At Oberlin, a Tipping Point

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.
Jul 22, 2011
1,609
2,291
743
Come on man. How about this one, which has affected my family directly. What if this genetic curse could be eliminated from the human experience?

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/147960.php
Hey, me too. My brother has CF. I am a carrier of the gene. My wife isn't but my kids might be. It would be nice to eliminate those genes, but not at the risk of taking away people's freedom to reproduce (myself and my kids included).
 

NotOnTV

BRB -- Taking an okie leak
Sep 14, 2010
8,183
6,249
743
Gondor
Ok I know wading into this is probably a mistake and I don't really have a dog in this fight but REALLY??? Infanticidal blood-lust???? With a comment like that you make it sound like anyone wanting to have an abortion is just wanting to become a killer and can't wait to start killing infants. I highly doubt most seeking abortions are doing it for homicidal reasoning so the blood lust portion is a little much. I mean its far flung comments like this that cause all discussions/debates/arguments today to end up being nothing more than shouting matches that get nothing done. Sorry to jump on my soap box, I will retire now and await the inevitable downpour of attacks that is sure to come (which will just prove my statement).
This white supremacist approves:

 
Nov 6, 2010
717
280
613
That would be great...but you realize people w/ this disease don't have fewer rights than you. You are saying people w/ this gene (or whatever) shouldn't be allowed to have children? I don't want to put words in your mouth...is that what you are saying?
I'm just saying the idea of genetic engineering should not immediately be labeled evil the way a previous poster played the Nazi card. We should always be striving to learn what we can.
 
Jul 10, 2009
218
161
1,593
57
Stillwater, OK
I'm just saying the idea of genetic engineering should not immediately be labeled evil the way a previous poster played the Nazi card. We should always be striving to learn what we can.
This discussion reminds me of a conversation I had in the pediatric ward of a hospital back in the early 1980's. A mother was there with her toddler who had congenital cataracts. She said it was something that ran in the family and each boy had a 1 in 4 chance of being essentially blind. The entire extended family had been meeting with a geneticist who determined that in their case the carriers of the gene were the girls, but the defect was expressed only in the boys. All of the children in patient's generation were boys, so the entire family was wrestling with the fact that if the could refrain from having any girls for another generation, the condition would be gone from the family. That always struck me as such a difficult dilemma: If we have a boy, there is a 25% chance that he will be blind, yet if I ensure that we have girls who will not be blind, they will pass this trait on. There were several adult siblings that were having to deal with the decision and they would also have to convince their own children not to have any female offspring to make it work.
 
Nov 6, 2010
717
280
613
This discussion reminds me of a conversation I had in the pediatric ward of a hospital back in the early 1980's. A mother was there with her toddler who had congenital cataracts. She said it was something that ran in the family and each boy had a 1 in 4 chance of being essentially blind. The entire extended family had been meeting with a geneticist who determined that in their case the carriers of the gene were the girls, but the defect was expressed only in the boys. All of the children in patient's generation were boys, so the entire family was wrestling with the fact that if the could refrain from having any girls for another generation, the condition would be gone from the family. That always struck me as such a difficult dilemma: If we have a boy, there is a 25% chance that he will be blind, yet if I ensure that we have girls who will not be blind, they will pass this trait on. There were several adult siblings that were having to deal with the decision and they would also have to convince their own children not to have any female offspring to make it work.
Good perspective, thanks for sharing that.
 

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
69,936
49,883
1,743
Wishing I was in Stillwater
This discussion reminds me of a conversation I had in the pediatric ward of a hospital back in the early 1980's. A mother was there with her toddler who had congenital cataracts. She said it was something that ran in the family and each boy had a 1 in 4 chance of being essentially blind. The entire extended family had been meeting with a geneticist who determined that in their case the carriers of the gene were the girls, but the defect was expressed only in the boys. All of the children in patient's generation were boys, so the entire family was wrestling with the fact that if the could refrain from having any girls for another generation, the condition would be gone from the family. That always struck me as such a difficult dilemma: If we have a boy, there is a 25% chance that he will be blind, yet if I ensure that we have girls who will not be blind, they will pass this trait on. There were several adult siblings that were having to deal with the decision and they would also have to convince their own children not to have any female offspring to make it work.
My brother and sister-in-law wrangled with something similar with my niece who had MD. They were afraid to have another child, so they never did.
 

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
69,936
49,883
1,743
Wishing I was in Stillwater
No, that's what you're talking about.
No, that's what we're talking about. The post that I was responding to donny was talking about who he would keep from breeding. Keep from breeding, not advise about genetics. So, don't play coy and ignorant. My "useless eaters" comment was dead-on accurate.

If I could I would wish away all forms of muscular dystrophy. Buy my niece was a joy and I'm damn glad to have known her. She by God deserved to live.

1562081233624.png
 
Nov 6, 2010
717
280
613
No, that's what we're talking about. The post that I was responding to donny was talking about who he would keep from breeding. Keep from breeding, not advise about genetics. So, don't play coy and ignorant. My "useless eaters" comment was dead-on accurate.

If I could I would wish away all forms of muscular dystrophy. Buy my niece was a joy and I'm damn glad to have known her. She by God deserved to live.

View attachment 71452
How about the post right above mine about the blindness gene?? If the sex of the child could be controlled, and seems like that tech exists now, but I may be wrong, that family could eliminate that defective gene for good. Or is that too coy and ignorant??
 

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
69,936
49,883
1,743
Wishing I was in Stillwater
How about the post right above mine about the blindness gene?? If the sex of the child could be controlled, and seems like that tech exists now, but I may be wrong, that family could eliminate that defective gene for good. Or is that too coy and ignorant??
That "tech" is abortion. So again I ask, which of your relatives with CF deserve to not exist?
 
Nov 6, 2010
717
280
613
That "tech" is abortion. So again I ask, which of your relatives with CF deserve to not exist?
Dude, stop with the righteous indignation already, I get your point. So IF/When the sex of a baby can be pre-determined, and that particular gene can be eliminated, should it still not happen?? Another way to look at it is when you get Roe v. Wade overturned there will be millions of new kids needing a family. If my cousin's surviving child could be told with absolute certainty that his children would be born with CF (and I know that's not possible yet), and he makes the decision based on that information to adopt children rather than conceive, is that evil or selfish of him to deprive an as of yet non-conceived future child life?? I'd call it extremely selfless and compassionate.
 

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
26,454
31,914
1,743
oklahoma city
That would be great...but you realize people w/ this disease don't have fewer rights than you. You are saying people w/ this gene (or whatever) shouldn't be allowed to have children? I don't want to put words in your mouth...is that what you are saying?
Just curious since you are economically conservative what you think about the costs of these situations? Should someone be able to make the decision to have children that will be a major expense on some sort of health care payment system (government or ”insurance”) if they do not have the means to cover those expenses themselves?
 
Last edited:

Pokit N

Cashing Checks & Snapping Necks!
A/V Subscriber
Sep 29, 2006
7,117
4,295
1,743
40
South Elgin, IL
Just curious since you are economically conservative what you think about the costs of these situations? Should someone be able to make the decision to have children that will be a major expense on some sort of health care payment system (government or ”insurance”) if they do not have the means to cover those expenses themselves?
I think individual liberties come before fiscal conservatism. I also think it's a myth that fiscal conservatives don't want any kind of help for those in need. I'm all for a safety net. Issues come along w/ multiples of government assistance that do the same thing or are completely ineffective at doing what they were intended to do in the first place. The duplicity or ineffective programs are what I think should be cut.

I get very frustrated w/ some extended family members of mine that don't have health insurance. They seem to have means to do other things but won't pony up the dough for Health Insurance...B/C they just don't have to. It angers me to no end, BUT I would never recommend any kind of "forced sterilization" plan or some such that it appeared others were suggesting.
 

wrenhal

Territorial Marshal
Aug 11, 2011
7,605
3,655
743
49
That "tech" is abortion. So again I ask, which of your relatives with CF deserve to not exist?
Dude, stop with the righteous indignation already, I get your point. So IF/When the sex of a baby can be pre-determined, and that particular gene can be eliminated, should it still not happen?? Another way to look at it is when you get Roe v. Wade overturned there will be millions of new kids needing a family. If my cousin's surviving child could be told with absolute certainty that his children would be born with CF (and I know that's not possible yet), and he makes the decision based on that information to adopt children rather than conceive, is that evil or selfish of him to deprive an as of yet non-conceived future child life?? I'd call it extremely selfless and compassionate.
Choosing to not have kids, and killing kids that are already conceived are 2 distinctly different things.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
 

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
26,454
31,914
1,743
oklahoma city
I think individual liberties come before fiscal conservatism. I also think it's a myth that fiscal conservatives don't want any kind of help for those in need. I'm all for a safety net. Issues come along w/ multiples of government assistance that do the same thing or are completely ineffective at doing what they were intended to do in the first place. The duplicity or ineffective programs are what I think should be cut.

I get very frustrated w/ some extended family members of mine that don't have health insurance. They seem to have means to do other things but won't pony up the dough for Health Insurance...B/C they just don't have to. It angers me to no end, BUT I would never recommend any kind of "forced sterilization" plan or some such that it appeared others were suggesting.
Is it a safety net issue if you know that your annual income is say $50,000 per year but you are choosing to bring a life into this world that will certainly have health care expenses of $100,000 per year? I thought safety nets were for the unexpected, ie unemployment covers lost job, not choosing not to work.
Isn't this more similar to someone that makes $9000 a year and chooses to have children anyway knowing that they will need the assistance of others? Those are the programs that are often labeled ineffective. What would be an effective assistance program vs an ineffective one in these situations?

BTW, if I am sounding argumentative, I do not mean to be. I bounce back and forth between "liberal" and "conservative" on issues like this because the answers never seem as easy to me as I want them to be.