68 replies to this topic

[SIlhouette]

hehe, Im not saying it wouldn't weigh me down, trust me it would. Look at it this way, a child that is completely sheltered learns life lessons at a much slower rate then one that has boundaries but is allowed to explore the yard, sure the kid can trip and hurt themselves but at least they are learning. If your child was then put in the position of needing to cross a street but was never allowed to do it until they were 15 then they would have a condition of over trust.

This is when the lesson of looking left and right before crossing a street was told to them so much it became meaningless because the child grew accustomed to the parent holding their hand while crossing, they always trusted the parents judgement. they might even look left and right but they don't have the conditioning to actually safely cross a street.

Now its intuitive to love and be the best parent you possibly can be, but some things have to be thought out and planned, you can't just follow the masses ideas of "Baby proof everything" I wasn't brought up that way, I was brought up to make up my own decisions through weeks of research, reach a conclusion and then follow it while constantly keeping as up to date with the subject as possible and always being open to a change of opinion. My parents were always near me, and supervising me but they let me climb and dig holes in the dirt, swim in the ocean... You can't just follow suit, I understand medical science is a specialist subject but funnily enough there are brochures from the government saying this can happen, I've had conversations with doctors that say this stuff (even though they are pro immunisation, although ive talked to anti immunisation doctors as well, but they seem mighty biased. :-/ )

[Silver_rose]

If EVERYONE get immunised then it can eradicate a disease from a generational line, but the downside is you become a deffinate carrier and can spread the disease to third world countries or your children who would not have an immunity meaning they would need an immunisation for all these diseases also. Over time new diseases will be born and they would need those immunisations also which means in 1000 years time because people that are weaker links in the gene pool didn't get crossed out in the process of natural selection like they would have (and I am not saying they should have, but Ill get to that later) we end up as a very weak species dependent on hundreds of immunisation treatments which would have been wiped out if we didn't have immunisation.

I have been WAITING to find someone who has come to the same conclusion, that I have, about immunisation, and you explain it better than I ever could. Thank you.

Well I don't know about that, a dead child is a pretty massive consequence of an opinion based on self-conducted research that goes against the standard modern understanding of chemistry and biology. Not a risk I would ever take.

Not entirely true, the science behind not getting immunisation is as sound as the evidence given for giving immunisations.
I agree with SIlhouette, the burden of risk is upon yourself and I, aswell, lothe discussing being against most vaccinations, mostly with people who blindly go and get vaccinated, especially considering I can't articulate my argument very well.

[Diabolical_Jazz]

The religious reasons behind the blood transfusions is because in the bible, to paraphrase god says "Your body is mine upon creation and upon death shall be handed to me in the same state I gave it to you in". Sort of like a warranty on a laptop, this means that there is no surgery, tattoos, piercings or any body manipulations such as dermal implants.

Booyah, I voided the hell out of my warranty. ^__^

[Epic?OhYes]

I have to agree with the first post, anything dealing with genetics and just doing something to increase a feature or quality in the body should be off limits. Even creating humans, like picking how your baby will turn out is to far.

[Affray]

I have to agree with the first post, anything dealing with genetics and just doing something to increase a feature or quality in the body should be off limits. Even creating humans, like picking how your baby will turn out is to far.

Increasing the quality of the body would include fixing a heart defect, such as a hole, which isn't such a bad thing.
Pointless modifications I agree would be, mostly those that are purely asthetic in nature, an inappropriate step.

[No-Danico]

Just read this, thought it was cool. Now I yell 'Metal Gear!' and run away giggling.

[Silver_rose]

Just read this, thought it was cool. Now I yell 'Metal Gear!' and run away giggling.

Wow that's awesome

[Affray]

Im just going to leave this here:

http://www.livescien...ies-debate.html

[Giandor]

No one is ever going to stop the evolution of science: it has always been this way and this way it will remain. And so saying, no one is ever going to be able to stop people from doing what THEY think is right. Its happend in past and it's still happening now. But who said's that just because we have the technology to do something, we need to do it at all cost's? I agree with using such technologies to make someone's life "normal", but (again) who said's enhancing has got to be a bad thing? Science is wonderful, it's the people who use that are evil.