How about the kind of eugenics where people only have children with those they are committed to spending their lives with? Anything else is bad for the children. In this case it's a crime against nature as well. Ends don't justify the means, but if they did, a world of genetically modified transhumanoids isn't a persuasive end point.
You don't think it should be a crime to breed humans with apes, experiment on babies' genes to see how they turn out or grow humans in a lab that have no emotions and can be used as cannon fodder? We have a natural disgust of deformed creatures and monkeying around with natural processes for a reason. Subversion of nature is also a slippery slope that we have to put strong guard rails around to prevent the commodification and degeneration of humanity.
We have a natural disgust of deformed creatures and monkeying around with natural processes for a reason.
The former premise is true only because we assume deformity = disease or genetic maladaptation, a judgement which was correct in most circumstances in the ancestral environment.
The latter premise is retarded. One of the earliest things humans did was selectively breed crops and animals for size, yield, and physical characteristics. We don't just not have an aversion, we have a predeliction for tampering with natural processes.
There's a huge difference between encouraging animals to breed that are already able to breed and forcing things to happen that biological processes specifically prevent from being possible. One is working with nature and the other is subverting it.
experiment on babies' genes to see how they turn out or grow humans in a lab that have no emotions and can be used as cannon fodder?
These are acceptable, there is no purpose to crossing humans and apes, that experiment has already been done: see Africans.
There is no reason to condemn people to live their lives with crippling genetic diseases. The fact that christcucks like you want that is further proof that, at best, your god is a demon that enjoys torture. Humanities genetics need to be purified, and that starts with sorting embryos.
Humanities genetics need to be purified, and that starts with sorting embryos.
Do you extend that line of thought into any kind of “Technological Singularity” / “transhumanist” domains, or would you restrict it to effectively just sorting out “peak” humanity? Honest, and admittedly very broad question, just wondering what you see as reasonable
Last I checked Jesus acted against nature too. IVF doesn’t make parents less parents, unless this kid is being used for surrogacy it’s a non issue to want healthier children. Go forth and multiply.
I don't know what you mean by he acted against nature. Walked on water? Healed the sick? Don't you see those things are completely different than breeding humans with apes, normalizing human genome editing or ensuring that all future generations of humans would be selected and grown in labs by killing several other developing babies for each one that is born?
Don't you see those things are completely different than breeding humans with apes
Can you show me anywhere this is happening? I’ll wait.
normalizing human genome editing or ensuring that all future generations of humans would be selected and grown in labs by killing several other developing babies for each one that is born.
Again that’s not IVF. You’re making up imaginary scenarios. Embryo selection isn’t abortion, there is no zygote.
Can you show me anywhere this is happening? I’ll wait.
As just a basic search will tell you, it was already attempted in communist countries last century. Because only deranged lunatics with no ethics would want to do this kind of thing. As humanity gets more deranged by the year I'm sure if human genome editing becomes normal then it will be attempted in the future with better technology that might actually succeed.
Embryo selection isn’t abortion, there is no zygote.
An embryo develops from a zygote. In the video they talk about selecting an embryo from a catalog and the rest get destroyed. That's always how IVF has been: make a bunch of babies and destroying all but one that gets used and any others that get frozen for later use or destruction. But even if they weren't killing any embryos IVF is still going to lead to a dystopia where everyone is required to be genetically modified before birth.
I always find it funny that the athiest retard response is to make abjectly absurd claims about a person being fictitious when he has more historical documentation than any other person alive in that time period. Was Herod not real either? How about Augustus?
It always amuses me when the godbuggerers pretend the crux of their argumentation isn't "and then he did a magic".
Even if, IF, jesus was a real person (and that's a hell of a weird name for that region and that time), you people never want to discuss his humanity, only his divinity and his magic. You dont care for his morality or his ethics except as it overlaps with him being king biggus magical dickus and telling people what to do.
You're clout chasing sycophants, pretending at virtue.
How about the kind of eugenics where people only have children with those they are committed to spending their lives with? Anything else is bad for the children. In this case it's a crime against nature as well. Ends don't justify the means, but if they did, a world of genetically modified transhumanoids isn't a persuasive end point.
There is no such thing as a crime against nature, especially since nature spends all day trying to kill us.
You don't think it should be a crime to breed humans with apes, experiment on babies' genes to see how they turn out or grow humans in a lab that have no emotions and can be used as cannon fodder? We have a natural disgust of deformed creatures and monkeying around with natural processes for a reason. Subversion of nature is also a slippery slope that we have to put strong guard rails around to prevent the commodification and degeneration of humanity.
The former premise is true only because we assume deformity = disease or genetic maladaptation, a judgement which was correct in most circumstances in the ancestral environment.
The latter premise is retarded. One of the earliest things humans did was selectively breed crops and animals for size, yield, and physical characteristics. We don't just not have an aversion, we have a predeliction for tampering with natural processes.
There's a huge difference between encouraging animals to breed that are already able to breed and forcing things to happen that biological processes specifically prevent from being possible. One is working with nature and the other is subverting it.
These are acceptable, there is no purpose to crossing humans and apes, that experiment has already been done: see Africans.
There is no reason to condemn people to live their lives with crippling genetic diseases. The fact that christcucks like you want that is further proof that, at best, your god is a demon that enjoys torture. Humanities genetics need to be purified, and that starts with sorting embryos.
Do you extend that line of thought into any kind of “Technological Singularity” / “transhumanist” domains, or would you restrict it to effectively just sorting out “peak” humanity? Honest, and admittedly very broad question, just wondering what you see as reasonable
I'm not even a Christian, retard
Last I checked Jesus acted against nature too. IVF doesn’t make parents less parents, unless this kid is being used for surrogacy it’s a non issue to want healthier children. Go forth and multiply.
I don't know what you mean by he acted against nature. Walked on water? Healed the sick? Don't you see those things are completely different than breeding humans with apes, normalizing human genome editing or ensuring that all future generations of humans would be selected and grown in labs by killing several other developing babies for each one that is born?
Can you show me anywhere this is happening? I’ll wait.
Again that’s not IVF. You’re making up imaginary scenarios. Embryo selection isn’t abortion, there is no zygote.
As just a basic search will tell you, it was already attempted in communist countries last century. Because only deranged lunatics with no ethics would want to do this kind of thing. As humanity gets more deranged by the year I'm sure if human genome editing becomes normal then it will be attempted in the future with better technology that might actually succeed.
An embryo develops from a zygote. In the video they talk about selecting an embryo from a catalog and the rest get destroyed. That's always how IVF has been: make a bunch of babies and destroying all but one that gets used and any others that get frozen for later use or destruction. But even if they weren't killing any embryos IVF is still going to lead to a dystopia where everyone is required to be genetically modified before birth.
Jesus isn't real, sir.
You can't just bring magic into a conversation about reality.
I always find it funny that the athiest retard response is to make abjectly absurd claims about a person being fictitious when he has more historical documentation than any other person alive in that time period. Was Herod not real either? How about Augustus?
I would easier believe in Christ's miracles than the leftist welfare state ever delivering its promised utopia.
It always amuses me when the godbuggerers pretend the crux of their argumentation isn't "and then he did a magic".
Even if, IF, jesus was a real person (and that's a hell of a weird name for that region and that time), you people never want to discuss his humanity, only his divinity and his magic. You dont care for his morality or his ethics except as it overlaps with him being king biggus magical dickus and telling people what to do.
You're clout chasing sycophants, pretending at virtue.