discarded.
The immoral thing here is that one who believes that life starts at conception should see this discarding of embryos as murder.

(2) Depending on the age of the woman, five or more embryos are introduced into her uterus. Women above 35 can get up to five embryos at a time. This is done because it is generally believed that not all the embryos will attach to the womb and survive. But there have been cases where all the embryos survived and the woman ended up giving birth to 8 kids.
The immoral thing here is the way the embryos are used as if playing a game. The idea of putting more than one embryo and whishing for only one to survive is tantamount to praying for a miscarriage. This is playing monopoly with life, if we consider the embryos to be humans then each should receive the utmost attention and the lost of any should not be allowed or welcomed

(3) The woman receives injections and drugs to induce her body to produce eggs suitable enough for oustside-the-womb conception. These injections and drugs are very hard on the woman both emotionally and physically. I have seen some women almost go insane from the side effects of such inducement drugs. And these drugs are very cancernogenoius (cancer causing) It happens that with some women, after these inducement, once the doctors collects the eggs, the woman will be told to wait for a long time(up to a year) just to recover from the affects of the inducement drugs.
This is unnecessary endangerment of the life of the woman. I will not allow my loved one to go through this. This is very morally questionable, as the woman may end up later with a terminal cancer. Although some healthy and young women may go through this and end up okay in the end, it is still endangerment.


Thus with in-vitro fert. there is no way to avoid loss or destruction of embryos! Allot of people don’t know this and that is why they argue in its favor. I repeat: It is impossible to do in-vitro fertilization without losing or destroying some embryos in the process! In some clinics, once the woman gets pregnant, they will freeze the remaining embryos. But the woman has to pay yearly to keep them frozen otherwise they will be thawed and allowed to die or donated to research institutes.

If in-vitro fert. could be refined as to fertilizing only one egg (only one embryo) and introducing it into the woman. This one embryo should be given the opportunity to survive, and if it doesn’t the whole process will be repeated. This will be a more moralistic approach.  But they will not do it this way because the process takes time, and in-order to guaranty pregnancy, they fertilize many and allow many to die in the process. This is immoral.

The same should be applied to this issue of designing babies. If in the process there is no mass fertilization of eggs and loss of embryos in the process then it may stand a moralistic chance.

I personally do not consider eggs that got fertilized in the test tube normal embryos. Fertilization should be done inside the woman. This is the way the creator designed the process. Thus if the process of "designing a baby" involves allowing conception to take place in a test tube, then it is still morally wrong irrespective of whether an embryo is destroyed or not.

That said, I believe that there is a distinction between eggs fertilized in a test tube and an egg fertilized in the womb. The first is unnatural and only inferior souls can make use of bodies resulting from such fertilization.
I believe that a frozen embryo should not be considered a human being. This is going too far!  A certain degree of heat is needed from the embryo for a soul to attach itself to the embryo. It may not be possible for a soul to attach itself to an embryo in a frozen state.


Also saying that there is no difference between an embryo, a child, a teenager, and an adult is going too far. There is a major difference! Even a natural embryo in the womb of a woman is not the same as a child, a teenager, or an adult. The difference is that the embryo doesn’t have a human soul inside it . An embryo could be attached to a human soul in the beyond waiting to incarnate, but only at the middle of pregnancy does this incarnation take place.

But aborting an embryo is a sin against the great commandment (Thou shall not kill!). But this killing is not exactly the same as killing a child, a teenager or an adult. In the case of embryo, by killing it you deprive the soul that would have used it of the opportunity to incarnate and live on earth. The killing or murder lies in this deprivation! And depending on how close the soul is to the embryo in terms of connection, by destroying the embryo you can harm this soul. Through its connection to the embryo the soul could be harmed when the embryo is destroyed.
But killing a child, a teenager or an adult, involves destroying a body in which a soul already lives. This is also deprivation. So in either case, it is a sin against the commandment: Thou shall not kill! All forms of deprivation can be counted as a sin against this commandment.

I will give an analogy. Burning a house while the owner of the house lives in it, is not exactly the same as burning the house when the owner is in the process of moving in.  In the first case you burn both the house and the owner; in the second case you burn the house, the owner’s property and deprive him of the opportunity to move into the house.

Both cases are a sin or murder--deprivation, deadening, or killing an opportunity-- if viewed from the spiritual perspective.

@ topic.

I wouldn't have a problem with it if it was for health reasons. e.g if the child had some condition and it could be dealt with before birth.

As far as features like nose and shape of head, i wouldn't do it. I don't think I have a right to decide what another person will look like for his/her entire life. For all I know the child won't like what i decide on, and that may cause problems. And if something goes wrong Iwouldn't be able to live with myself for messing up my child's life over something so trivial.

justcool:


That said, I believe that there is a distinction between eggs fertilized in a test tube and an egg fertilized in the womb. The first is unnatural and only inferior souls can make use of bodies resulting from such fertilization.
I believe that a frozen embryo should not be considered a human being. This is going too far!  A certain degree of heat is needed for a soul to attach itself to an embryo. It may not be possible for a soul to attach itself to an embryo in a frozen state.

Let me throw more light in the above.
For a soul which has an astral covering to be attached to physical matter a certain degree of heat is prerequisite from the physical matter. IE for a soul to be in a physical body, the physical body has to provide a certain degree of heat.  This heat is brought about by the biological processes in the physical body. But as soon as these biological processes cease or freeze, the physical body becomes cold and the soul loses its connection.

This is what happens during the process of death. Once the physical processes stop, the blood stops ro circulate; the physical body loses its heat, then automatically the soul which can nolonger remain connected detaches itself.

Therefore even in the case of embryos, there precess remains the same. Once an embryo is formed inside a woman, the biological processes in the embryo gives off a certain heat which is prerequisite for the soul in the beyond to attach itself to the developing embryo.

Depending on how the soul has progressed in its connection with the developing embryo, aborting the embryo will through this connection harm the soul. This deprives the soul of an opportunity to incarnate, and in this deprivation lies the sin: Thou shall not murder.

An embryo frozen artificially is a different case! It is in a state of an unnatural suspension which nature does not allow. In its frozen state, the biological processes are suspended and consequently its heat is lost. Such an embryo cannot remain connected to a soul because the connecting link is missing--the heat.

I hope this is clear. I can elaborate more on this if any questions arises.
This is my perception.

Quote from: justcool on Today at 02:34:06 AM
[Quote]
That said, I believe that there is a distinction between eggs fertilized in a test tube and an egg fertilized in the womb. The first is unnatural and only inferior souls can make use of bodies resulting from such fertilization.
I believe that a frozen embryo should not be considered a human being. This is going too far! A certain degree of heat is needed for a soul to attach itself to an embryo. It may not be possible for a soul to attach itself to an embryo in a frozen state.
[/Quote]


Let me throw more light in the above.
For a soul which has an astral covering to be attached to physical matter a certain degree of heat is prerequisite from the physical matter. IE for a soul to be in a physical body, the physical body has to provide a certain degree of heat. This heat is brought about by the biological processes in the physical body. But as soon as these biological processes cease or freeze, the physical body becomes cold and the soul loses its connection.

This is what happens during the process of death. Once the physical processes stop, the blood stops ro circulate; the physical body loses its heat, then automatically the soul which can nolonger remain connected detaches itself.

Therefore even in the case of embryos, there precess remains the same. Once an embryo is formed inside a woman, the biological processes in the embryo gives off a certain heat which is prerequisite for the soul in the beyond to attach itself to the developing embryo.

Depending on how the soul has progressed in its connection with the developing embryo, aborting the embryo will through this connection harm the soul. This deprives the soul of an opportunity to incarnate, and in this deprivation lies the sin: Thou shall not murder.

An embryo frozen artificially is a different case! It is in a state of an unnatural suspension which nature does not allow. In its frozen state, the biological processes are suspended and consequently its heat is lost. Such an embryo cannot remain connected to a soul because the connecting link is missing--the heat.

I hope this is clear. I can elaborate more on this if any questions arises.
This is my perception.

@Justcool,

I am highly impressed, with you accurate description of the soul, how and when it enters a fetus. Please can you give us some references where we can read further, so as to understand the anatomy of a soul. Is it in the Bible or the Koran?, or it is in some science journal?. You will be helping in resolving on of the most fundamental questions puzzling mankind and animal kind too.

Although, i had not fully made up my mind on "designing babies", but the more i think about it the more i get uncomfortable with it.

As an Evolutionist, i believe every trait ( including deceases) has some evolutionary usefulness. I believe species should evolve according to its evolutionary needs. An example i will use is Sickle Cell Anemia. Sickle Cell Decease looks like a curse to the person affected and his/her family, but on the evolutionary scale it is very important to the long time survival of the black race. If a strain of malaria parasite should emerge that deadly and defies all drugs and treatment, then black children would be highly vulnerable, the only once with natural immunity against malaria parasites are the children born with the ss trait. Although there is a tendency for a lot of them to die early, but the surviving once usually live on to their mid 20s, giving them enough time to produce one or two offsprings whereby at least one would be free of the ss trait,before he/she dies out. Remember there is a trade off between immunity to maleria and the number of S traits in the genes, Those with two s traits (SS - sickers) have very high immunity, those with 1 s (AS) have partial immunity and people with no S traits (AA), have very low immunity against malaria.

So if you design babies eliminating the S trait completely, then our Evolutionary Insurance would disappear and if the unexpected happens(malaria-wise), we would be fully exposed.

I just used the SS trait as an example, there are many similar traits in the same category. If we had survived this well and this long with "naturally designed"and adapted babies, then i think artificially designing babies is not necessary

Finally, evolution in the long run knows how to take care of problems of deceases and changes in environment and diet, the reason we are exposed to new deceases we have not been naturally able to cope with, is because we humans have changed our diet radically over the past century and evolution needs time( thousands of years) to cope.

wirinet:

@Justcool,

I am highly impressed, with you accurate description of the soul, how and when it enters a fetus. Please can you give us some references where we can read further, so as to understand the anatomy of a soul. Is it in the Bible or the Koran?, or it is in some science journal?. You will be helping in resolving on of the most fundamental questions puzzling mankind and animal kind too.

@wirinet

Thanks. I draw my spiritual knowledge from a book called "In the light of Truth: The Grail Message" by Abd-ru-shin. It is a comprehensive book that answers all questions concerning the entire creation. Including man and everything about man. IE, How man came into being, his origin, the creation of man and how man should live and etc.
If you really wish to know the Truth about the issue, I advice you to purchase a copy of the book and read it. My post stems from my personal experiencing of the book. But one can only get from a book as much as his/her spiritual maturity allows; therefore read the book yourself, so that you can have your own personal experience.

As I said earlier, my knowledge of in-Vito fertilization stems from having worked in a fertility clinic here in Los Angeles. I have personally witnessed the process of in-Vito fert.

wirinet:

Although, i had not fully made up my mind on "designing babies", but the more i think about it the more i get uncomfortable with it.

As an Evolutionist, i believe every trait ( including deceases) has some evolutionary usefulness. I believe species should evolve according to its evolutionary needs. An example i will use is Sickle Cell Anemia. Sickle Cell Decease looks like a curse to the person affected and his/her family, but on the evolutionary scale it is very important to the long time survival of the black race. If a strain of malaria parasite should emerge that deadly and defies all drugs and treatment, then black children would be highly vulnerable, the only once with natural immunity against malaria parasites are the children born with the ss trait. Although there is a tendency for a lot of them to die early, but the surviving once usually live on to their mid 20s, giving them enough time to produce one or two offsprings whereby at least one would be free of the ss trait,before he/she dies out. Remember there is a trade off between immunity to maleria and the number of S traits in the genes, Those with two s traits (SS - sickers) have very high immunity, those with 1 s (AS) have partial immunity and people with no S traits (AA), have very low immunity against malaria.

So if you design babies eliminating the S trait completely, then our Evolutionary Insurance would disappear and if the unexpected happens(malaria-wise), we would be fully exposed.

I just used the SS trait as an example, there are many similar traits in the same category. If we had survived this well and this long with "naturally designed"and adapted babies, then i think artificially designing babies is not necessary

Finally, evolution in the long run knows how to take care of problems of deceases and changes in environment and diet, the reason we are exposed to new deceases we have not been naturally able to cope with, is because we humans have changed our diet radically over the past century and evolution needs time( thousands of years) to cope.

You made a lot of sense in the above. Genetic engineering may not be the right way for humans to go in their quest for elimination of diseases. I think that we humans should start by returning back to nature(being more natural), stop polluting our environments, stop manufacturing artificial food and stop playing around with unstable elements like uranium and etc. If we live like the creator intended for us to live, in a while most of the disease that we have today will disappear. Nature is the greatest healer.

This designing baby issue, I believe is nothing but clamour for attention, superficiality and quest for money and recognition. Such unnatural researches are hardly based on true concern for humanity. Some of the doctors we have today are criminals who deserve to be in jail. How somebody who call himself a doctor implant silicon on a woman's breast just for beauty. Is beauty more important than health? Once they start this designing baby thing, all the stars in Hollywood would clamour for it, just as they clamor for cosmetic surgery. It will hardly be for eliminating genetic illnesses rather they will use it to eliminate physical traits that they don't like. They will use it to create what the world considers today as being beautiful, -- a blue eyed, blond baby with large breasts and thin nose.
The superficiality in toady's world is terrible.

Hello wirinet,
I do not quite fully agree with your position on how evolution can deal with the problems of man, yes in time it will manage it just for the time being like the sickle cell anemia. I am sure if more research is done there would be other possible less life reducing ways to deal with malaria for instance, is a more concerted approach to the whole issue not possible. I mean like a consensus, because I think that nature is only looking for ways to eliminate man and man constantly evolves to try and meet these challenges, for instance a violent strain of a virus can wipe out the human race no?

deleted. refer to the next post for contents

deleted. refer to the next post for contents