From: Edmund Grech (edmund@arclightentertainment.co.uk)
Date: Fri May 03 2002 - 13:53:18 MDT
I shan't include my original comment or this will be hopelessly long; see
Brian's post in tandem.
> It appears that "Edmund Grech" <edmund@arclightentertainment.co.uk>
> wrote some silly things which included..
Oh please by all means,
> A truly anonymous donor, without having significant amounts of data
> concerning their health history and family health history is a
considerable
> risk. I wouldn't recommend trying THAT at home.
By anonymous I meant in name alone - obvious to some, but judge for
yourself.
> Obtaining high-quality gametes could be fraught with any number
> of difficulties. Particularly if the purchaser/procuring party is male
> and the gametes they need are female cells, which are limited in
> number (at least with present technology).
We aren't discussing current technology, but nevertheless male and female
cells are in quite abundant supply.
> Obtaining genetic material with a specific phenotypical potentials
> (height, eyes/skin/hair, IQ, psyche, etc.) may not be possible.
> It's all a matter of just how choosy the aspiring parent is. It might
> be simpler to use a known set of genes, if the parent's pass muster.
So your suggesting cloning would be the recourse of someone who wished to be
certain of particulart traits? Namly thier own? Revelation.
> Pardon me, but you are being foolish, allow me to help you defrag your
> headspace.
Please, I await with avid expectation
> You assume a relationship is of key importance.
No, not in the least.
> Perhaps the aspiring parent does not wish to introduce custody issues
> with a "co-parent". Perhaps it would be "simpler" to have only one
> genetic parent for the child.
Not disagreeing with that,
> Another thing. You say if one hasn't time for a relationship, one hasn't
> time for a child.
> I might have time for work and time for a relationship, but yet not have
> time for a child. I might have time for a relationship and a child, but
> not for work!
> I might also have time for parenting and working, but not need the
> distraction of maintaining a simultaneous relationship with the other
> parent. Get the picture?
> Additionally to address the "socially introverted" angle...
> The sort of person one might choose for a casual lover or romantic
> partner is not neccessarily the ideal scource of genes for a child.
> Neither of these is neccessarily the sort of person who would be
> talented in the emotional art of being a co-parent.
> Solution?
> Here's a possibility.
> Work your ass off for lots of money.
> Use your own genes alone for the child's heredity.
> Hire a long-term nanny (a regular caregiver need not be a rocket
> scientist,
> just a good, kind human being who is responsible and trustworthy)
to
> fill the co-parent role.
> "Date" whomever suits you.
To all of this I refer to my response to Emlyn's well considered rebuttal of
this point, and my agreement.
> Who want's to raise someone else's offspring at no benefit to yourself?
> Ugh!
Well some might say that rearing children is reward in itself but I was
pointing it out simply so I could dismiss it and have covered the
possibility.
> Unless we are ..ahem... certain aurally challenged individuals in an
> alternative
> lifestyle LOLOL
My point of how SOME people abort deformed children, prompted me to comment
about how it might be ill considered to purposefully concieve a child you
know will be deffected. I in no way suggest deafness as a criteria for
abortion, and I'm not going to comment on the intricacies of what warrants
abortion or not; that is an individual's right.
> How exactly is this different from most parent-child relationships?
Surprisingly, I think you have a point there.
> Artificial selection is vastly superior in it's possibilities to natural
> selection.
> Cloning allows the possibility of pure continuance of useful genetic
> strains,
> without dilution of those traits to no good purpose.
I'm not qualified to comment I brought it up only superficially as a point
of interest.
> The well-being of my child is my concern thank you very much. I will
> feed, nurture and comfort my offspring to the best of my ability, and
> concerned citizens can be damned. I truly dislike those who see fit to
> stand in judgement over another household's rightful affairs.
I don't doubt it. I have the opinion cloning is a resort to innability to
traditional reproductive techniques, and not a first choice. I admit I'm
sceptical of those who see cloning as such.
> I look forward to using the coming procreative technologies,
> and hopefully I won't have to go offshore to employ them.
> A near-clone (same basic genes plus assorted tweaks)
> would seem the best mixture of options to me. We shall see.....
Well that would be genetic engineering and a whole other kettle of fish . .
.
I would like to say that this post I wrote was a brief off the top of my
head response to another post responding to another post of mine in the
thread. I admit ommisions and rash phrasing in the manner I outlined to
Emlyn's mostly accurate criticism.
Edmund
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:13:48 MST