Tenebrae Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 Really, people who want to understand what we're talking about should watch "Shameless". It's a documentary about life on council estates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bones2097 Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 lol if i watched that I never hear the end of it from my ol' man!!! *kidz these days get everything on a sliver plate.........* they should show it in america thought it would be a shock to their stiff-upperlip.. stereotype.. lol... :) opps!! we've gone off track!!! back to the thread... anyone??? B) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tenebrae Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 Reprogenetics ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bones2097 Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 i read reprog genetics... *great where do i plugin the keyboard????.. gulp!!* 'create a social divide'.. is this the gene war we've are been waiting for & heard of st..... *whilst tightening grip on sabre* c'mon i've got a few spear mins... lol :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Megalith Posted April 1, 2006 Share Posted April 1, 2006 lol shameless is great, its not a documentary tho lol. Its a very funny comedy series, one of my fav progs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GhostShadow Posted April 1, 2006 Author Share Posted April 1, 2006 ok, this is all well and good. but does any one care to throw out a solution, or at least throw out a way this could better be delt with..? I say that if the child is defective then its ok to terminate it. If parents want to keep it, then so be it. If parents want to have it geneticaly altered so be it.. as long as THEY pay for it. That is how I see this situation. No fancey terms. No beating around the bush, just stright up rollin'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tenebrae Posted April 1, 2006 Share Posted April 1, 2006 To me, the state paying for the life support of anyone suffering from some terminal condition seems rather extraneous. Ultimately, the purpose of the NHS is to maximise the number of quality adjusted life years - aka do the most good. Quite how keeping cancer patients alive for an extra couple of months or the very old or premature births etc. The real issue is that people are often incapable of engaging in the kind of purely cerebral thought processes that are necessary. It's that classic dilemma - you can't save everyone. You just have to do the most good with the finite resources you have. Now, in MY opinion - it's better to spend X thousand a day on giving people things that will substantially improve their life quality/expectancy and not merely prolong life a very low quality of life for a fractional chance that there will be improvement. At the end of the day, emotional choices are - despite what Trek and various other TV shows might want you to believe - often the wrong ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
princess_leiha Posted April 1, 2006 Share Posted April 1, 2006 i have an idea...why dont we just have people tested to see if they can have "nice" or dispositions like anger or stupidity. and if they dont pass we dont let them have kids...kind of like an all powerful form of birthing Communism...thats just an idea... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrDad Posted April 1, 2006 Share Posted April 1, 2006 We should all become Nietzscheans. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nietzschean Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GhostShadow Posted April 1, 2006 Author Share Posted April 1, 2006 To me, the state paying for the life support of anyone suffering from some terminal condition seems rather extraneous. Ultimately, the purpose of the NHS is to maximise the number of quality adjusted life years - aka do the most good. Quite how keeping cancer patients alive for an extra couple of months or the very old or premature births etc. The real issue is that people are often incapable of engaging in the kind of purely cerebral thought processes that are necessary. It's that classic dilemma - you can't save everyone. You just have to do the most good with the finite resources you have. Now, in MY opinion - it's better to spend X thousand a day on giving people things that will substantially improve their life quality/expectancy and not merely prolong life a very low quality of life for a fractional chance that there will be improvement. At the end of the day, emotional choices are - despite what Trek and various other TV shows might want you to believe - often the wrong ones. That would cost a lot of money... to have ppl's lives enriched instead of keeping them alive on basic. there would be a large chunk of an economy that would go down the drain by makeing ppl feel better. oh, and I love the Nietzscheans. I love that show :rolleyes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TetsuoShima Posted April 1, 2006 Share Posted April 1, 2006 A question on the side here... Say we kill everybody that's over a certain 'limit' for costing society a lot of money (since that seems to be what this is turning into, a money discussion), say we can come to an agreement over this 'limit'. What are you going to do with the money. Use it to enrich our own lives with luxury (yes, everybody on this forums basic needs are met, I'm pretty sure (housing, clothing, food, water,...)), or use it to help others enrich theirs with knowledge to support themselves and basic needs or possibly use it to develop FREE technologies available to everybody that may one day enrich (in any way possible) all humankind. In other words, is the intention to kill certain types of humans based upon selfish interests (making you no better than for example the MPAA and consorts imo) or on a desire to better humankind more quickly by destributing wealth more properly and do you perhaps even think that this ditribution should not just be limited to this particular topic (making you misguided in some peoples eyes and a hero in other peoples eyes) or maybe there is even a different intention? (btw, this is a general question not directed at anyone in particular, but please feel free to answer it anyway) :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GhostShadow Posted April 1, 2006 Author Share Posted April 1, 2006 A question on the side here... Say we kill everybody that's over a certain 'limit' for costing society a lot of money (since that seems to be what this is turning into, a money discussion), say we can come to an agreement over this 'limit'. What are you going to do with the money. Use it to enrich our own lives with luxury (yes, everybody on this forums basic needs are met, I'm pretty sure (housing, clothing, food, water,...)), or use it to help others enrich theirs with knowledge to support themselves and basic needs or possibly use it to develop FREE technologies available to everybody that may one day enrich (in any way possible) all humankind. In other words, is the intention to kill certain types of humans based upon selfish interests (making you no better than for example the MPAA and consorts imo) or on a desire to better humankind more quickly by destributing wealth more properly and do you perhaps even think that this ditribution should not just be limited to this particular topic (making you misguided in some peoples eyes and a hero in other peoples eyes) or maybe there is even a different intention? (btw, this is a general question not directed at anyone in particular, but please feel free to answer it anyway) :) I am not talking about killing every one who cost to much. I am talking about baybies that are deformed, and their parents cant afford to care for them and the termanation of that babies life. If A parent is willing to care for a defective child and can afford it (like doctors bills, health care, and bacis care. And all of that for a retarded/deformed person is not cheap mind you) then I say let them. OR if the baby is still young enough in birth and the paretns can afford to pay, then you can have its DNA "re-sequenced". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now