<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_16_158207</id>
	<title>Fertility Clinic Bows To Pressure, Nixes Eye- and Hair-Color Screening</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1245165840000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.destinyland.org/" rel="nofollow">destinyland</a> writes <i>"A fertility service in L.A. and New York screens embryos for breast cancer, cystic fibrosis, and 70 other diseases &mdash; and lets couples pick the sex of their babies. But when their pre-implantation diagnostic services began including the baby's eye and hair color, even the Pope objected &mdash; and the <a href="http://www.hplusmagazine.com/articles/bio/great-designer-baby-controversy-\%E2\%80\%9909">Great Designer Baby Controversy</a> began. '[W]e cannot escape the fact that science is moving forward,' the fertility service explained &mdash; before capitulating to pressure to eliminate the eye and hair color screenings."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>destinyland writes " A fertility service in L.A. and New York screens embryos for breast cancer , cystic fibrosis , and 70 other diseases    and lets couples pick the sex of their babies .
But when their pre-implantation diagnostic services began including the baby 's eye and hair color , even the Pope objected    and the Great Designer Baby Controversy began .
' [ W ] e can not escape the fact that science is moving forward, ' the fertility service explained    before capitulating to pressure to eliminate the eye and hair color screenings .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>destinyland writes "A fertility service in L.A. and New York screens embryos for breast cancer, cystic fibrosis, and 70 other diseases — and lets couples pick the sex of their babies.
But when their pre-implantation diagnostic services began including the baby's eye and hair color, even the Pope objected — and the Great Designer Baby Controversy began.
'[W]e cannot escape the fact that science is moving forward,' the fertility service explained — before capitulating to pressure to eliminate the eye and hair color screenings.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28351545</id>
	<title>Re:Now we'll have a genetic class-based society...</title>
	<author>4D6963</author>
	<datestamp>1245181860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A dystopian prediction that sounds a lot like a an existing scifi novel/movie? In my Slashdot?!?</p><p>I'm being told that it's more likely than I'd think.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A dystopian prediction that sounds a lot like a an existing scifi novel/movie ?
In my Slashdot ? !
? I 'm being told that it 's more likely than I 'd think .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A dystopian prediction that sounds a lot like a an existing scifi novel/movie?
In my Slashdot?!
?I'm being told that it's more likely than I'd think.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348333</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28350739</id>
	<title>A better parallel than GATTICA</title>
	<author>Rastl</author>
	<datestamp>1245178800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Everyone seems to be using GATTICA as the potential 'what could go wrong' but Larry Niven actually hit this pretty hard in "A World Out of Time".  In summary, all people with congenital/hereditary conditions were not allowed to have children and lifespans improved dramatically.  There's a lot of other social issues in there but I think that one speaks more strongly about the potential for genetic screening being used in fertility clinics.</p><p>Back on topic.  Why a person decides or doesn't decide to carry a child to term or even let the embryo develop is a private issue.  It's that person's choice and decision.  Yes, I'm pro-choice obviously.  I don't feel every life is sacred or that life begins at conception.  I'm not suggesting going back to the Roman practice of exposing (abandoning to the elements) an unwanted or unhealthy child.  But as long as people are able and allowed to reproduce without any kind of oversight why should there be any kind of oversight for NOT reproducing?  Seems a bit hypocritcal, doesn't it?</p><p>If someone doesn't want to emplant an embryo because the child may have brown eyes then there's a lot bigger problem there than the initial screening.  It starts with a person who is so determined to have a child that they are at a fertility clinic but is refusing a potential child because of the color of their eyes.  That's shallow beyond words.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Everyone seems to be using GATTICA as the potential 'what could go wrong ' but Larry Niven actually hit this pretty hard in " A World Out of Time " .
In summary , all people with congenital/hereditary conditions were not allowed to have children and lifespans improved dramatically .
There 's a lot of other social issues in there but I think that one speaks more strongly about the potential for genetic screening being used in fertility clinics.Back on topic .
Why a person decides or does n't decide to carry a child to term or even let the embryo develop is a private issue .
It 's that person 's choice and decision .
Yes , I 'm pro-choice obviously .
I do n't feel every life is sacred or that life begins at conception .
I 'm not suggesting going back to the Roman practice of exposing ( abandoning to the elements ) an unwanted or unhealthy child .
But as long as people are able and allowed to reproduce without any kind of oversight why should there be any kind of oversight for NOT reproducing ?
Seems a bit hypocritcal , does n't it ? If someone does n't want to emplant an embryo because the child may have brown eyes then there 's a lot bigger problem there than the initial screening .
It starts with a person who is so determined to have a child that they are at a fertility clinic but is refusing a potential child because of the color of their eyes .
That 's shallow beyond words .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everyone seems to be using GATTICA as the potential 'what could go wrong' but Larry Niven actually hit this pretty hard in "A World Out of Time".
In summary, all people with congenital/hereditary conditions were not allowed to have children and lifespans improved dramatically.
There's a lot of other social issues in there but I think that one speaks more strongly about the potential for genetic screening being used in fertility clinics.Back on topic.
Why a person decides or doesn't decide to carry a child to term or even let the embryo develop is a private issue.
It's that person's choice and decision.
Yes, I'm pro-choice obviously.
I don't feel every life is sacred or that life begins at conception.
I'm not suggesting going back to the Roman practice of exposing (abandoning to the elements) an unwanted or unhealthy child.
But as long as people are able and allowed to reproduce without any kind of oversight why should there be any kind of oversight for NOT reproducing?
Seems a bit hypocritcal, doesn't it?If someone doesn't want to emplant an embryo because the child may have brown eyes then there's a lot bigger problem there than the initial screening.
It starts with a person who is so determined to have a child that they are at a fertility clinic but is refusing a potential child because of the color of their eyes.
That's shallow beyond words.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28351885</id>
	<title>Re:An Ethical Quandry without an easy answer</title>
	<author>syousef</author>
	<datestamp>1245183060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Historically speaking, the Church (Galileo notwithstanding!) and Islam during the medieval period played a very large part in encouraging the development of science, medicine, and the arts. It varied by time period and region, but the link can't be denied.</i></p><p>Galileo is not some isolated incident. Copernicus did not publish for fear of being tortured and killed. Then there was Giordano Bruno. However even today the church tries to prevent stem cell research, argues against contraception on unscientific moral grounds even though failing to use contraception leads to a great deal of death and misery etc.</p><p>The church would as it still does support science where it increased it's own power and where it's interests were served, but the scientific method itself was not held in any way sacred. Scientific truth was routinely over-ruled by inane religious doctrine and those who opposed it were routinely tortured or killed or both. These days they're just much subtler.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Historically speaking , the Church ( Galileo notwithstanding !
) and Islam during the medieval period played a very large part in encouraging the development of science , medicine , and the arts .
It varied by time period and region , but the link ca n't be denied.Galileo is not some isolated incident .
Copernicus did not publish for fear of being tortured and killed .
Then there was Giordano Bruno .
However even today the church tries to prevent stem cell research , argues against contraception on unscientific moral grounds even though failing to use contraception leads to a great deal of death and misery etc.The church would as it still does support science where it increased it 's own power and where it 's interests were served , but the scientific method itself was not held in any way sacred .
Scientific truth was routinely over-ruled by inane religious doctrine and those who opposed it were routinely tortured or killed or both .
These days they 're just much subtler .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Historically speaking, the Church (Galileo notwithstanding!
) and Islam during the medieval period played a very large part in encouraging the development of science, medicine, and the arts.
It varied by time period and region, but the link can't be denied.Galileo is not some isolated incident.
Copernicus did not publish for fear of being tortured and killed.
Then there was Giordano Bruno.
However even today the church tries to prevent stem cell research, argues against contraception on unscientific moral grounds even though failing to use contraception leads to a great deal of death and misery etc.The church would as it still does support science where it increased it's own power and where it's interests were served, but the scientific method itself was not held in any way sacred.
Scientific truth was routinely over-ruled by inane religious doctrine and those who opposed it were routinely tortured or killed or both.
These days they're just much subtler.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348491</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28351531</id>
	<title>Re:An Ethical Quandry without an easy answer</title>
	<author>jacksdl</author>
	<datestamp>1245181800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The existence of God is pertinent here in the sense that some people think that God is choosing (brown hair for this one, congenital heart defect for that one, etc.)  Certainly if you start with the belief that you're putting your knowledge of the consequences against that of an omniscient being, you'd be a fool to try to interfere.<br> <br>If instead you think the genetic outcome is a random occurrence, you are only pitting your limited knowledge against random chance.  If we use reason and seek knowledge we are going to have a superior outcome the majority of the time.  Hopefully, most will make choices based on factors that lead to healthy, happy and productive lives for their children.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The existence of God is pertinent here in the sense that some people think that God is choosing ( brown hair for this one , congenital heart defect for that one , etc .
) Certainly if you start with the belief that you 're putting your knowledge of the consequences against that of an omniscient being , you 'd be a fool to try to interfere .
If instead you think the genetic outcome is a random occurrence , you are only pitting your limited knowledge against random chance .
If we use reason and seek knowledge we are going to have a superior outcome the majority of the time .
Hopefully , most will make choices based on factors that lead to healthy , happy and productive lives for their children .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The existence of God is pertinent here in the sense that some people think that God is choosing (brown hair for this one, congenital heart defect for that one, etc.
)  Certainly if you start with the belief that you're putting your knowledge of the consequences against that of an omniscient being, you'd be a fool to try to interfere.
If instead you think the genetic outcome is a random occurrence, you are only pitting your limited knowledge against random chance.
If we use reason and seek knowledge we are going to have a superior outcome the majority of the time.
Hopefully, most will make choices based on factors that lead to healthy, happy and productive lives for their children.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348471</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28351739</id>
	<title>The One Minute Case for Designer Babies</title>
	<author>GreedyCapitalist</author>
	<datestamp>1245182400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>From <a href="http://oneminute.rationalmind.net/designer\%20babies/" title="rationalmind.net" rel="nofollow">http://oneminute.rationalmind.net/designer\%20babies/</a> [rationalmind.net]
<br> <br>
Genetic screening via sexual selection has been practiced since the dawn of life itself. No one suggests that we should pick a mate entirely at random, so the objection to genetic screening and engineering is due to the element of technology. Their objections are not to "designer babies" as such, but to the use of technology to improve the lives of human beings. They apply equally to a child whose genes are altered after birth, or to an adult. The logical conclusion of this neo-luddism is the opposition of all man-made improvements to human life as "unnatural."</htmltext>
<tokenext>From http : //oneminute.rationalmind.net/designer \ % 20babies/ [ rationalmind.net ] Genetic screening via sexual selection has been practiced since the dawn of life itself .
No one suggests that we should pick a mate entirely at random , so the objection to genetic screening and engineering is due to the element of technology .
Their objections are not to " designer babies " as such , but to the use of technology to improve the lives of human beings .
They apply equally to a child whose genes are altered after birth , or to an adult .
The logical conclusion of this neo-luddism is the opposition of all man-made improvements to human life as " unnatural .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From http://oneminute.rationalmind.net/designer\%20babies/ [rationalmind.net]
 
Genetic screening via sexual selection has been practiced since the dawn of life itself.
No one suggests that we should pick a mate entirely at random, so the objection to genetic screening and engineering is due to the element of technology.
Their objections are not to "designer babies" as such, but to the use of technology to improve the lives of human beings.
They apply equally to a child whose genes are altered after birth, or to an adult.
The logical conclusion of this neo-luddism is the opposition of all man-made improvements to human life as "unnatural.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28349449</id>
	<title>Re:I don't get it...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245174720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>*Funny how those who suffered the most are now demanding their own country be person specific with no "mixed blood".</p></div><p>Do you mean the country which banned this political party?<br>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kach\_and\_Kahane\_Chai</p><p>"The party once again appealed the decision, with Kahane claiming that security needs were justification for discrimination against Arabs. This time the appeal was unsuccessful, with the court stating that the aims and action of Kach were "manifestly racist.""<br>On the other hand, banning \_political ideologies\_, such as any party which calls for the destruction of one's nation is not racist, unless you equate having arab blood with having a racially driven imperative to destroy Israel.</p><p>Second question: are you antisemitic (based on the quote "those who suffered the most") or just an idiot? Honestly asked.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>* Funny how those who suffered the most are now demanding their own country be person specific with no " mixed blood " .Do you mean the country which banned this political party ? http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kach \ _and \ _Kahane \ _Chai " The party once again appealed the decision , with Kahane claiming that security needs were justification for discrimination against Arabs .
This time the appeal was unsuccessful , with the court stating that the aims and action of Kach were " manifestly racist .
" " On the other hand , banning \ _political ideologies \ _ , such as any party which calls for the destruction of one 's nation is not racist , unless you equate having arab blood with having a racially driven imperative to destroy Israel.Second question : are you antisemitic ( based on the quote " those who suffered the most " ) or just an idiot ?
Honestly asked .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>*Funny how those who suffered the most are now demanding their own country be person specific with no "mixed blood".Do you mean the country which banned this political party?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kach\_and\_Kahane\_Chai"The party once again appealed the decision, with Kahane claiming that security needs were justification for discrimination against Arabs.
This time the appeal was unsuccessful, with the court stating that the aims and action of Kach were "manifestly racist.
""On the other hand, banning \_political ideologies\_, such as any party which calls for the destruction of one's nation is not racist, unless you equate having arab blood with having a racially driven imperative to destroy Israel.Second question: are you antisemitic (based on the quote "those who suffered the most") or just an idiot?
Honestly asked.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348339</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28350945</id>
	<title>Re:An Ethical Quandry without an easy answer</title>
	<author>deeceeo</author>
	<datestamp>1245179520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What if you could prevent harm to others?  If they could screen out genetic markers for antisocial personality disorder, sociopathy etc., would you do it?

It seems to me that that case would be the strongest argument for genetic screening.  One could argue that it would be immoral not to do it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What if you could prevent harm to others ?
If they could screen out genetic markers for antisocial personality disorder , sociopathy etc. , would you do it ?
It seems to me that that case would be the strongest argument for genetic screening .
One could argue that it would be immoral not to do it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What if you could prevent harm to others?
If they could screen out genetic markers for antisocial personality disorder, sociopathy etc., would you do it?
It seems to me that that case would be the strongest argument for genetic screening.
One could argue that it would be immoral not to do it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348401</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28351555</id>
	<title>Re:what is the big deal?</title>
	<author>Chris Burke</author>
	<datestamp>1245181860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The lionesses allow this to happen -- a cruel edge to their mothering nature.</i></p><p>Well "allow" may not be the right term.  "Looks on helplessly (but then gets over it)" may be better.  A male lion is bigger and stronger than a lioness.  Some do actually try to stop it, but it usually doesn't work for the same reason the lionesses weren't able to stop the male lion from coming in and taking over the pride in the first place.</p><p>Which reminds me of a great moment in a nature show.  There was a small pride of lions with one male, three females, and a few young cubs.  The lion was away for some reason I can't remember, and while he was gone another male decided to try horn his way in.  First, he rolled around in rhino dung, supposedly to get charged up on the testosterone that is present in large quantities in the dung.  Then he marches into the pride's territory.  Two of the lionesses go out to face him, knowing that killing the cubs would be one of his first orders of business.  There's some roaring and bluster, the male isn't dissuaded and pushes on and a fight breaks out.  The lionesses fight with great ferocity, getting a couple licks in even as they take them, but its all they can do to keep the big lion in check.  Then out of nowhere the third lioness comes charging in and BAM tackles the lion from the side catching him completely off guard, sending the both of them rolling, and letting the other two lionesses pounce on him.  He fights his way up, but having gotten more than he bargained for he runs off with his face cut up pretty good.</p><p>Temporarily beaten, but not out of the game, he licks his wounds and comes back the next day.  By this time, though, the pride's male has returned, and he's even bigger than the intruding male.  He goes out alone to challenge the intruder, who quickly realizes his opportunity is past and leaves without another fight.</p><p>Aside from lion fights being completely awesome (lioness vs 3 hyenas was also a great fight), this also shows I think that lionesses will fight to protect their young, but it's a tough thing and not always a fight they can win.  If it had been the bigger male who had been the intruder, things could have ended very differently.  Hell, maybe that's how that male gained control of the pride in the first place.</p><p><i>The mother will feed only one chick, and as it grows stronger it will peck its weaker sibling to death. What is especially gruesome about this is that the mother will look on impassively as her youngster is dispatched.</i></p><p>Lots of birds do this, more or less.  I watched a bunch of nesting great egrets, and in one nest, two larger siblings pushed a smaller one out of the nest.  It fell into the nest of some roseate spoonbills, who naturally also pushed it out, leaving it stranded on the end of a narrow branch above the water, which was infested with alligators and where many a young egret had met their demise.  The parents were standing right there, and didn't even cock their heads.</p><p>Not as gruesome as actually pecking their siblings to death, but the result is the same.  This kind of competition among siblings is relatively common in the bird world.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The lionesses allow this to happen -- a cruel edge to their mothering nature.Well " allow " may not be the right term .
" Looks on helplessly ( but then gets over it ) " may be better .
A male lion is bigger and stronger than a lioness .
Some do actually try to stop it , but it usually does n't work for the same reason the lionesses were n't able to stop the male lion from coming in and taking over the pride in the first place.Which reminds me of a great moment in a nature show .
There was a small pride of lions with one male , three females , and a few young cubs .
The lion was away for some reason I ca n't remember , and while he was gone another male decided to try horn his way in .
First , he rolled around in rhino dung , supposedly to get charged up on the testosterone that is present in large quantities in the dung .
Then he marches into the pride 's territory .
Two of the lionesses go out to face him , knowing that killing the cubs would be one of his first orders of business .
There 's some roaring and bluster , the male is n't dissuaded and pushes on and a fight breaks out .
The lionesses fight with great ferocity , getting a couple licks in even as they take them , but its all they can do to keep the big lion in check .
Then out of nowhere the third lioness comes charging in and BAM tackles the lion from the side catching him completely off guard , sending the both of them rolling , and letting the other two lionesses pounce on him .
He fights his way up , but having gotten more than he bargained for he runs off with his face cut up pretty good.Temporarily beaten , but not out of the game , he licks his wounds and comes back the next day .
By this time , though , the pride 's male has returned , and he 's even bigger than the intruding male .
He goes out alone to challenge the intruder , who quickly realizes his opportunity is past and leaves without another fight.Aside from lion fights being completely awesome ( lioness vs 3 hyenas was also a great fight ) , this also shows I think that lionesses will fight to protect their young , but it 's a tough thing and not always a fight they can win .
If it had been the bigger male who had been the intruder , things could have ended very differently .
Hell , maybe that 's how that male gained control of the pride in the first place.The mother will feed only one chick , and as it grows stronger it will peck its weaker sibling to death .
What is especially gruesome about this is that the mother will look on impassively as her youngster is dispatched.Lots of birds do this , more or less .
I watched a bunch of nesting great egrets , and in one nest , two larger siblings pushed a smaller one out of the nest .
It fell into the nest of some roseate spoonbills , who naturally also pushed it out , leaving it stranded on the end of a narrow branch above the water , which was infested with alligators and where many a young egret had met their demise .
The parents were standing right there , and did n't even cock their heads.Not as gruesome as actually pecking their siblings to death , but the result is the same .
This kind of competition among siblings is relatively common in the bird world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The lionesses allow this to happen -- a cruel edge to their mothering nature.Well "allow" may not be the right term.
"Looks on helplessly (but then gets over it)" may be better.
A male lion is bigger and stronger than a lioness.
Some do actually try to stop it, but it usually doesn't work for the same reason the lionesses weren't able to stop the male lion from coming in and taking over the pride in the first place.Which reminds me of a great moment in a nature show.
There was a small pride of lions with one male, three females, and a few young cubs.
The lion was away for some reason I can't remember, and while he was gone another male decided to try horn his way in.
First, he rolled around in rhino dung, supposedly to get charged up on the testosterone that is present in large quantities in the dung.
Then he marches into the pride's territory.
Two of the lionesses go out to face him, knowing that killing the cubs would be one of his first orders of business.
There's some roaring and bluster, the male isn't dissuaded and pushes on and a fight breaks out.
The lionesses fight with great ferocity, getting a couple licks in even as they take them, but its all they can do to keep the big lion in check.
Then out of nowhere the third lioness comes charging in and BAM tackles the lion from the side catching him completely off guard, sending the both of them rolling, and letting the other two lionesses pounce on him.
He fights his way up, but having gotten more than he bargained for he runs off with his face cut up pretty good.Temporarily beaten, but not out of the game, he licks his wounds and comes back the next day.
By this time, though, the pride's male has returned, and he's even bigger than the intruding male.
He goes out alone to challenge the intruder, who quickly realizes his opportunity is past and leaves without another fight.Aside from lion fights being completely awesome (lioness vs 3 hyenas was also a great fight), this also shows I think that lionesses will fight to protect their young, but it's a tough thing and not always a fight they can win.
If it had been the bigger male who had been the intruder, things could have ended very differently.
Hell, maybe that's how that male gained control of the pride in the first place.The mother will feed only one chick, and as it grows stronger it will peck its weaker sibling to death.
What is especially gruesome about this is that the mother will look on impassively as her youngster is dispatched.Lots of birds do this, more or less.
I watched a bunch of nesting great egrets, and in one nest, two larger siblings pushed a smaller one out of the nest.
It fell into the nest of some roseate spoonbills, who naturally also pushed it out, leaving it stranded on the end of a narrow branch above the water, which was infested with alligators and where many a young egret had met their demise.
The parents were standing right there, and didn't even cock their heads.Not as gruesome as actually pecking their siblings to death, but the result is the same.
This kind of competition among siblings is relatively common in the bird world.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348493</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28356403</id>
	<title>Re:what is the big deal?</title>
	<author>Ironlenny</author>
	<datestamp>1245162480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If all of the other species commit suicide, we should as well?</htmltext>
<tokenext>If all of the other species commit suicide , we should as well ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If all of the other species commit suicide, we should as well?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348493</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348497</id>
	<title>Re:An Ethical Quandry without an easy answer</title>
	<author>Cornflake917</author>
	<datestamp>1245171600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Except there is no god, so you can't play him.</p> </div><p>Claiming that there simply is no god, is just as a religious statement as saying there is one.  You're believing in something with no proof (the non-existence of god).</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Once more, religion gets in the way of science.<br>Imagine all the advances in science and medicine if we could get religion out of the way.</p></div><p>Yeah imagine where we would be without the following religious scientists:</p><p>Galileo, Newton, Boyle, Planck, Faraday, and even Einstein once said, "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."</p><p>As an agnostic scientist, I found your statements to be quite ignorant.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Except there is no god , so you ca n't play him .
Claiming that there simply is no god , is just as a religious statement as saying there is one .
You 're believing in something with no proof ( the non-existence of god ) .Once more , religion gets in the way of science.Imagine all the advances in science and medicine if we could get religion out of the way.Yeah imagine where we would be without the following religious scientists : Galileo , Newton , Boyle , Planck , Faraday , and even Einstein once said , " Science without religion is lame , religion without science is blind .
" As an agnostic scientist , I found your statements to be quite ignorant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except there is no god, so you can't play him.
Claiming that there simply is no god, is just as a religious statement as saying there is one.
You're believing in something with no proof (the non-existence of god).Once more, religion gets in the way of science.Imagine all the advances in science and medicine if we could get religion out of the way.Yeah imagine where we would be without the following religious scientists:Galileo, Newton, Boyle, Planck, Faraday, and even Einstein once said, "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.
"As an agnostic scientist, I found your statements to be quite ignorant.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348205</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348483</id>
	<title>Re:An Ethical Quandry without an easy answer</title>
	<author>yhetti</author>
	<datestamp>1245171540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Imagine all of the cultural advancements we could make if people would stop praying to the alter of Science....</p><p>This isn't a troll, it's an honest response.  As Science-the-religion has advanced, and religious adherence receded, the general mental wellbeing of western citizens has declined.  Across the board, people report being less happy, less fulfilled, less everything, while they have more stuff, more medicine, more knowledge than ever.</p><p>In this case, instead of going through a natural birth and childrearing process, you are now in charge of your children genetic destiny, so to speak.  If they get Parkinson's, it's your fault.  Fat?  Your fault.  Stupid?  Your fault.  We, as a culture, are replacing the evolutionary miracle of genetics and birth with just another calculation.  Something else to induce anxiety attacks in a culture increasingly devoid of any spirituality...</p><p>And once again, Science gets in the way of humanity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Imagine all of the cultural advancements we could make if people would stop praying to the alter of Science....This is n't a troll , it 's an honest response .
As Science-the-religion has advanced , and religious adherence receded , the general mental wellbeing of western citizens has declined .
Across the board , people report being less happy , less fulfilled , less everything , while they have more stuff , more medicine , more knowledge than ever.In this case , instead of going through a natural birth and childrearing process , you are now in charge of your children genetic destiny , so to speak .
If they get Parkinson 's , it 's your fault .
Fat ? Your fault .
Stupid ? Your fault .
We , as a culture , are replacing the evolutionary miracle of genetics and birth with just another calculation .
Something else to induce anxiety attacks in a culture increasingly devoid of any spirituality...And once again , Science gets in the way of humanity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Imagine all of the cultural advancements we could make if people would stop praying to the alter of Science....This isn't a troll, it's an honest response.
As Science-the-religion has advanced, and religious adherence receded, the general mental wellbeing of western citizens has declined.
Across the board, people report being less happy, less fulfilled, less everything, while they have more stuff, more medicine, more knowledge than ever.In this case, instead of going through a natural birth and childrearing process, you are now in charge of your children genetic destiny, so to speak.
If they get Parkinson's, it's your fault.
Fat?  Your fault.
Stupid?  Your fault.
We, as a culture, are replacing the evolutionary miracle of genetics and birth with just another calculation.
Something else to induce anxiety attacks in a culture increasingly devoid of any spirituality...And once again, Science gets in the way of humanity.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348205</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348839</id>
	<title>Re:Now we'll have a genetic class-based society...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245172740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't worry about it.</p><p>"Future kids"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... says a Slashdot poster.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't worry about it .
" Future kids " ... says a Slashdot poster .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't worry about it.
"Future kids" ... says a Slashdot poster.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348333</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28358089</id>
	<title>Re:picking the sex is more evil</title>
	<author>artsrc</author>
	<datestamp>1245178800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><tt>You are attacking a symptom.&nbsp; The disease is the lack of respect and value for women and girls.<br><br>The government can deliver positive economic outcomes for having girls.&nbsp; Girls in these countries can get a baby bonus, subsidized heath care, and priority access to education, and work.<br><br></tt></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are attacking a symptom.   The disease is the lack of respect and value for women and girls.The government can deliver positive economic outcomes for having girls.   Girls in these countries can get a baby bonus , subsidized heath care , and priority access to education , and work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are attacking a symptom.  The disease is the lack of respect and value for women and girls.The government can deliver positive economic outcomes for having girls.  Girls in these countries can get a baby bonus, subsidized heath care, and priority access to education, and work.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348115</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28350391</id>
	<title>Pope(s) have commented on IVF already</title>
	<author>MushingBits</author>
	<datestamp>1245177660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The summary insinuates that the pope is only finally coming down on IVF now that they're selecting for certain eye and hair color, but this is not at all true from what little Catholic doctrine I'm familiar with- particularly the Humanae vitae encyclical from 1968. Quote lifted from <a href="http://www.catholicinsight.com/online/church/vatican/article\_475.shtml" title="catholicinsight.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.catholicinsight.com/online/church/vatican/article\_475.shtml</a> [catholicinsight.com]:<br>"In summary, the Catholic Church condemns as gravely evil acts, both IVF in and of itself, and stem cell research performed on IVF embryos."</p><p>Obviously not everyone has to agree with this stance, but the Catholic opposition to IVF and everything that comes with it is NOT new.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The summary insinuates that the pope is only finally coming down on IVF now that they 're selecting for certain eye and hair color , but this is not at all true from what little Catholic doctrine I 'm familiar with- particularly the Humanae vitae encyclical from 1968 .
Quote lifted from http : //www.catholicinsight.com/online/church/vatican/article \ _475.shtml [ catholicinsight.com ] : " In summary , the Catholic Church condemns as gravely evil acts , both IVF in and of itself , and stem cell research performed on IVF embryos .
" Obviously not everyone has to agree with this stance , but the Catholic opposition to IVF and everything that comes with it is NOT new .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The summary insinuates that the pope is only finally coming down on IVF now that they're selecting for certain eye and hair color, but this is not at all true from what little Catholic doctrine I'm familiar with- particularly the Humanae vitae encyclical from 1968.
Quote lifted from http://www.catholicinsight.com/online/church/vatican/article\_475.shtml [catholicinsight.com]:"In summary, the Catholic Church condemns as gravely evil acts, both IVF in and of itself, and stem cell research performed on IVF embryos.
"Obviously not everyone has to agree with this stance, but the Catholic opposition to IVF and everything that comes with it is NOT new.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348345</id>
	<title>Re:what is the big deal?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245171000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Aren't we talking about embryos here?  In a fertility clinic setting, there could be several embryos per mother, even without the hair and eye color selection, because they produce lots of them in case the first several they try don't implant properly.  Once these embryos are produced, are they bound by your moral code to allow them to become full-fledged human beings?  In that case, everyone who goes to a fertility clinic will end up having a whole litter of babies!
<br> <br>
Using words like "killing" to describe the discarding of unimplanted embryos is unnecessarily alarmist and does nothing to advance the debate.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Are n't we talking about embryos here ?
In a fertility clinic setting , there could be several embryos per mother , even without the hair and eye color selection , because they produce lots of them in case the first several they try do n't implant properly .
Once these embryos are produced , are they bound by your moral code to allow them to become full-fledged human beings ?
In that case , everyone who goes to a fertility clinic will end up having a whole litter of babies !
Using words like " killing " to describe the discarding of unimplanted embryos is unnecessarily alarmist and does nothing to advance the debate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Aren't we talking about embryos here?
In a fertility clinic setting, there could be several embryos per mother, even without the hair and eye color selection, because they produce lots of them in case the first several they try don't implant properly.
Once these embryos are produced, are they bound by your moral code to allow them to become full-fledged human beings?
In that case, everyone who goes to a fertility clinic will end up having a whole litter of babies!
Using words like "killing" to describe the discarding of unimplanted embryos is unnecessarily alarmist and does nothing to advance the debate.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348235</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348935</id>
	<title>I Live, You Die</title>
	<author>Iraneus</author>
	<datestamp>1245172980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>When is a unique individual created?

Forget religion, just answer this from science. You know the answer - sperm, egg, fertilization, dna &amp; all that.

This whole question is about speaking up for that unique creation, which we may have facilitated to occur in an insanely stupid place (a test tube), and literally placed on ice.

So then, unlike state in the summary, the problem is about picking and choosing who lives and dies, WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT.

How can that possibly be difficult to understand?</htmltext>
<tokenext>When is a unique individual created ?
Forget religion , just answer this from science .
You know the answer - sperm , egg , fertilization , dna &amp; all that .
This whole question is about speaking up for that unique creation , which we may have facilitated to occur in an insanely stupid place ( a test tube ) , and literally placed on ice .
So then , unlike state in the summary , the problem is about picking and choosing who lives and dies , WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT .
How can that possibly be difficult to understand ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When is a unique individual created?
Forget religion, just answer this from science.
You know the answer - sperm, egg, fertilization, dna &amp; all that.
This whole question is about speaking up for that unique creation, which we may have facilitated to occur in an insanely stupid place (a test tube), and literally placed on ice.
So then, unlike state in the summary, the problem is about picking and choosing who lives and dies, WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT.
How can that possibly be difficult to understand?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348959</id>
	<title>This is no different than physical attraction</title>
	<author>DJRumpy</author>
	<datestamp>1245173040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't see how this is all that much different than having a baby with a blond, or someone with green eyes. The only difference here is you'll know what your getting instead of pot luck.<br> <br>

If they were actually changing those attributes, I suppose I could see an issue with that (well..maybe not..it is only hair color and eye color after all), but this seems kind of silly.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't see how this is all that much different than having a baby with a blond , or someone with green eyes .
The only difference here is you 'll know what your getting instead of pot luck .
If they were actually changing those attributes , I suppose I could see an issue with that ( well..maybe not..it is only hair color and eye color after all ) , but this seems kind of silly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't see how this is all that much different than having a baby with a blond, or someone with green eyes.
The only difference here is you'll know what your getting instead of pot luck.
If they were actually changing those attributes, I suppose I could see an issue with that (well..maybe not..it is only hair color and eye color after all), but this seems kind of silly.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28352725</id>
	<title>Re:An Ethical Quandry without an easy answer</title>
	<author>greyhueofdoubt</author>
	<datestamp>1245143280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If one of your children had been born with a screenable disorder that made their life a living hell, do you think they'd appreciate your 'hands-off' approach? So that you can feel good about being such a holistic parent while your child needs a colostomy bag and will never, ever, enter society or live a life full of love and light?</p><p>I'm sure you and your healthy children are happy as can be with the decision you made. By enjoying the 'gamble' of finding out what kind of child you will get, you are reducing your children to the level of possessions or at least pets. I'm sure you would love your children if they had CF or MD or epilepsy or down's syndrome or any number or things... The question is, would your child love you as much once they were old enough to realize that you could have done something to stop their pain before they were born?</p><p>-b</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If one of your children had been born with a screenable disorder that made their life a living hell , do you think they 'd appreciate your 'hands-off ' approach ?
So that you can feel good about being such a holistic parent while your child needs a colostomy bag and will never , ever , enter society or live a life full of love and light ? I 'm sure you and your healthy children are happy as can be with the decision you made .
By enjoying the 'gamble ' of finding out what kind of child you will get , you are reducing your children to the level of possessions or at least pets .
I 'm sure you would love your children if they had CF or MD or epilepsy or down 's syndrome or any number or things... The question is , would your child love you as much once they were old enough to realize that you could have done something to stop their pain before they were born ? -b</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If one of your children had been born with a screenable disorder that made their life a living hell, do you think they'd appreciate your 'hands-off' approach?
So that you can feel good about being such a holistic parent while your child needs a colostomy bag and will never, ever, enter society or live a life full of love and light?I'm sure you and your healthy children are happy as can be with the decision you made.
By enjoying the 'gamble' of finding out what kind of child you will get, you are reducing your children to the level of possessions or at least pets.
I'm sure you would love your children if they had CF or MD or epilepsy or down's syndrome or any number or things... The question is, would your child love you as much once they were old enough to realize that you could have done something to stop their pain before they were born?-b</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348401</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28350529</id>
	<title>Re:Now we'll have a genetic class-based society...</title>
	<author>ring-eldest</author>
	<datestamp>1245178140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There already is more of a gap than you'd like to admit or else the idea of "creating a class based society" wouldn't be so shocking to you.  We have the makings of one now.<br>
<br>
Your average low income part of town has no banks, restaurants, etc.  What they do have is poor pre and post natal care, insufficient and improper diet, high crime, higher levels of birth defects and mental retardation...<br>
<br>
Want to go to college?  Sorry, your parents couldn't afford to get you to a high school where you weren't beaten every day.  Also even if you do manage to retain the will and the ability to go, we estimate that your family should be contributing $X,000 to your education per year.  They're not?  Tough.<br>
<br>
Want health insurance?  Sure, but it's going to be more expensive because you're black and more susceptible to diabetes, heart disease, renal failure, immune system problems like lupus...  Also the fact that we filled your neighborhood with fried chicken and burger places doesn't help.<br>
<br>
No more of an ethical decision than we've already made.   If these assholes would just quit being poor maybe we could make some real progress.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There already is more of a gap than you 'd like to admit or else the idea of " creating a class based society " would n't be so shocking to you .
We have the makings of one now .
Your average low income part of town has no banks , restaurants , etc .
What they do have is poor pre and post natal care , insufficient and improper diet , high crime , higher levels of birth defects and mental retardation.. . Want to go to college ?
Sorry , your parents could n't afford to get you to a high school where you were n't beaten every day .
Also even if you do manage to retain the will and the ability to go , we estimate that your family should be contributing $ X,000 to your education per year .
They 're not ?
Tough . Want health insurance ?
Sure , but it 's going to be more expensive because you 're black and more susceptible to diabetes , heart disease , renal failure , immune system problems like lupus... Also the fact that we filled your neighborhood with fried chicken and burger places does n't help .
No more of an ethical decision than we 've already made .
If these assholes would just quit being poor maybe we could make some real progress .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There already is more of a gap than you'd like to admit or else the idea of "creating a class based society" wouldn't be so shocking to you.
We have the makings of one now.
Your average low income part of town has no banks, restaurants, etc.
What they do have is poor pre and post natal care, insufficient and improper diet, high crime, higher levels of birth defects and mental retardation...

Want to go to college?
Sorry, your parents couldn't afford to get you to a high school where you weren't beaten every day.
Also even if you do manage to retain the will and the ability to go, we estimate that your family should be contributing $X,000 to your education per year.
They're not?
Tough.

Want health insurance?
Sure, but it's going to be more expensive because you're black and more susceptible to diabetes, heart disease, renal failure, immune system problems like lupus...  Also the fact that we filled your neighborhood with fried chicken and burger places doesn't help.
No more of an ethical decision than we've already made.
If these assholes would just quit being poor maybe we could make some real progress.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348333</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28351493</id>
	<title>Re:An Ethical Quandry without an easy answer</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245181620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd be hard pressed to agree that the church during the medieval period encouraged the development of science, medicine and the arts. Rather, the church was the only place that you could get away with developing science, medicine and the arts. If you practiced medicine or alchemy, etc. and you weren't part of the church, you stood pretty good odds of being executed as a witch.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd be hard pressed to agree that the church during the medieval period encouraged the development of science , medicine and the arts .
Rather , the church was the only place that you could get away with developing science , medicine and the arts .
If you practiced medicine or alchemy , etc .
and you were n't part of the church , you stood pretty good odds of being executed as a witch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd be hard pressed to agree that the church during the medieval period encouraged the development of science, medicine and the arts.
Rather, the church was the only place that you could get away with developing science, medicine and the arts.
If you practiced medicine or alchemy, etc.
and you weren't part of the church, you stood pretty good odds of being executed as a witch.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348491</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348115</id>
	<title>picking the sex is more evil</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245169980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>and is unfortunately still prevalent in india, china, and korea, and immigrant communities from india, china, and korea</p><p><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/15/nyregion/15babies.html" title="nytimes.com">http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/15/nyregion/15babies.html</a> [nytimes.com]</p><p>they should outlaw sex selection. an absolutely disgusting practice</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and is unfortunately still prevalent in india , china , and korea , and immigrant communities from india , china , and koreahttp : //www.nytimes.com/2009/06/15/nyregion/15babies.html [ nytimes.com ] they should outlaw sex selection .
an absolutely disgusting practice</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and is unfortunately still prevalent in india, china, and korea, and immigrant communities from india, china, and koreahttp://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/15/nyregion/15babies.html [nytimes.com]they should outlaw sex selection.
an absolutely disgusting practice</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28349831</id>
	<title>Re:I don't get it...</title>
	<author>DrgnDancer</author>
	<datestamp>1245175920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But that's going to happen anyway. I'm not necessarily saying I agree one way or the other with this screening, but in point in fact it is only helping to make a decision that would otherwise be random.  If I go to a fertility clinic with my wife they will fertilize, say, a dozen of her eggs with my sperm and try to implant 2 or 3 of them.  Normally the selection of which 2 or 3 is a random one (once the most basic genetic disease screens are done), and 1, 2, or all three of the embryos might implant.  If that happens and my wife carries a child or three to term, they discard the rest of the embryos.  Whether I picked them because they were going to be blond haired, green eyed girls, or whether they picked three at random and implanted them.  The "extra" embryos only get used if the first implantation doesn't take, the baby(ies) is not carried to term, or we later decide we want more kids.  Only VERY rarely are all the fertilized embryos used.  The "unchosen" embryos eliminated by this screening probably have the same chance of being later implanted as any other "unchosen" embryos whose potential siblings were chosen by random chance.</p><p>If you're going to object to this screening on the moral basis you state, then by any reasonable standard you should object to the whole idea of having children this way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But that 's going to happen anyway .
I 'm not necessarily saying I agree one way or the other with this screening , but in point in fact it is only helping to make a decision that would otherwise be random .
If I go to a fertility clinic with my wife they will fertilize , say , a dozen of her eggs with my sperm and try to implant 2 or 3 of them .
Normally the selection of which 2 or 3 is a random one ( once the most basic genetic disease screens are done ) , and 1 , 2 , or all three of the embryos might implant .
If that happens and my wife carries a child or three to term , they discard the rest of the embryos .
Whether I picked them because they were going to be blond haired , green eyed girls , or whether they picked three at random and implanted them .
The " extra " embryos only get used if the first implantation does n't take , the baby ( ies ) is not carried to term , or we later decide we want more kids .
Only VERY rarely are all the fertilized embryos used .
The " unchosen " embryos eliminated by this screening probably have the same chance of being later implanted as any other " unchosen " embryos whose potential siblings were chosen by random chance.If you 're going to object to this screening on the moral basis you state , then by any reasonable standard you should object to the whole idea of having children this way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But that's going to happen anyway.
I'm not necessarily saying I agree one way or the other with this screening, but in point in fact it is only helping to make a decision that would otherwise be random.
If I go to a fertility clinic with my wife they will fertilize, say, a dozen of her eggs with my sperm and try to implant 2 or 3 of them.
Normally the selection of which 2 or 3 is a random one (once the most basic genetic disease screens are done), and 1, 2, or all three of the embryos might implant.
If that happens and my wife carries a child or three to term, they discard the rest of the embryos.
Whether I picked them because they were going to be blond haired, green eyed girls, or whether they picked three at random and implanted them.
The "extra" embryos only get used if the first implantation doesn't take, the baby(ies) is not carried to term, or we later decide we want more kids.
Only VERY rarely are all the fertilized embryos used.
The "unchosen" embryos eliminated by this screening probably have the same chance of being later implanted as any other "unchosen" embryos whose potential siblings were chosen by random chance.If you're going to object to this screening on the moral basis you state, then by any reasonable standard you should object to the whole idea of having children this way.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348603</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28349663</id>
	<title>Re:I don't get it...</title>
	<author>cayenne8</author>
	<datestamp>1245175440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>"I think the only way not to get the eye color or hair color you don't want is to abort the fetus after finding out it does not have the eye color or hair color you want.</i><p><i>

It'd be one thing to abort because of genetic propensity for cystic fibrosis... but because of eye color?"</i> </p><p>
Correct me if I'm wrong..but, I was under the impression that the screening was still at the in-vitro stage.</p><p>
It isn't aborting until it is implanted in the womb.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" I think the only way not to get the eye color or hair color you do n't want is to abort the fetus after finding out it does not have the eye color or hair color you want .
It 'd be one thing to abort because of genetic propensity for cystic fibrosis... but because of eye color ?
" Correct me if I 'm wrong..but , I was under the impression that the screening was still at the in-vitro stage .
It is n't aborting until it is implanted in the womb .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I think the only way not to get the eye color or hair color you don't want is to abort the fetus after finding out it does not have the eye color or hair color you want.
It'd be one thing to abort because of genetic propensity for cystic fibrosis... but because of eye color?
" 
Correct me if I'm wrong..but, I was under the impression that the screening was still at the in-vitro stage.
It isn't aborting until it is implanted in the womb.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348211</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348277</id>
	<title>Re:I don't get it...</title>
	<author>ptbarnett</author>
	<datestamp>1245170640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What's wrong with trying to get the eye color or hair color you want? What is the difference with that and picking the sex?</p></div><p>

I'm not sure I get it either.  As a subsequent poster points out, it's <b>screening</b>, not "designing".  Couples are choosing among existing embryos.</p><p>

Screening has been going on for millions of years.  Humans have always been able to choose their mates based on visible criteria like hair color, eye color, athletic ability, etc.  Why is screening acceptable for invisible traits (like propensity for cancer and other genetic predispositions), but not for visible traits?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's wrong with trying to get the eye color or hair color you want ?
What is the difference with that and picking the sex ?
I 'm not sure I get it either .
As a subsequent poster points out , it 's screening , not " designing " .
Couples are choosing among existing embryos .
Screening has been going on for millions of years .
Humans have always been able to choose their mates based on visible criteria like hair color , eye color , athletic ability , etc .
Why is screening acceptable for invisible traits ( like propensity for cancer and other genetic predispositions ) , but not for visible traits ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's wrong with trying to get the eye color or hair color you want?
What is the difference with that and picking the sex?
I'm not sure I get it either.
As a subsequent poster points out, it's screening, not "designing".
Couples are choosing among existing embryos.
Screening has been going on for millions of years.
Humans have always been able to choose their mates based on visible criteria like hair color, eye color, athletic ability, etc.
Why is screening acceptable for invisible traits (like propensity for cancer and other genetic predispositions), but not for visible traits?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348055</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28350917</id>
	<title>Re:I don't get it...</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1245179400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If it is against your belief, then don't freakin' do it. That doesn't mean someone belief gets shoved down another persons throat.</p><p>Freedom OF religion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If it is against your belief , then do n't freakin ' do it .
That does n't mean someone belief gets shoved down another persons throat.Freedom OF religion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it is against your belief, then don't freakin' do it.
That doesn't mean someone belief gets shoved down another persons throat.Freedom OF religion.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348603</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348263</id>
	<title>The Line Goes here</title>
	<author>keytoe</author>
	<datestamp>1245170580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, I've always wondered where the line would be drawn, and it's apparently at eye and hair color. To sum up, designing a baby to be resistant to over 70 diseases is cool - and designing a baby to be a particular sex is also cool. But choosing hair color or eye color, that goes to far.</p><p>If someone didn't draw the line for me, I'd never know where it goes. I've never been good at placing arbitrary restrictions on things I don't understand, so thank God for the Pope.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , I 've always wondered where the line would be drawn , and it 's apparently at eye and hair color .
To sum up , designing a baby to be resistant to over 70 diseases is cool - and designing a baby to be a particular sex is also cool .
But choosing hair color or eye color , that goes to far.If someone did n't draw the line for me , I 'd never know where it goes .
I 've never been good at placing arbitrary restrictions on things I do n't understand , so thank God for the Pope .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, I've always wondered where the line would be drawn, and it's apparently at eye and hair color.
To sum up, designing a baby to be resistant to over 70 diseases is cool - and designing a baby to be a particular sex is also cool.
But choosing hair color or eye color, that goes to far.If someone didn't draw the line for me, I'd never know where it goes.
I've never been good at placing arbitrary restrictions on things I don't understand, so thank God for the Pope.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28353165</id>
	<title>Re:An Ethical Quandry without an easy answer</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245144840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>You can only play them if you have the relevant source book.  Think Wizards of the Coast is releasing the Satan prestige class next month.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You can only play them if you have the relevant source book .
Think Wizards of the Coast is releasing the Satan prestige class next month .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can only play them if you have the relevant source book.
Think Wizards of the Coast is releasing the Satan prestige class next month.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348471</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348615</id>
	<title>War Of The Worlds</title>
	<author>Ukab the Great</author>
	<datestamp>1245172020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>To sum up, designing a baby to be resistant to over 70 diseases is cool.</p></div></blockquote><p>If humans were disease-free, War Of The Worlds would have ended in a very uncool way.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>To sum up , designing a baby to be resistant to over 70 diseases is cool.If humans were disease-free , War Of The Worlds would have ended in a very uncool way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To sum up, designing a baby to be resistant to over 70 diseases is cool.If humans were disease-free, War Of The Worlds would have ended in a very uncool way.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348263</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348601</id>
	<title>Re:picking the sex is more evil</title>
	<author>Jah-Wren Ryel</author>
	<datestamp>1245171960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>and is unfortunately still prevalent in india, china, and korea, and immigrant communities from india, china, and korea</p><p>they should outlaw sex selection. an absolutely disgusting practice</p></div><p>Big deal.  As long as they aren't using abortion to do it, why not?  They'll just end up at a point where girls are ultimately more desirable because of the imbalance.</p><p>If all those theories about polygamy causing political instability because there aren't enough wives to go around, then countries like China are in for a big problem anyway.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>and is unfortunately still prevalent in india , china , and korea , and immigrant communities from india , china , and koreathey should outlaw sex selection .
an absolutely disgusting practiceBig deal .
As long as they are n't using abortion to do it , why not ?
They 'll just end up at a point where girls are ultimately more desirable because of the imbalance.If all those theories about polygamy causing political instability because there are n't enough wives to go around , then countries like China are in for a big problem anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and is unfortunately still prevalent in india, china, and korea, and immigrant communities from india, china, and koreathey should outlaw sex selection.
an absolutely disgusting practiceBig deal.
As long as they aren't using abortion to do it, why not?
They'll just end up at a point where girls are ultimately more desirable because of the imbalance.If all those theories about polygamy causing political instability because there aren't enough wives to go around, then countries like China are in for a big problem anyway.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348115</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28351347</id>
	<title>Re:An Ethical Quandry without an easy answer</title>
	<author>Ikonoclasm</author>
	<datestamp>1245181140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While you're more than welcome to have a hand at that particular crap shoot, I think I'd rather not risk the myriad assortment of genetic handicaps humans can potentially pass to their offspring. We have no problem breeding pigs, horses, cows, dogs, etc., to be super-fit specimen of their species, so why would we hesitate to do the same to improve the genetic quality of our own species?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While you 're more than welcome to have a hand at that particular crap shoot , I think I 'd rather not risk the myriad assortment of genetic handicaps humans can potentially pass to their offspring .
We have no problem breeding pigs , horses , cows , dogs , etc. , to be super-fit specimen of their species , so why would we hesitate to do the same to improve the genetic quality of our own species ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While you're more than welcome to have a hand at that particular crap shoot, I think I'd rather not risk the myriad assortment of genetic handicaps humans can potentially pass to their offspring.
We have no problem breeding pigs, horses, cows, dogs, etc., to be super-fit specimen of their species, so why would we hesitate to do the same to improve the genetic quality of our own species?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348401</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28350125</id>
	<title>Re:The Line Goes here</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245176820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The Pope and the Catholic church as a whole have always been opposed to this process.  The main reason is that many blastocysts are created, and are screened to find the one with the 'right' genes.  The ones that don't make the cut are destroyed.  Since the Catholic church holds that a human life begins at the moment of conception, the destruction of these embryos constitutes the destruction of sacred human life.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Pope and the Catholic church as a whole have always been opposed to this process .
The main reason is that many blastocysts are created , and are screened to find the one with the 'right ' genes .
The ones that do n't make the cut are destroyed .
Since the Catholic church holds that a human life begins at the moment of conception , the destruction of these embryos constitutes the destruction of sacred human life .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Pope and the Catholic church as a whole have always been opposed to this process.
The main reason is that many blastocysts are created, and are screened to find the one with the 'right' genes.
The ones that don't make the cut are destroyed.
Since the Catholic church holds that a human life begins at the moment of conception, the destruction of these embryos constitutes the destruction of sacred human life.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348263</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28349403</id>
	<title>Small Percentage</title>
	<author>Island Admin</author>
	<datestamp>1245174540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Some say that this is "playing god" others are saying it's changing "evolution".  The thing is the majority of people will continue having babies the normal way<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... i.e. randam act = random child.

Having gone through the IVF process with my wife, it is an expensive and emotionally draining process.  Not to mention the physical stress it places on a woman's body.  The point is, for such a small percentage, I don't see it really impacting the future of our species that dramatically.

---

Got sand in my keyboard</htmltext>
<tokenext>Some say that this is " playing god " others are saying it 's changing " evolution " .
The thing is the majority of people will continue having babies the normal way ... i.e. randam act = random child .
Having gone through the IVF process with my wife , it is an expensive and emotionally draining process .
Not to mention the physical stress it places on a woman 's body .
The point is , for such a small percentage , I do n't see it really impacting the future of our species that dramatically .
--- Got sand in my keyboard</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some say that this is "playing god" others are saying it's changing "evolution".
The thing is the majority of people will continue having babies the normal way ... i.e. randam act = random child.
Having gone through the IVF process with my wife, it is an expensive and emotionally draining process.
Not to mention the physical stress it places on a woman's body.
The point is, for such a small percentage, I don't see it really impacting the future of our species that dramatically.
---

Got sand in my keyboard</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28351163</id>
	<title>Re:An Ethical Quandry without an easy answer</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1245180360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People aren't stupid. They have been lulled into not thinking by religions idea that everything will continue, and the big deity will make everything alright.</p><p>"n fact, getting rid of religion might leave a vacuum that could be filled by something worse..."<br>Like rational thinking.</p><p>I suspect that 'fear of the unknown' might be some kind of logical fallacy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People are n't stupid .
They have been lulled into not thinking by religions idea that everything will continue , and the big deity will make everything alright .
" n fact , getting rid of religion might leave a vacuum that could be filled by something worse... " Like rational thinking.I suspect that 'fear of the unknown ' might be some kind of logical fallacy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People aren't stupid.
They have been lulled into not thinking by religions idea that everything will continue, and the big deity will make everything alright.
"n fact, getting rid of religion might leave a vacuum that could be filled by something worse..."Like rational thinking.I suspect that 'fear of the unknown' might be some kind of logical fallacy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348491</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28350281</id>
	<title>Re:picking the sex is more evil</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245177360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Polygamy might solve their problem. Allow the dwindling numbers of women to have multiple husbands.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Polygamy might solve their problem .
Allow the dwindling numbers of women to have multiple husbands .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Polygamy might solve their problem.
Allow the dwindling numbers of women to have multiple husbands.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348601</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28350327</id>
	<title>Re:An Ethical Quandry without an easy answer</title>
	<author>AK Marc</author>
	<datestamp>1245177480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Claiming that there simply is no god, is just as a religious statement as saying there is one. You're believing in something with no proof (the non-existence of god).</i> <br> <br>I have faith that when I turn the key, my car will start.  That's believing something with no proof.  Sure, I have some evidence that it might, because it always has before, but that's still not proof that it will the next time.  I just work off the assumption that it will, otherwise I'd have a cab standing by, or leave early enough to walk if the car didn't start, or something like that.  Much of the world does what I do and believes something without proof.  That doesn't mean there's the religion of ignition.  There is no religious proof about cars starting.  There is a logical probability.  There is evidence (or lack thereof). <br> <br>Now, about your invisible friend.  There's as much proof of God as there is that Harvey was a documentary and not fiction.  There's a really old book laying around that is incomplete, has been heavily edited, has unknown authors with unknown private agendas that indicated that some mystical stuff has happened before.  But since history recording has become more formal, God has disappeared.  Why is that?  Is it because he planned it that way, or is it that when things get recorded empirically, he doesn't exist?  There isn't a shred of proof that god is any more likely that a giant flying spaghetti monster living in the sky.<br> <br> <i>As an agnostic scientist, I found your statements to be quite ignorant.</i> <br> <br>I find the most arrogant to be the agnostics.  They claim that because there isn't proof, any opinion is religion.  Religion is a formal set of beliefs.  That's not the case with most atheists.  There is nothing formal about it.  Also, you are claiming that anyone is wrong for believing something without proof, when there should be proof to believe anything.  You are starting from the middle where everything is possible.  I do not believe that there is a giant invisible elephant living under my house.  That doesn't mean there is some agelephant religion.  That means that I don't believe anything that is completely unsubstantiated.  There isn't a single shred of evidence that there's an elephant under my house.  There isn't a single shred of evidence for god other than "we don't understand, therefore someone must have done it on purpose."  And that's not evidence, that's arguing from ignorance.  You are in the pompous agnostic class.  And that's even more a religion than the atheists.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Claiming that there simply is no god , is just as a religious statement as saying there is one .
You 're believing in something with no proof ( the non-existence of god ) .
I have faith that when I turn the key , my car will start .
That 's believing something with no proof .
Sure , I have some evidence that it might , because it always has before , but that 's still not proof that it will the next time .
I just work off the assumption that it will , otherwise I 'd have a cab standing by , or leave early enough to walk if the car did n't start , or something like that .
Much of the world does what I do and believes something without proof .
That does n't mean there 's the religion of ignition .
There is no religious proof about cars starting .
There is a logical probability .
There is evidence ( or lack thereof ) .
Now , about your invisible friend .
There 's as much proof of God as there is that Harvey was a documentary and not fiction .
There 's a really old book laying around that is incomplete , has been heavily edited , has unknown authors with unknown private agendas that indicated that some mystical stuff has happened before .
But since history recording has become more formal , God has disappeared .
Why is that ?
Is it because he planned it that way , or is it that when things get recorded empirically , he does n't exist ?
There is n't a shred of proof that god is any more likely that a giant flying spaghetti monster living in the sky .
As an agnostic scientist , I found your statements to be quite ignorant .
I find the most arrogant to be the agnostics .
They claim that because there is n't proof , any opinion is religion .
Religion is a formal set of beliefs .
That 's not the case with most atheists .
There is nothing formal about it .
Also , you are claiming that anyone is wrong for believing something without proof , when there should be proof to believe anything .
You are starting from the middle where everything is possible .
I do not believe that there is a giant invisible elephant living under my house .
That does n't mean there is some agelephant religion .
That means that I do n't believe anything that is completely unsubstantiated .
There is n't a single shred of evidence that there 's an elephant under my house .
There is n't a single shred of evidence for god other than " we do n't understand , therefore someone must have done it on purpose .
" And that 's not evidence , that 's arguing from ignorance .
You are in the pompous agnostic class .
And that 's even more a religion than the atheists .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Claiming that there simply is no god, is just as a religious statement as saying there is one.
You're believing in something with no proof (the non-existence of god).
I have faith that when I turn the key, my car will start.
That's believing something with no proof.
Sure, I have some evidence that it might, because it always has before, but that's still not proof that it will the next time.
I just work off the assumption that it will, otherwise I'd have a cab standing by, or leave early enough to walk if the car didn't start, or something like that.
Much of the world does what I do and believes something without proof.
That doesn't mean there's the religion of ignition.
There is no religious proof about cars starting.
There is a logical probability.
There is evidence (or lack thereof).
Now, about your invisible friend.
There's as much proof of God as there is that Harvey was a documentary and not fiction.
There's a really old book laying around that is incomplete, has been heavily edited, has unknown authors with unknown private agendas that indicated that some mystical stuff has happened before.
But since history recording has become more formal, God has disappeared.
Why is that?
Is it because he planned it that way, or is it that when things get recorded empirically, he doesn't exist?
There isn't a shred of proof that god is any more likely that a giant flying spaghetti monster living in the sky.
As an agnostic scientist, I found your statements to be quite ignorant.
I find the most arrogant to be the agnostics.
They claim that because there isn't proof, any opinion is religion.
Religion is a formal set of beliefs.
That's not the case with most atheists.
There is nothing formal about it.
Also, you are claiming that anyone is wrong for believing something without proof, when there should be proof to believe anything.
You are starting from the middle where everything is possible.
I do not believe that there is a giant invisible elephant living under my house.
That doesn't mean there is some agelephant religion.
That means that I don't believe anything that is completely unsubstantiated.
There isn't a single shred of evidence that there's an elephant under my house.
There isn't a single shred of evidence for god other than "we don't understand, therefore someone must have done it on purpose.
"  And that's not evidence, that's arguing from ignorance.
You are in the pompous agnostic class.
And that's even more a religion than the atheists.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348497</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348873</id>
	<title>Re:Now we'll have a genetic class-based society...</title>
	<author>somersault</author>
	<datestamp>1245172860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Little Bobby here wants to become a geneticist. But in a cruel twist of fate his parents have used genetic selection processes to make him the ultimate porn star, and sadly overlooked his mind in the process*.</p><p>*not saying that porn stars are necessarily dumb, only that it doesn't particularly matter how smart you are if that is your chosen field of work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Little Bobby here wants to become a geneticist .
But in a cruel twist of fate his parents have used genetic selection processes to make him the ultimate porn star , and sadly overlooked his mind in the process * .
* not saying that porn stars are necessarily dumb , only that it does n't particularly matter how smart you are if that is your chosen field of work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Little Bobby here wants to become a geneticist.
But in a cruel twist of fate his parents have used genetic selection processes to make him the ultimate porn star, and sadly overlooked his mind in the process*.
*not saying that porn stars are necessarily dumb, only that it doesn't particularly matter how smart you are if that is your chosen field of work.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348333</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28358441</id>
	<title>It is unavoidable</title>
	<author>davaguco</author>
	<datestamp>1245182340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>First, it was blue eyes.

But I didn't care, since I could afford blue eyes for my son, and it wasn't that important, anyway.

Then, it was higher people.

But I didn't care, since I was tall and my daughter would probably be tall, too.

Then, it was higher IQ.

At that time, it was too late and expensive for my niece. He would belong to the "untouchable" caste and his offspring too...

(note: I believe this future is unavoidable)</htmltext>
<tokenext>First , it was blue eyes .
But I did n't care , since I could afford blue eyes for my son , and it was n't that important , anyway .
Then , it was higher people .
But I did n't care , since I was tall and my daughter would probably be tall , too .
Then , it was higher IQ .
At that time , it was too late and expensive for my niece .
He would belong to the " untouchable " caste and his offspring too.. . ( note : I believe this future is unavoidable )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First, it was blue eyes.
But I didn't care, since I could afford blue eyes for my son, and it wasn't that important, anyway.
Then, it was higher people.
But I didn't care, since I was tall and my daughter would probably be tall, too.
Then, it was higher IQ.
At that time, it was too late and expensive for my niece.
He would belong to the "untouchable" caste and his offspring too...

(note: I believe this future is unavoidable)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348327</id>
	<title>Re:Heavy Metal Baby</title>
	<author>Chris Burke</author>
	<datestamp>1245170880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Everything but the Whitesnake tattoo.  It goes against the Hippocratic Oath.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Everything but the Whitesnake tattoo .
It goes against the Hippocratic Oath .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everything but the Whitesnake tattoo.
It goes against the Hippocratic Oath.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348195</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348917</id>
	<title>When changes hands, lawyers won't be far behind</title>
	<author>gtall</author>
	<datestamp>1245172980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How long will it take for some couple to find out the baby they selected didn't have the traits they selected. Presumably, these clinics do not work for free. And as soon as any sizable sum of money changes hands, it won't be long before some jilted couple decide they and their now unplanned kid deserve compensation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How long will it take for some couple to find out the baby they selected did n't have the traits they selected .
Presumably , these clinics do not work for free .
And as soon as any sizable sum of money changes hands , it wo n't be long before some jilted couple decide they and their now unplanned kid deserve compensation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How long will it take for some couple to find out the baby they selected didn't have the traits they selected.
Presumably, these clinics do not work for free.
And as soon as any sizable sum of money changes hands, it won't be long before some jilted couple decide they and their now unplanned kid deserve compensation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28349269</id>
	<title>Re:I am just waiting for</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245174120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Someone has to mention it: Designer sex babies. We know people are going to build sexbots, porn usually wins the format wars. What would be the ethical implications if in parts of the world where prostitution is still rampant we get people ordering perfect (or what they consider perfect) babies designed to be attractive to be raised as sex slaves. It is inevitable if we let this continue.</p><p>If you give people power they are going to abuse it, i just tried to come up with the worst abuse of the system i could. Another abuse I HATE is choosing a disabled baby because you are (ie: Genetically blind parent wants blind baby), thats barbaric to condemn a child to a limited life before they are born because you are a blind parent.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Someone has to mention it : Designer sex babies .
We know people are going to build sexbots , porn usually wins the format wars .
What would be the ethical implications if in parts of the world where prostitution is still rampant we get people ordering perfect ( or what they consider perfect ) babies designed to be attractive to be raised as sex slaves .
It is inevitable if we let this continue.If you give people power they are going to abuse it , i just tried to come up with the worst abuse of the system i could .
Another abuse I HATE is choosing a disabled baby because you are ( ie : Genetically blind parent wants blind baby ) , thats barbaric to condemn a child to a limited life before they are born because you are a blind parent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Someone has to mention it: Designer sex babies.
We know people are going to build sexbots, porn usually wins the format wars.
What would be the ethical implications if in parts of the world where prostitution is still rampant we get people ordering perfect (or what they consider perfect) babies designed to be attractive to be raised as sex slaves.
It is inevitable if we let this continue.If you give people power they are going to abuse it, i just tried to come up with the worst abuse of the system i could.
Another abuse I HATE is choosing a disabled baby because you are (ie: Genetically blind parent wants blind baby), thats barbaric to condemn a child to a limited life before they are born because you are a blind parent.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348337</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28350795</id>
	<title>Let me get this straight</title>
	<author>Locke2005</author>
	<datestamp>1245178980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Pre-selecting for females is unnatural and inhumane, but gelding the vast majority of males because you just don't need that many studs is perfectly ok? Yeah, that's real logically consistent!<br> <br>People have a real blind spot when it comes to horses. In the US, they have basically outlawed the use of horses for any kind of food as "inhumane". As a result, now many more horses than ever are starving to death. Yeah, that's much more humane!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Pre-selecting for females is unnatural and inhumane , but gelding the vast majority of males because you just do n't need that many studs is perfectly ok ?
Yeah , that 's real logically consistent !
People have a real blind spot when it comes to horses .
In the US , they have basically outlawed the use of horses for any kind of food as " inhumane " .
As a result , now many more horses than ever are starving to death .
Yeah , that 's much more humane !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pre-selecting for females is unnatural and inhumane, but gelding the vast majority of males because you just don't need that many studs is perfectly ok?
Yeah, that's real logically consistent!
People have a real blind spot when it comes to horses.
In the US, they have basically outlawed the use of horses for any kind of food as "inhumane".
As a result, now many more horses than ever are starving to death.
Yeah, that's much more humane!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348719</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348405</id>
	<title>Re:picking the sex is more evil</title>
	<author>selven</author>
	<datestamp>1245171240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>No, they should make it easy to do at the embryo stage so we don't get people leaving live babies to die in the dumpster.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , they should make it easy to do at the embryo stage so we do n't get people leaving live babies to die in the dumpster .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, they should make it easy to do at the embryo stage so we don't get people leaving live babies to die in the dumpster.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348115</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28349621</id>
	<title>Destruction vs. Choice</title>
	<author>SuperKendall</author>
	<datestamp>1245175320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>That, and if someone didn't like the eye/hair color, they would destroy the blob of cells which some people consider to be a person. </i></p><p>That's where you went off track.</p><p>This article is talking about choice.  No population will achieve unanimity in choice (the Germans tried to do so by force but it was not accepted universally), so there will always be diversity in the final selection...</p><p>What you are talking about is systematic destruction, removal of an option because you (or someone else) does not like it.  There is w world of difference between the two things.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That , and if someone did n't like the eye/hair color , they would destroy the blob of cells which some people consider to be a person .
That 's where you went off track.This article is talking about choice .
No population will achieve unanimity in choice ( the Germans tried to do so by force but it was not accepted universally ) , so there will always be diversity in the final selection...What you are talking about is systematic destruction , removal of an option because you ( or someone else ) does not like it .
There is w world of difference between the two things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That, and if someone didn't like the eye/hair color, they would destroy the blob of cells which some people consider to be a person.
That's where you went off track.This article is talking about choice.
No population will achieve unanimity in choice (the Germans tried to do so by force but it was not accepted universally), so there will always be diversity in the final selection...What you are talking about is systematic destruction, removal of an option because you (or someone else) does not like it.
There is w world of difference between the two things.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348339</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348235</id>
	<title>Re:what is the big deal?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245170520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The big deal is that it's selection, not planning. Killing the ones you don't want because they have the wrong hair or eye color is kinda wrong, don't you think?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The big deal is that it 's selection , not planning .
Killing the ones you do n't want because they have the wrong hair or eye color is kinda wrong , do n't you think ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The big deal is that it's selection, not planning.
Killing the ones you don't want because they have the wrong hair or eye color is kinda wrong, don't you think?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348047</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28351113</id>
	<title>Re:picking the sex is more evil</title>
	<author>Jake Griffin</author>
	<datestamp>1245180240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And lethal injection is better than a slow tortured death, so let people inject poison into whoever they want, just as long as they die quickly.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And lethal injection is better than a slow tortured death , so let people inject poison into whoever they want , just as long as they die quickly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And lethal injection is better than a slow tortured death, so let people inject poison into whoever they want, just as long as they die quickly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348631</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348337</id>
	<title>I am just waiting for</title>
	<author>Shivetya</author>
	<datestamp>1245170940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>skin color and such to come down the pike.</p><p>Of course, if they could prove that sexual preference is genetic I believe we will see some real outrage with "We can guarantee your baby will NOT be gay"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>skin color and such to come down the pike.Of course , if they could prove that sexual preference is genetic I believe we will see some real outrage with " We can guarantee your baby will NOT be gay "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>skin color and such to come down the pike.Of course, if they could prove that sexual preference is genetic I believe we will see some real outrage with "We can guarantee your baby will NOT be gay"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348055</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28349105</id>
	<title>Re:An Ethical Quandry without an easy answer</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245173640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I have 2 children. I love them dearly, and would never change anything about them. Part of the thrill of parenting, is the gamble about what kind of child you will end up with. To be able to choose the traits of your children, seems to make it all a bit superficial to me. Why not just grow them in a test tube?</p></div><p>That's the beautiful thing about freedom. Nobody is forcing you to screen your children. If you like this "thrill of parenting" then you can have it. You are free, you can have your children the "natural" way.<br>But why would you want to impose your ideas on others? Why do you want to restrict \_their\_ freedom, why take away their free choice?<br>Others might be happy doing other things then you. Others might prefer having their children screened. Others might not like this "thrill".<br>Why should your opinion be superior to theirs? What gives you the right to impose your opinion on them?</p><p>Good will is the worst enemy of a free state. I know the people trying to ban such screening are thinking they are doing good. But in fact they are forcing their will on others and they are reducing freedom, the very foundation that every western country is built upon. I find it very sad that this fascist line of thinking is still so very much present in our society.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have 2 children .
I love them dearly , and would never change anything about them .
Part of the thrill of parenting , is the gamble about what kind of child you will end up with .
To be able to choose the traits of your children , seems to make it all a bit superficial to me .
Why not just grow them in a test tube ? That 's the beautiful thing about freedom .
Nobody is forcing you to screen your children .
If you like this " thrill of parenting " then you can have it .
You are free , you can have your children the " natural " way.But why would you want to impose your ideas on others ?
Why do you want to restrict \ _their \ _ freedom , why take away their free choice ? Others might be happy doing other things then you .
Others might prefer having their children screened .
Others might not like this " thrill " .Why should your opinion be superior to theirs ?
What gives you the right to impose your opinion on them ? Good will is the worst enemy of a free state .
I know the people trying to ban such screening are thinking they are doing good .
But in fact they are forcing their will on others and they are reducing freedom , the very foundation that every western country is built upon .
I find it very sad that this fascist line of thinking is still so very much present in our society .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have 2 children.
I love them dearly, and would never change anything about them.
Part of the thrill of parenting, is the gamble about what kind of child you will end up with.
To be able to choose the traits of your children, seems to make it all a bit superficial to me.
Why not just grow them in a test tube?That's the beautiful thing about freedom.
Nobody is forcing you to screen your children.
If you like this "thrill of parenting" then you can have it.
You are free, you can have your children the "natural" way.But why would you want to impose your ideas on others?
Why do you want to restrict \_their\_ freedom, why take away their free choice?Others might be happy doing other things then you.
Others might prefer having their children screened.
Others might not like this "thrill".Why should your opinion be superior to theirs?
What gives you the right to impose your opinion on them?Good will is the worst enemy of a free state.
I know the people trying to ban such screening are thinking they are doing good.
But in fact they are forcing their will on others and they are reducing freedom, the very foundation that every western country is built upon.
I find it very sad that this fascist line of thinking is still so very much present in our society.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348401</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28349951</id>
	<title>Re:An Ethical Quandry without an easy answer</title>
	<author>SunTzuWarmaster</author>
	<datestamp>1245176340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Part of the thrill of parenting, is the gamble about what kind of child you will end up with. To be able to choose the traits of your children, seems to make it all a bit superficial to me. Why not just grow them in a test tube?"</p><p>So, I would be wrong to choose to be superficial?  Is growing babies in test tubes or on farms an inherrantly bad thing?  For one, it would probably increase the rate of child survival and decrease the pain and serious health risk of giving birth.</p><p>"I believe that there are forces in this world that we do not understand, that we should not understand, and that we should not meddle with because we don't understand them."</p><p>And if I want to meddle, then that should be illegal?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Part of the thrill of parenting , is the gamble about what kind of child you will end up with .
To be able to choose the traits of your children , seems to make it all a bit superficial to me .
Why not just grow them in a test tube ?
" So , I would be wrong to choose to be superficial ?
Is growing babies in test tubes or on farms an inherrantly bad thing ?
For one , it would probably increase the rate of child survival and decrease the pain and serious health risk of giving birth .
" I believe that there are forces in this world that we do not understand , that we should not understand , and that we should not meddle with because we do n't understand them .
" And if I want to meddle , then that should be illegal ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Part of the thrill of parenting, is the gamble about what kind of child you will end up with.
To be able to choose the traits of your children, seems to make it all a bit superficial to me.
Why not just grow them in a test tube?
"So, I would be wrong to choose to be superficial?
Is growing babies in test tubes or on farms an inherrantly bad thing?
For one, it would probably increase the rate of child survival and decrease the pain and serious health risk of giving birth.
"I believe that there are forces in this world that we do not understand, that we should not understand, and that we should not meddle with because we don't understand them.
"And if I want to meddle, then that should be illegal?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348401</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28350881</id>
	<title>Bad long-term strategy</title>
	<author>Locke2005</author>
	<datestamp>1245179280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Diversity is a survival factor. Any practice that becomes widespread enough to effectively limit genetic diversity is limiting the long-term survival potential of the species. In cellular terms, individuals that insist on making unlimited perfect copies of themselves are known as cancerous cells. Not good for the survival of the organism as a whole.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Diversity is a survival factor .
Any practice that becomes widespread enough to effectively limit genetic diversity is limiting the long-term survival potential of the species .
In cellular terms , individuals that insist on making unlimited perfect copies of themselves are known as cancerous cells .
Not good for the survival of the organism as a whole .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Diversity is a survival factor.
Any practice that becomes widespread enough to effectively limit genetic diversity is limiting the long-term survival potential of the species.
In cellular terms, individuals that insist on making unlimited perfect copies of themselves are known as cancerous cells.
Not good for the survival of the organism as a whole.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28349813</id>
	<title>Re:Now we'll have a genetic class-based society...</title>
	<author>smellsofbikes</author>
	<datestamp>1245175920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>&gt;The challenging part is that yeah, if I have the choice to prevent my future kids from developing life-shortening diseases, I've got to do it.<br><br>So that's the problem, then, isn't it: what counts as life-shortening diseases?<br>There's a correlation between being left-handed and dying of accidents.  So you'd want to select for a right-handed kid.<br>There's a correlation between height and income: tall people make more.  There's a correlation between income and average lifespan.  So you'd want to have a tall right-handed kid.<br>You can see where this is going: if you want to, you can justify almost any selection criterion as being life-extending, or at least life-enhancing.<br>There's no good line to draw.</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; The challenging part is that yeah , if I have the choice to prevent my future kids from developing life-shortening diseases , I 've got to do it.So that 's the problem , then , is n't it : what counts as life-shortening diseases ? There 's a correlation between being left-handed and dying of accidents .
So you 'd want to select for a right-handed kid.There 's a correlation between height and income : tall people make more .
There 's a correlation between income and average lifespan .
So you 'd want to have a tall right-handed kid.You can see where this is going : if you want to , you can justify almost any selection criterion as being life-extending , or at least life-enhancing.There 's no good line to draw .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;The challenging part is that yeah, if I have the choice to prevent my future kids from developing life-shortening diseases, I've got to do it.So that's the problem, then, isn't it: what counts as life-shortening diseases?There's a correlation between being left-handed and dying of accidents.
So you'd want to select for a right-handed kid.There's a correlation between height and income: tall people make more.
There's a correlation between income and average lifespan.
So you'd want to have a tall right-handed kid.You can see where this is going: if you want to, you can justify almost any selection criterion as being life-extending, or at least life-enhancing.There's no good line to draw.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348333</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28349507</id>
	<title>The Sociological Impacts of Nonrandom Births</title>
	<author>geoncic</author>
	<datestamp>1245174900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Think about the implications of couples decided to only have male babies for any reason, and there are many: Males statistically get paid more, more athletic, CHINA, etc. etc.

We could have an extremely lopsided society full of sexually frustrated males. That compounded with penis envy and more competition in the field of computer science could mean terrible wars.

Also, it may force many to become homosexual, and that would anger God and the republicans. We'd all be smited.

But in all seriousness, the socialogical impacts could be profoundly negative, in ways not even imagined, if this practice was widely adopted. Fulling with nature on this fundamental social level could really screw things up.

Thoughts?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Think about the implications of couples decided to only have male babies for any reason , and there are many : Males statistically get paid more , more athletic , CHINA , etc .
etc . We could have an extremely lopsided society full of sexually frustrated males .
That compounded with penis envy and more competition in the field of computer science could mean terrible wars .
Also , it may force many to become homosexual , and that would anger God and the republicans .
We 'd all be smited .
But in all seriousness , the socialogical impacts could be profoundly negative , in ways not even imagined , if this practice was widely adopted .
Fulling with nature on this fundamental social level could really screw things up .
Thoughts ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Think about the implications of couples decided to only have male babies for any reason, and there are many: Males statistically get paid more, more athletic, CHINA, etc.
etc.

We could have an extremely lopsided society full of sexually frustrated males.
That compounded with penis envy and more competition in the field of computer science could mean terrible wars.
Also, it may force many to become homosexual, and that would anger God and the republicans.
We'd all be smited.
But in all seriousness, the socialogical impacts could be profoundly negative, in ways not even imagined, if this practice was widely adopted.
Fulling with nature on this fundamental social level could really screw things up.
Thoughts?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28349025</id>
	<title>Re:Now we'll have a genetic class-based society...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245173280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All of your points can be equally and concisely rebutted by one simple mans name.</p><p>George Walker Bush.</p><p>Most powerful man on earth for eight years and doesn't match one single item on your list.</p><p>Well maybe strong, I don't really know about that we haven't arm wrestled lately.</p><p>People will always find their own traits to be attractive in others.  Being slender, blonde and blue eyed isn't going to get you anywhere in 99\% of the world, that's an anglo cultural attribute.</p><p>But you're correct about the disease thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All of your points can be equally and concisely rebutted by one simple mans name.George Walker Bush.Most powerful man on earth for eight years and does n't match one single item on your list.Well maybe strong , I do n't really know about that we have n't arm wrestled lately.People will always find their own traits to be attractive in others .
Being slender , blonde and blue eyed is n't going to get you anywhere in 99 \ % of the world , that 's an anglo cultural attribute.But you 're correct about the disease thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All of your points can be equally and concisely rebutted by one simple mans name.George Walker Bush.Most powerful man on earth for eight years and doesn't match one single item on your list.Well maybe strong, I don't really know about that we haven't arm wrestled lately.People will always find their own traits to be attractive in others.
Being slender, blonde and blue eyed isn't going to get you anywhere in 99\% of the world, that's an anglo cultural attribute.But you're correct about the disease thing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348333</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28356855</id>
	<title>Asperger's</title>
	<author>Seraphim\_72</author>
	<datestamp>1245165660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You would lose all of our geniuses in favor of the next Prom Queen. You would lose even the nerds.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You would lose all of our geniuses in favor of the next Prom Queen .
You would lose even the nerds .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You would lose all of our geniuses in favor of the next Prom Queen.
You would lose even the nerds.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348505</id>
	<title>Re:An Ethical Quandry without an easy answer</title>
	<author>starglider29a</author>
	<datestamp>1245171660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You must have a degree in Eugenics. I think that was tried without much success.<br> <br>
But since you brought it up, start naming the advances one could make. And while yer at it, take a look at several large, populous countries where religion isn't really a factor, then tell me all of the advancements THEY are making.<br> <br>
For being so "scientific", you sound more like John Lennon.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You must have a degree in Eugenics .
I think that was tried without much success .
But since you brought it up , start naming the advances one could make .
And while yer at it , take a look at several large , populous countries where religion is n't really a factor , then tell me all of the advancements THEY are making .
For being so " scientific " , you sound more like John Lennon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You must have a degree in Eugenics.
I think that was tried without much success.
But since you brought it up, start naming the advances one could make.
And while yer at it, take a look at several large, populous countries where religion isn't really a factor, then tell me all of the advancements THEY are making.
For being so "scientific", you sound more like John Lennon.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348205</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28353435</id>
	<title>The uncommon will dominate</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245145920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
When everyone can choose then the uncommon will be the unique and desired.
If everyone decides to have blond haired blue eyed kids then if you do not have it then you really stand out from the crowd and stand a better chance of being noticed and succeeding.
</p><p>
We have embryos screened for a short list of things that would normally result in the child not living to adult hood (typically a very poor quality life that is very short).  Maybe we did screen out the one that would cure cancer by the age of 12 but I will hedge my bets otherwise.  In my thinking all the embryos are a product of me and they are just testing the results of the DNA mix.  Nothing is changed, added or removed; only DNA profile is generated and analyzed.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When everyone can choose then the uncommon will be the unique and desired .
If everyone decides to have blond haired blue eyed kids then if you do not have it then you really stand out from the crowd and stand a better chance of being noticed and succeeding .
We have embryos screened for a short list of things that would normally result in the child not living to adult hood ( typically a very poor quality life that is very short ) .
Maybe we did screen out the one that would cure cancer by the age of 12 but I will hedge my bets otherwise .
In my thinking all the embryos are a product of me and they are just testing the results of the DNA mix .
Nothing is changed , added or removed ; only DNA profile is generated and analyzed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
When everyone can choose then the uncommon will be the unique and desired.
If everyone decides to have blond haired blue eyed kids then if you do not have it then you really stand out from the crowd and stand a better chance of being noticed and succeeding.
We have embryos screened for a short list of things that would normally result in the child not living to adult hood (typically a very poor quality life that is very short).
Maybe we did screen out the one that would cure cancer by the age of 12 but I will hedge my bets otherwise.
In my thinking all the embryos are a product of me and they are just testing the results of the DNA mix.
Nothing is changed, added or removed; only DNA profile is generated and analyzed.
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28352239</id>
	<title>Re:picking the sex is more evil</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245184500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is outlawed in India. Doesn't seem to help in most parts of the country.<br>Education seems to work - the states with highest levels of literacy have pretty normal sex ratios.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is outlawed in India .
Does n't seem to help in most parts of the country.Education seems to work - the states with highest levels of literacy have pretty normal sex ratios .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is outlawed in India.
Doesn't seem to help in most parts of the country.Education seems to work - the states with highest levels of literacy have pretty normal sex ratios.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348115</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28353845</id>
	<title>designer babies</title>
	<author>Nekomusume</author>
	<datestamp>1245147600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But.. but... I want a kid designed by HR Giger or Brian Froud.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But.. but... I want a kid designed by HR Giger or Brian Froud .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But.. but... I want a kid designed by HR Giger or Brian Froud.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348493</id>
	<title>Re:what is the big deal?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245171600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are there any records of (other) animals in nature, namely mothers, culling off her weaker children? Here are three examples.</p><p><a href="http://www.askmen.com/top\_10/entertainment/top-10-bad-animal-kingdom-mothers.html" title="askmen.com" rel="nofollow">Askmen Top 10 Bad Animal Kingdom Mothers</a> [askmen.com] </p><p><div class="quote"><p>Lioness:</p><p>Any cubs of less than 2 years old are killed by the male to stop any future rivals challenging him for the pride, and also to encourage the lionesses to go into heat, allowing him to begin his own dynasty. The lionesses allow this to happen -- a cruel edge to their mothering nature.</p> </div><p>Black Bears:</p><p>Black bears like to have litters of two or three cubs, as it takes a similar amount of effort to raise one cub as it does three. Because of this, it has been documented that if a black bear gives birth to just one cub, she will sometimes simply abandon it and will hope for a larger litter the following year. Unlike many animals that may abandon young which are sick or weak, the bear will abandon the youngster simply for being on its own.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>African Black Eagle:</p><p>The African Black Eagle usually lays two eggs, although one is generally no more than an insurance policy. The idea of an insurance policy is quite common in the animal kingdom, but it is the manner in which the unwanted young is disposed of which is particularly shocking. The mother will feed only one chick, and as it grows stronger it will peck its weaker sibling to death. What is especially gruesome about this is that the mother will look on impassively as her youngster is dispatched.</p></div><p>In hindsight, aborting a <i>potential human</i> in the womb seems a lot less brutal.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Are there any records of ( other ) animals in nature , namely mothers , culling off her weaker children ?
Here are three examples.Askmen Top 10 Bad Animal Kingdom Mothers [ askmen.com ] Lioness : Any cubs of less than 2 years old are killed by the male to stop any future rivals challenging him for the pride , and also to encourage the lionesses to go into heat , allowing him to begin his own dynasty .
The lionesses allow this to happen -- a cruel edge to their mothering nature .
Black Bears : Black bears like to have litters of two or three cubs , as it takes a similar amount of effort to raise one cub as it does three .
Because of this , it has been documented that if a black bear gives birth to just one cub , she will sometimes simply abandon it and will hope for a larger litter the following year .
Unlike many animals that may abandon young which are sick or weak , the bear will abandon the youngster simply for being on its own.African Black Eagle : The African Black Eagle usually lays two eggs , although one is generally no more than an insurance policy .
The idea of an insurance policy is quite common in the animal kingdom , but it is the manner in which the unwanted young is disposed of which is particularly shocking .
The mother will feed only one chick , and as it grows stronger it will peck its weaker sibling to death .
What is especially gruesome about this is that the mother will look on impassively as her youngster is dispatched.In hindsight , aborting a potential human in the womb seems a lot less brutal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are there any records of (other) animals in nature, namely mothers, culling off her weaker children?
Here are three examples.Askmen Top 10 Bad Animal Kingdom Mothers [askmen.com] Lioness:Any cubs of less than 2 years old are killed by the male to stop any future rivals challenging him for the pride, and also to encourage the lionesses to go into heat, allowing him to begin his own dynasty.
The lionesses allow this to happen -- a cruel edge to their mothering nature.
Black Bears:Black bears like to have litters of two or three cubs, as it takes a similar amount of effort to raise one cub as it does three.
Because of this, it has been documented that if a black bear gives birth to just one cub, she will sometimes simply abandon it and will hope for a larger litter the following year.
Unlike many animals that may abandon young which are sick or weak, the bear will abandon the youngster simply for being on its own.African Black Eagle:The African Black Eagle usually lays two eggs, although one is generally no more than an insurance policy.
The idea of an insurance policy is quite common in the animal kingdom, but it is the manner in which the unwanted young is disposed of which is particularly shocking.
The mother will feed only one chick, and as it grows stronger it will peck its weaker sibling to death.
What is especially gruesome about this is that the mother will look on impassively as her youngster is dispatched.In hindsight, aborting a potential human in the womb seems a lot less brutal.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348235</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28349455</id>
	<title>Re:Now we'll have a genetic class-based society...</title>
	<author>rastilin</author>
	<datestamp>1245174720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Want to grow up to become an athlete? Sorry, your parents couldn't afford to select genes that predispose you to becoming tall / strong / better cardiovascular function.

Want to grow up to become a model? Sorry, your parents couldn't afford to give you a slender physique, blond, and blue eyes.</p> </div><p>Which would be MUCH worse that how it is now where you can't do any of those things because of sheer luck. In this country even the useful nootropic drugs are banned because people are worried it will isolate groups from one another. Want to insure that this stuff doesn't discriminate? Make it free. Otherwise you're always going to have people who are genetically prevented from one thing or another.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The challenging part is that yeah, if I have the choice to prevent my future kids from developing life-shortening diseases, I've got to do it.</p> </div><p>I don't see the tough ethical choice here. Obviously we want the best for our children, so unless there are horrifying side effects, the answer is yes. Of course others will get all emo about it, sucks to be them. I wouldn't crush a child's potential just because having him succeed will stir up self-important idiots.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Want to grow up to become an athlete ?
Sorry , your parents could n't afford to select genes that predispose you to becoming tall / strong / better cardiovascular function .
Want to grow up to become a model ?
Sorry , your parents could n't afford to give you a slender physique , blond , and blue eyes .
Which would be MUCH worse that how it is now where you ca n't do any of those things because of sheer luck .
In this country even the useful nootropic drugs are banned because people are worried it will isolate groups from one another .
Want to insure that this stuff does n't discriminate ?
Make it free .
Otherwise you 're always going to have people who are genetically prevented from one thing or another.The challenging part is that yeah , if I have the choice to prevent my future kids from developing life-shortening diseases , I 've got to do it .
I do n't see the tough ethical choice here .
Obviously we want the best for our children , so unless there are horrifying side effects , the answer is yes .
Of course others will get all emo about it , sucks to be them .
I would n't crush a child 's potential just because having him succeed will stir up self-important idiots .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Want to grow up to become an athlete?
Sorry, your parents couldn't afford to select genes that predispose you to becoming tall / strong / better cardiovascular function.
Want to grow up to become a model?
Sorry, your parents couldn't afford to give you a slender physique, blond, and blue eyes.
Which would be MUCH worse that how it is now where you can't do any of those things because of sheer luck.
In this country even the useful nootropic drugs are banned because people are worried it will isolate groups from one another.
Want to insure that this stuff doesn't discriminate?
Make it free.
Otherwise you're always going to have people who are genetically prevented from one thing or another.The challenging part is that yeah, if I have the choice to prevent my future kids from developing life-shortening diseases, I've got to do it.
I don't see the tough ethical choice here.
Obviously we want the best for our children, so unless there are horrifying side effects, the answer is yes.
Of course others will get all emo about it, sucks to be them.
I wouldn't crush a child's potential just because having him succeed will stir up self-important idiots.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348333</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28355229</id>
	<title>We ALREADY design our babies</title>
	<author>sqrt(2)</author>
	<datestamp>1245155100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We are designing our babies when we choose (often poorly) who we want to reproduce with. It's the same way we've been doing "genetic engineering" for centuries with species of plants and animals. All the different food you eat wouldn't exist without man interfering and selectively breeding crops and livestock for desirable traits like larger body mass an higher resistance to frost. New techniques just make the process faster and easier with a higher success rate but when we apply these same technologies to     H. sapiens people freak out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We are designing our babies when we choose ( often poorly ) who we want to reproduce with .
It 's the same way we 've been doing " genetic engineering " for centuries with species of plants and animals .
All the different food you eat would n't exist without man interfering and selectively breeding crops and livestock for desirable traits like larger body mass an higher resistance to frost .
New techniques just make the process faster and easier with a higher success rate but when we apply these same technologies to H. sapiens people freak out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We are designing our babies when we choose (often poorly) who we want to reproduce with.
It's the same way we've been doing "genetic engineering" for centuries with species of plants and animals.
All the different food you eat wouldn't exist without man interfering and selectively breeding crops and livestock for desirable traits like larger body mass an higher resistance to frost.
New techniques just make the process faster and easier with a higher success rate but when we apply these same technologies to     H. sapiens people freak out.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28350661</id>
	<title>Re:I don't get it...</title>
	<author>T Murphy</author>
	<datestamp>1245178500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>One day a kid goes with his parents to some lab, where they go to a back room. There are rows and rows of freezers, and a man in a lab coat leads them to a certain row and certain column, opening the freezer there. He takes out a plate with a dozen small wells in it. The kid is handed a magnifying glass, and directed to peer into the little wells. In each one he discovers a dot, about the size of a pin head. Except one of the wells is empty, so the kid asks.<br>
"You were in that one", mom explains, "we had to decide which one we wanted to raise, and we picked you." His mom smiled and patted him on the head. <br>
"But what if I was that one?" he said, pointing at one of the dots. <br>
"Well, then we would have raised your brother there instead. But we didn't! We thought you were the most special," dad says.
"But what happens to them?" The kid points at the dots again.
"Someone will adopt them some day, right?" Mom turns to the scientist.
"Some people adopt. He had a 1 in 12 chance of being picked, but the adoptions come from any of the millions here" He waved his arm around at the rows and columns.</htmltext>
<tokenext>One day a kid goes with his parents to some lab , where they go to a back room .
There are rows and rows of freezers , and a man in a lab coat leads them to a certain row and certain column , opening the freezer there .
He takes out a plate with a dozen small wells in it .
The kid is handed a magnifying glass , and directed to peer into the little wells .
In each one he discovers a dot , about the size of a pin head .
Except one of the wells is empty , so the kid asks .
" You were in that one " , mom explains , " we had to decide which one we wanted to raise , and we picked you .
" His mom smiled and patted him on the head .
" But what if I was that one ?
" he said , pointing at one of the dots .
" Well , then we would have raised your brother there instead .
But we did n't !
We thought you were the most special , " dad says .
" But what happens to them ?
" The kid points at the dots again .
" Someone will adopt them some day , right ?
" Mom turns to the scientist .
" Some people adopt .
He had a 1 in 12 chance of being picked , but the adoptions come from any of the millions here " He waved his arm around at the rows and columns .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One day a kid goes with his parents to some lab, where they go to a back room.
There are rows and rows of freezers, and a man in a lab coat leads them to a certain row and certain column, opening the freezer there.
He takes out a plate with a dozen small wells in it.
The kid is handed a magnifying glass, and directed to peer into the little wells.
In each one he discovers a dot, about the size of a pin head.
Except one of the wells is empty, so the kid asks.
"You were in that one", mom explains, "we had to decide which one we wanted to raise, and we picked you.
" His mom smiled and patted him on the head.
"But what if I was that one?
" he said, pointing at one of the dots.
"Well, then we would have raised your brother there instead.
But we didn't!
We thought you were the most special," dad says.
"But what happens to them?
" The kid points at the dots again.
"Someone will adopt them some day, right?
" Mom turns to the scientist.
"Some people adopt.
He had a 1 in 12 chance of being picked, but the adoptions come from any of the millions here" He waved his arm around at the rows and columns.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348603</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28350777</id>
	<title>Re:An Ethical Quandry without an easy answer</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245178920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Claiming that there simply is no god, is just as a religious statement as saying there is one.  You're believing in something with no proof (the non-existence of god).</p></div><p>Replace "god" with "fairies", "Santa Claus", "Flying Spaghetti Monster", and now you just sound stupid. You should have no more trouble standing up and declaring "There is no god" as you would "There is no tooth fairy", for exactly the same amount of proof/lack of proof exists/does not exist for both.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Claiming that there simply is no god , is just as a religious statement as saying there is one .
You 're believing in something with no proof ( the non-existence of god ) .Replace " god " with " fairies " , " Santa Claus " , " Flying Spaghetti Monster " , and now you just sound stupid .
You should have no more trouble standing up and declaring " There is no god " as you would " There is no tooth fairy " , for exactly the same amount of proof/lack of proof exists/does not exist for both .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Claiming that there simply is no god, is just as a religious statement as saying there is one.
You're believing in something with no proof (the non-existence of god).Replace "god" with "fairies", "Santa Claus", "Flying Spaghetti Monster", and now you just sound stupid.
You should have no more trouble standing up and declaring "There is no god" as you would "There is no tooth fairy", for exactly the same amount of proof/lack of proof exists/does not exist for both.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348497</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28354543</id>
	<title>Re:An Ethical Quandry without an easy answer</title>
	<author>Wowlapalooza</author>
	<datestamp>1245151140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>Second, one thing that confuses me about these sorts of statements is this - presumably, you think religion is just some nonsense that stupid people latch on to. But even if you get rid of religion, people are still going to be stupid. What makes you think that these stupid people won't find something else to latch on to that has the same sort of negative effects as religion? In fact, getting rid of religion might leave a vacuum that could be filled by something worse...</p></div><p>That's a rather simplistic view. Is the stupidity of people a constant, or a variable? I think the major knock on religion is not that it is only a magnet for irrevocably stupid people, but that it attracts stupid people and then <b>keeps them stupid indefinitely</b> by making them think that their "faith" is a valid substitute for wisdom, understanding and/or independent thought.</p><p>Take away religion, those same stupid people would pursue other avenues of human endeavor, most of which offer opportunities for intellectual growth and enrichment, and at least the hope of becoming <i>less</i> stupid over time.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Second , one thing that confuses me about these sorts of statements is this - presumably , you think religion is just some nonsense that stupid people latch on to .
But even if you get rid of religion , people are still going to be stupid .
What makes you think that these stupid people wo n't find something else to latch on to that has the same sort of negative effects as religion ?
In fact , getting rid of religion might leave a vacuum that could be filled by something worse...That 's a rather simplistic view .
Is the stupidity of people a constant , or a variable ?
I think the major knock on religion is not that it is only a magnet for irrevocably stupid people , but that it attracts stupid people and then keeps them stupid indefinitely by making them think that their " faith " is a valid substitute for wisdom , understanding and/or independent thought.Take away religion , those same stupid people would pursue other avenues of human endeavor , most of which offer opportunities for intellectual growth and enrichment , and at least the hope of becoming less stupid over time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Second, one thing that confuses me about these sorts of statements is this - presumably, you think religion is just some nonsense that stupid people latch on to.
But even if you get rid of religion, people are still going to be stupid.
What makes you think that these stupid people won't find something else to latch on to that has the same sort of negative effects as religion?
In fact, getting rid of religion might leave a vacuum that could be filled by something worse...That's a rather simplistic view.
Is the stupidity of people a constant, or a variable?
I think the major knock on religion is not that it is only a magnet for irrevocably stupid people, but that it attracts stupid people and then keeps them stupid indefinitely by making them think that their "faith" is a valid substitute for wisdom, understanding and/or independent thought.Take away religion, those same stupid people would pursue other avenues of human endeavor, most of which offer opportunities for intellectual growth and enrichment, and at least the hope of becoming less stupid over time.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348491</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28351685</id>
	<title>Re:what is the big deal?</title>
	<author>JeanPaulBob</author>
	<datestamp>1245182220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>In hindsight, aborting a potential human in the womb seems a lot less brutal.</p></div></blockquote><p>
"Embryo" is a stage of development.  It doesn't indicate a distinct organism.<br>
<br>
It's certainly a potential "human adult"--and a potential "human infant", for that matter--but it's not a potential <i>human</i>.  It's a very-early-stage human.<br>
<br>
You can still argue from there that early-stage humans aren't as ethically significant as later-stage humans.  You can argue that there some particularly significant aspect of development.  (Peter Singer does so, and argue that even <i>infants</i> aren't "people" in the ethically significant sense. See his <a href="http://www.princeton.edu/~psinger/faq.html" title="princeton.edu">FAQ, section 3</a> [princeton.edu].)  You can argue the ethics of various kinds of human beings.  But at least keep the biology straight.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In hindsight , aborting a potential human in the womb seems a lot less brutal .
" Embryo " is a stage of development .
It does n't indicate a distinct organism .
It 's certainly a potential " human adult " --and a potential " human infant " , for that matter--but it 's not a potential human .
It 's a very-early-stage human .
You can still argue from there that early-stage humans are n't as ethically significant as later-stage humans .
You can argue that there some particularly significant aspect of development .
( Peter Singer does so , and argue that even infants are n't " people " in the ethically significant sense .
See his FAQ , section 3 [ princeton.edu ] .
) You can argue the ethics of various kinds of human beings .
But at least keep the biology straight .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In hindsight, aborting a potential human in the womb seems a lot less brutal.
"Embryo" is a stage of development.
It doesn't indicate a distinct organism.
It's certainly a potential "human adult"--and a potential "human infant", for that matter--but it's not a potential human.
It's a very-early-stage human.
You can still argue from there that early-stage humans aren't as ethically significant as later-stage humans.
You can argue that there some particularly significant aspect of development.
(Peter Singer does so, and argue that even infants aren't "people" in the ethically significant sense.
See his FAQ, section 3 [princeton.edu].
)  You can argue the ethics of various kinds of human beings.
But at least keep the biology straight.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348493</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348787</id>
	<title>Re:I am just waiting for</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245172620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Of course, if they could prove that sexual preference is genetic I believe we will see <i>a real market</i> with "We can guarantee your baby will NOT be gay"</p></div><p>There, fixed that for you.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course , if they could prove that sexual preference is genetic I believe we will see a real market with " We can guarantee your baby will NOT be gay " There , fixed that for you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course, if they could prove that sexual preference is genetic I believe we will see a real market with "We can guarantee your baby will NOT be gay"There, fixed that for you.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348337</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28350195</id>
	<title>Re:picking the sex is more evil</title>
	<author>VeNoM0619</author>
	<datestamp>1245177060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If the first two children were girls, the ratio for a third child was 1.51 to 1 &#226;" or about 50 percent greater &#226;" in favor of boys.</p></div><p>Heaven forbid flipping a coin 3 times, 1 of those 3 (33\%) would come up heads.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If the first two children were girls , the ratio for a third child was 1.51 to 1   " or about 50 percent greater   " in favor of boys.Heaven forbid flipping a coin 3 times , 1 of those 3 ( 33 \ % ) would come up heads .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the first two children were girls, the ratio for a third child was 1.51 to 1 â" or about 50 percent greater â" in favor of boys.Heaven forbid flipping a coin 3 times, 1 of those 3 (33\%) would come up heads.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348115</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28351423</id>
	<title>Re:Now we'll have a genetic class-based society...</title>
	<author>sexconker</author>
	<datestamp>1245181380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>On the contrary, I think that in the west, this procedure will be available to the unwashed octomoms to be.  We'll be sure to have built-in defects and variation to promote equality and diversity.</p><p>The normals will be paying for it, as usual.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>On the contrary , I think that in the west , this procedure will be available to the unwashed octomoms to be .
We 'll be sure to have built-in defects and variation to promote equality and diversity.The normals will be paying for it , as usual .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On the contrary, I think that in the west, this procedure will be available to the unwashed octomoms to be.
We'll be sure to have built-in defects and variation to promote equality and diversity.The normals will be paying for it, as usual.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348333</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28350863</id>
	<title>Re:An Ethical Quandry without an easy answer</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245179220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What makes you think that these stupid people won't find something else to latch on to that has the same sort of negative effects as religion? In fact, getting rid of religion might leave a vacuum that could be filled by something worse...</p></div><p>This fallacy is called a "False Dichotomy". If you accept that religion is bad then it is logical to want to be rid of it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What makes you think that these stupid people wo n't find something else to latch on to that has the same sort of negative effects as religion ?
In fact , getting rid of religion might leave a vacuum that could be filled by something worse...This fallacy is called a " False Dichotomy " .
If you accept that religion is bad then it is logical to want to be rid of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What makes you think that these stupid people won't find something else to latch on to that has the same sort of negative effects as religion?
In fact, getting rid of religion might leave a vacuum that could be filled by something worse...This fallacy is called a "False Dichotomy".
If you accept that religion is bad then it is logical to want to be rid of it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348491</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28352981</id>
	<title>Re:I am just waiting for</title>
	<author>Thaelon</author>
	<datestamp>1245144240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Of course, if they could prove that sexual preference is genetic I believe we will see some real outrage with "We can guarantee your baby will NOT be gay"</p></div></blockquote><p>What's wrong with that?  Don't get me wrong, I don't have anything against homosexuality.  But its the parents' right to choose, and what they decide to do with their baby is entirely up to them.  I would not presume to dictate what people can and can not do with regard to their unborn children.  Hell, I don't even like stepping in after birth unless there's a clear cut case of neglect.</p><p>Personally I don't know if I would bother screening out a homosexual child, but given that I know a homosexual human will have a more difficult life, I might be tempted to opt for a hetro baby.  I realize that choosing means the homosexual baby doesn't get to be hetero, but rather is never allowed to form, but I'd have to protect a homosexual child from more.  Not to mention I wouldn't be able to scope out chicks with him if born male.  Or explain the finer points of how to please a woman when he's old enough.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course , if they could prove that sexual preference is genetic I believe we will see some real outrage with " We can guarantee your baby will NOT be gay " What 's wrong with that ?
Do n't get me wrong , I do n't have anything against homosexuality .
But its the parents ' right to choose , and what they decide to do with their baby is entirely up to them .
I would not presume to dictate what people can and can not do with regard to their unborn children .
Hell , I do n't even like stepping in after birth unless there 's a clear cut case of neglect.Personally I do n't know if I would bother screening out a homosexual child , but given that I know a homosexual human will have a more difficult life , I might be tempted to opt for a hetro baby .
I realize that choosing means the homosexual baby does n't get to be hetero , but rather is never allowed to form , but I 'd have to protect a homosexual child from more .
Not to mention I would n't be able to scope out chicks with him if born male .
Or explain the finer points of how to please a woman when he 's old enough .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course, if they could prove that sexual preference is genetic I believe we will see some real outrage with "We can guarantee your baby will NOT be gay"What's wrong with that?
Don't get me wrong, I don't have anything against homosexuality.
But its the parents' right to choose, and what they decide to do with their baby is entirely up to them.
I would not presume to dictate what people can and can not do with regard to their unborn children.
Hell, I don't even like stepping in after birth unless there's a clear cut case of neglect.Personally I don't know if I would bother screening out a homosexual child, but given that I know a homosexual human will have a more difficult life, I might be tempted to opt for a hetro baby.
I realize that choosing means the homosexual baby doesn't get to be hetero, but rather is never allowed to form, but I'd have to protect a homosexual child from more.
Not to mention I wouldn't be able to scope out chicks with him if born male.
Or explain the finer points of how to please a woman when he's old enough.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348337</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348559</id>
	<title>Re:An Ethical Quandry without an easy answer</title>
	<author>mathx314</author>
	<datestamp>1245171840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Holy shit, it's just an expression!  To "play god" doesn't mean you have to believe in a god any more than celebrating a "holiday" means you think the day is holy, only that you're messing with forces that are beyond what human beings should toy with.  It's not necessarily religion that's holding back science and medicine.  Was Gattaca terrifying because of religion?  No, it was because of unintended consequences that arose because of dramatic changes to the way we viewed humanity as a result of people playing god.<br> <br>Congratulations on the knee-jerk reaction to religion.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Holy shit , it 's just an expression !
To " play god " does n't mean you have to believe in a god any more than celebrating a " holiday " means you think the day is holy , only that you 're messing with forces that are beyond what human beings should toy with .
It 's not necessarily religion that 's holding back science and medicine .
Was Gattaca terrifying because of religion ?
No , it was because of unintended consequences that arose because of dramatic changes to the way we viewed humanity as a result of people playing god .
Congratulations on the knee-jerk reaction to religion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Holy shit, it's just an expression!
To "play god" doesn't mean you have to believe in a god any more than celebrating a "holiday" means you think the day is holy, only that you're messing with forces that are beyond what human beings should toy with.
It's not necessarily religion that's holding back science and medicine.
Was Gattaca terrifying because of religion?
No, it was because of unintended consequences that arose because of dramatic changes to the way we viewed humanity as a result of people playing god.
Congratulations on the knee-jerk reaction to religion.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348205</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28353711</id>
	<title>Re:An Ethical Quandry without an easy answer</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245147000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"Her eyes are brown... that never happens"</p></div><p>Protip: that's not your child.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Her eyes are brown... that never happens " Protip : that 's not your child .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Her eyes are brown... that never happens"Protip: that's not your child.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348401</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348283</id>
	<title>Re:I don't get it...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245170700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Go, watch Gattaca, come back.</p><p>Then we talk.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Go , watch Gattaca , come back.Then we talk .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Go, watch Gattaca, come back.Then we talk.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348055</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348159</id>
	<title>The article</title>
	<author>zepo1a</author>
	<datestamp>1245170100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Looking at that baby designer GUI in the article...looks like that kid will have<br>
<br>
orange straight hair<br>
big brain<br>
talks alot<br>
will need glasses<br>
and have blue eyes.<br>
<br>
OMG, It's almost CARROT TOP!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Looking at that baby designer GUI in the article...looks like that kid will have orange straight hair big brain talks alot will need glasses and have blue eyes .
OMG , It 's almost CARROT TOP !
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Looking at that baby designer GUI in the article...looks like that kid will have

orange straight hair
big brain
talks alot
will need glasses
and have blue eyes.
OMG, It's almost CARROT TOP!
:)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28352599</id>
	<title>Re:Now we'll have a genetic class-based society...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245185940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your post boils down to this: our technology is advancing in every way, including our ability to select the qualities we want in our offspring. There are two ways to deal with the ethical dilemma present here. Either we try to restrict the technology (disallow the screening for eye/hair color) or learn to live with our own technology (disallow discrimination at work, insurance, etc based on our genes).</p><p>Technology evidently wants to be free as much as information.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your post boils down to this : our technology is advancing in every way , including our ability to select the qualities we want in our offspring .
There are two ways to deal with the ethical dilemma present here .
Either we try to restrict the technology ( disallow the screening for eye/hair color ) or learn to live with our own technology ( disallow discrimination at work , insurance , etc based on our genes ) .Technology evidently wants to be free as much as information .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your post boils down to this: our technology is advancing in every way, including our ability to select the qualities we want in our offspring.
There are two ways to deal with the ethical dilemma present here.
Either we try to restrict the technology (disallow the screening for eye/hair color) or learn to live with our own technology (disallow discrimination at work, insurance, etc based on our genes).Technology evidently wants to be free as much as information.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348333</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348055</id>
	<title>I don't get it...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245169620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>What's wrong with trying to get the eye color or hair color you want? What is the difference with that and picking the sex?<p>
I mean, if you can get just the kid you want...why not? What are the objections? Hell, when they can start letting you pick if you kid is going to be smart and/or athletic...are they gonna can that choice too?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's wrong with trying to get the eye color or hair color you want ?
What is the difference with that and picking the sex ?
I mean , if you can get just the kid you want...why not ?
What are the objections ?
Hell , when they can start letting you pick if you kid is going to be smart and/or athletic...are they gon na can that choice too ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's wrong with trying to get the eye color or hair color you want?
What is the difference with that and picking the sex?
I mean, if you can get just the kid you want...why not?
What are the objections?
Hell, when they can start letting you pick if you kid is going to be smart and/or athletic...are they gonna can that choice too?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348621</id>
	<title>Re:An Ethical Quandry without an easy answer</title>
	<author>plague3106</author>
	<datestamp>1245172020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Part of the thrill of parenting, is the gamble about what kind of child you will end up with. To be able to choose the traits of your children, seems to make it all a bit superficial to me.</i></p><p>Hmm... I wonder if you would be as thrilled when the child pops out with Downs or some other genetic disease.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Part of the thrill of parenting , is the gamble about what kind of child you will end up with .
To be able to choose the traits of your children , seems to make it all a bit superficial to me.Hmm... I wonder if you would be as thrilled when the child pops out with Downs or some other genetic disease .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Part of the thrill of parenting, is the gamble about what kind of child you will end up with.
To be able to choose the traits of your children, seems to make it all a bit superficial to me.Hmm... I wonder if you would be as thrilled when the child pops out with Downs or some other genetic disease.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348401</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348041</id>
	<title>It's not the eye color screening that bugs me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245169560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's when fertility clinics start to offer to change the hair or eye color (or other traits) of a baby to be.</p><p>I guess I'm just old fashioned.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's when fertility clinics start to offer to change the hair or eye color ( or other traits ) of a baby to be.I guess I 'm just old fashioned .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's when fertility clinics start to offer to change the hair or eye color (or other traits) of a baby to be.I guess I'm just old fashioned.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28350721</id>
	<title>not all uses of sex selection are social</title>
	<author>StandardDeviant</author>
	<datestamp>1245178680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not all uses of sex selection are for social reasons.  For example, I am male and have an X-chromosomal genetic disorder that I'd very much like to avoid giving to any of my (as yet purely hypothetical) children.  Ergo, for my putative offspring to be healthy [or at least avoid the disorder I've been afflicted with], they would have to be male as well.  So it might be appropriate to look at things with a bit more of a nuanced view than "it's absolutely evil and should be totally banned."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not all uses of sex selection are for social reasons .
For example , I am male and have an X-chromosomal genetic disorder that I 'd very much like to avoid giving to any of my ( as yet purely hypothetical ) children .
Ergo , for my putative offspring to be healthy [ or at least avoid the disorder I 've been afflicted with ] , they would have to be male as well .
So it might be appropriate to look at things with a bit more of a nuanced view than " it 's absolutely evil and should be totally banned .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not all uses of sex selection are for social reasons.
For example, I am male and have an X-chromosomal genetic disorder that I'd very much like to avoid giving to any of my (as yet purely hypothetical) children.
Ergo, for my putative offspring to be healthy [or at least avoid the disorder I've been afflicted with], they would have to be male as well.
So it might be appropriate to look at things with a bit more of a nuanced view than "it's absolutely evil and should be totally banned.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348115</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28357115</id>
	<title>Re:I am just waiting for</title>
	<author>mattwarden</author>
	<datestamp>1245167700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So what about any of that? Why do I not have the right screen for any of those things?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So what about any of that ?
Why do I not have the right screen for any of those things ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So what about any of that?
Why do I not have the right screen for any of those things?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348337</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28350791</id>
	<title>Re:Inadvertent selection</title>
	<author>sexconker</author>
	<datestamp>1245178980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And the army keeps around some color blind people to help read aerial photos.</p><p>They've got different pattern recognition shit going on, and can often spot shit that has been camouflaged.</p><p>(I don't know for sure if they still do this, what with computers and satellites and various wavelength sensors, but the Navy still has people navigate by sexton every night.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And the army keeps around some color blind people to help read aerial photos.They 've got different pattern recognition shit going on , and can often spot shit that has been camouflaged .
( I do n't know for sure if they still do this , what with computers and satellites and various wavelength sensors , but the Navy still has people navigate by sexton every night .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And the army keeps around some color blind people to help read aerial photos.They've got different pattern recognition shit going on, and can often spot shit that has been camouflaged.
(I don't know for sure if they still do this, what with computers and satellites and various wavelength sensors, but the Navy still has people navigate by sexton every night.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348389</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348401</id>
	<title>Re:An Ethical Quandry without an easy answer</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245171240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This really doesn't seem to be about religion to me.</p><p>I have 2 children. I love them dearly, and would never change anything about them. Part of the thrill of parenting, is the gamble about what kind of child you will end up with. To be able to choose the traits of your children, seems to make it all a bit superficial to me. Why not just grow them in a test tube?</p><p>Hell, why not just make baby farms as described in the Matrix? If we're going to take the gamble out of genetics, whats left for us?</p><p>As far as "Playing god" or whatever name you want to give it, "God" in this instance does not neccesarily refer to any given diety, but simply refers to the unknown force that normally determines the traits of your child.</p><p>I believe that there are forces in this world that we do not understand, that we should not understand, and that we should not meddle with because we don't understand them. Whether the decry came from the pope himself, or some guy living on the streets in new york, the message is still the same. By letting people choose their babies traits, we are taking away something that is profound.</p><p>When my first child was born, the first thing the nurse said to me was "Her eyes are brown... that never happens". I would not trade that moment for anything in the world.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This really does n't seem to be about religion to me.I have 2 children .
I love them dearly , and would never change anything about them .
Part of the thrill of parenting , is the gamble about what kind of child you will end up with .
To be able to choose the traits of your children , seems to make it all a bit superficial to me .
Why not just grow them in a test tube ? Hell , why not just make baby farms as described in the Matrix ?
If we 're going to take the gamble out of genetics , whats left for us ? As far as " Playing god " or whatever name you want to give it , " God " in this instance does not neccesarily refer to any given diety , but simply refers to the unknown force that normally determines the traits of your child.I believe that there are forces in this world that we do not understand , that we should not understand , and that we should not meddle with because we do n't understand them .
Whether the decry came from the pope himself , or some guy living on the streets in new york , the message is still the same .
By letting people choose their babies traits , we are taking away something that is profound.When my first child was born , the first thing the nurse said to me was " Her eyes are brown... that never happens " .
I would not trade that moment for anything in the world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This really doesn't seem to be about religion to me.I have 2 children.
I love them dearly, and would never change anything about them.
Part of the thrill of parenting, is the gamble about what kind of child you will end up with.
To be able to choose the traits of your children, seems to make it all a bit superficial to me.
Why not just grow them in a test tube?Hell, why not just make baby farms as described in the Matrix?
If we're going to take the gamble out of genetics, whats left for us?As far as "Playing god" or whatever name you want to give it, "God" in this instance does not neccesarily refer to any given diety, but simply refers to the unknown force that normally determines the traits of your child.I believe that there are forces in this world that we do not understand, that we should not understand, and that we should not meddle with because we don't understand them.
Whether the decry came from the pope himself, or some guy living on the streets in new york, the message is still the same.
By letting people choose their babies traits, we are taking away something that is profound.When my first child was born, the first thing the nurse said to me was "Her eyes are brown... that never happens".
I would not trade that moment for anything in the world.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348205</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348471</id>
	<title>Re:An Ethical Quandry without an easy answer</title>
	<author>Chris Burke</author>
	<datestamp>1245171480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Except there is no god, so you can't play him.</i></p><p>Nonsense.  By acting as a god, you play god, even if you don't think any gods exist.  You can play Satan too if you wished to.  Or Sauron for that matter.  The absence of a real god just means there's nobody to strike you down in the afterlife for your hubris.</p><p>There is still a valuable ethical lesson to take away from the concept.  Even atheist scientists can recognize this.  The point is, we are not omniscient, and messing with things we don't fully understand can have disastrous consequences.  The humility "don't play god" suggests you should have should also inspire caution and careful consideration of what you are doing, and this is a good thing.</p><p><i>Imagine all the advances in science and medicine if we could get religion out of the way.</i></p><p>Is religion blocking science all around the world, or is the minor but present advances made by other countries while the U.S. turned away from science in the last decade supposed to be so impressive that it is clear religion is leading us back to the dark ages?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except there is no god , so you ca n't play him.Nonsense .
By acting as a god , you play god , even if you do n't think any gods exist .
You can play Satan too if you wished to .
Or Sauron for that matter .
The absence of a real god just means there 's nobody to strike you down in the afterlife for your hubris.There is still a valuable ethical lesson to take away from the concept .
Even atheist scientists can recognize this .
The point is , we are not omniscient , and messing with things we do n't fully understand can have disastrous consequences .
The humility " do n't play god " suggests you should have should also inspire caution and careful consideration of what you are doing , and this is a good thing.Imagine all the advances in science and medicine if we could get religion out of the way.Is religion blocking science all around the world , or is the minor but present advances made by other countries while the U.S. turned away from science in the last decade supposed to be so impressive that it is clear religion is leading us back to the dark ages ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except there is no god, so you can't play him.Nonsense.
By acting as a god, you play god, even if you don't think any gods exist.
You can play Satan too if you wished to.
Or Sauron for that matter.
The absence of a real god just means there's nobody to strike you down in the afterlife for your hubris.There is still a valuable ethical lesson to take away from the concept.
Even atheist scientists can recognize this.
The point is, we are not omniscient, and messing with things we don't fully understand can have disastrous consequences.
The humility "don't play god" suggests you should have should also inspire caution and careful consideration of what you are doing, and this is a good thing.Imagine all the advances in science and medicine if we could get religion out of the way.Is religion blocking science all around the world, or is the minor but present advances made by other countries while the U.S. turned away from science in the last decade supposed to be so impressive that it is clear religion is leading us back to the dark ages?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348205</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28358007</id>
	<title>Re:picking the sex is more evil</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245177600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Something being an absolutely disgusting and morally abhorrent practice is not a good reason to outlaw it. Lying is legal. Adultery is legal. If something is going to be illegal, it should be because it actually hurts people or society.</p><p>That said, I am not sure I actually disagree with you: as you said in another post in this thread, a balanced sex ratio is important for a civil society. Otherwise the men get violent over getting a wife. (If there are too many women then nothing really goes majorly wrong...) For that reason, I could consider accepting anti-sex selection laws. (Except, of course, in whatever extreme cases might come up.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Something being an absolutely disgusting and morally abhorrent practice is not a good reason to outlaw it .
Lying is legal .
Adultery is legal .
If something is going to be illegal , it should be because it actually hurts people or society.That said , I am not sure I actually disagree with you : as you said in another post in this thread , a balanced sex ratio is important for a civil society .
Otherwise the men get violent over getting a wife .
( If there are too many women then nothing really goes majorly wrong... ) For that reason , I could consider accepting anti-sex selection laws .
( Except , of course , in whatever extreme cases might come up .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Something being an absolutely disgusting and morally abhorrent practice is not a good reason to outlaw it.
Lying is legal.
Adultery is legal.
If something is going to be illegal, it should be because it actually hurts people or society.That said, I am not sure I actually disagree with you: as you said in another post in this thread, a balanced sex ratio is important for a civil society.
Otherwise the men get violent over getting a wife.
(If there are too many women then nothing really goes majorly wrong...) For that reason, I could consider accepting anti-sex selection laws.
(Except, of course, in whatever extreme cases might come up.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348115</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28351791</id>
	<title>Re:I don't get it...</title>
	<author>Darinbob</author>
	<datestamp>1245182640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>My objection is it encourages more shallow people.  So you get a child that isn't the perfect piece of jewelry for you, just deal with it.  You have a baby with disabilities, then deal with it and grow in the process.  You want a girl because you already have 5 boys, and instead you get a 6th boy, then just deal with it and stop trying.  Learn to love the child you get, or don't have children.</htmltext>
<tokenext>My objection is it encourages more shallow people .
So you get a child that is n't the perfect piece of jewelry for you , just deal with it .
You have a baby with disabilities , then deal with it and grow in the process .
You want a girl because you already have 5 boys , and instead you get a 6th boy , then just deal with it and stop trying .
Learn to love the child you get , or do n't have children .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My objection is it encourages more shallow people.
So you get a child that isn't the perfect piece of jewelry for you, just deal with it.
You have a baby with disabilities, then deal with it and grow in the process.
You want a girl because you already have 5 boys, and instead you get a 6th boy, then just deal with it and stop trying.
Learn to love the child you get, or don't have children.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348603</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28350061</id>
	<title>Who cares!</title>
	<author>Sybert42</author>
	<datestamp>1245176640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Singularity will render this all moot anyway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Singularity will render this all moot anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Singularity will render this all moot anyway.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28349127</id>
	<title>Re:An Ethical Quandry without an easy answer</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245173640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Combining the words "science" and "religion" simply proves that you fail to understand what either one means. You mistakenly convince yourself that you are slandering the word "science" by applying a term of faith to it, thereby suggesting that religion and science are equally valid, which they are not. It's a weak word-play for those who lack the facts to back up their idiotic and foundless assertions.</p><p>Also, the idea that religion has receded is flat out ridiculous. Something like 90\% of Americans are religious. More than half believe in alien abductions and the after life. And something like half (or close to it) believe in creationism.</p><p>Another typical tactic of the religious, alongside trying to snare their own terms around "science" so as to discredit it by association, is to play the "we're so persecuted! our tiny small 90\% of the population! we are so bullied by the non-believers!".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Combining the words " science " and " religion " simply proves that you fail to understand what either one means .
You mistakenly convince yourself that you are slandering the word " science " by applying a term of faith to it , thereby suggesting that religion and science are equally valid , which they are not .
It 's a weak word-play for those who lack the facts to back up their idiotic and foundless assertions.Also , the idea that religion has receded is flat out ridiculous .
Something like 90 \ % of Americans are religious .
More than half believe in alien abductions and the after life .
And something like half ( or close to it ) believe in creationism.Another typical tactic of the religious , alongside trying to snare their own terms around " science " so as to discredit it by association , is to play the " we 're so persecuted !
our tiny small 90 \ % of the population !
we are so bullied by the non-believers !
" .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Combining the words "science" and "religion" simply proves that you fail to understand what either one means.
You mistakenly convince yourself that you are slandering the word "science" by applying a term of faith to it, thereby suggesting that religion and science are equally valid, which they are not.
It's a weak word-play for those who lack the facts to back up their idiotic and foundless assertions.Also, the idea that religion has receded is flat out ridiculous.
Something like 90\% of Americans are religious.
More than half believe in alien abductions and the after life.
And something like half (or close to it) believe in creationism.Another typical tactic of the religious, alongside trying to snare their own terms around "science" so as to discredit it by association, is to play the "we're so persecuted!
our tiny small 90\% of the population!
we are so bullied by the non-believers!
".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348483</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348563</id>
	<title>Re:An Ethical Quandry without an easy answer</title>
	<author>jenn\_13</author>
	<datestamp>1245171840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I wouldn't say that we "shouldn't" understand anything. But, when we don't (yet) understand what we're doing, we shouldn't mess with it lightly. In other words, I don't think it's such a great idea to take risks in "designing" babies to have particular superficial qualities (eye color, gender, etc), but it would be worthwhile if we can screen out a serious debilitating condition.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would n't say that we " should n't " understand anything .
But , when we do n't ( yet ) understand what we 're doing , we should n't mess with it lightly .
In other words , I do n't think it 's such a great idea to take risks in " designing " babies to have particular superficial qualities ( eye color , gender , etc ) , but it would be worthwhile if we can screen out a serious debilitating condition .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wouldn't say that we "shouldn't" understand anything.
But, when we don't (yet) understand what we're doing, we shouldn't mess with it lightly.
In other words, I don't think it's such a great idea to take risks in "designing" babies to have particular superficial qualities (eye color, gender, etc), but it would be worthwhile if we can screen out a serious debilitating condition.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348401</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28351069</id>
	<title>Re:An Ethical Quandry without an easy answer</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1245180000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nice fallacies. Once again no one can come up with an actual argument on why this is bad. Only the fear of removing the unknown seems to dictate your opinion.</p><p>"is the gamble about what kind of child you will end up with."<br>That's just sick.</p><p>You really can't tell the difference between growing them in a testube and selecting traits?</p><p>""Her eyes are brown... that never happens"."<br>Your nurse was an idiot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nice fallacies .
Once again no one can come up with an actual argument on why this is bad .
Only the fear of removing the unknown seems to dictate your opinion .
" is the gamble about what kind of child you will end up with .
" That 's just sick.You really ca n't tell the difference between growing them in a testube and selecting traits ?
" " Her eyes are brown... that never happens " .
" Your nurse was an idiot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nice fallacies.
Once again no one can come up with an actual argument on why this is bad.
Only the fear of removing the unknown seems to dictate your opinion.
"is the gamble about what kind of child you will end up with.
"That's just sick.You really can't tell the difference between growing them in a testube and selecting traits?
""Her eyes are brown... that never happens".
"Your nurse was an idiot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348401</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348333</id>
	<title>Now we'll have a genetic class-based society...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245170940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes, there may not be any holding back the tide, but genetic "screening", "designing", or whatever you want to call it has a real danger of helping create even more of a class-based society, this one even more difficult for individuals to breach.
<br> <br>
Keep in mind this procedure will only available to those who can afford it.
<br> <br>
Want to grow up to become an athlete?  Sorry, your parents couldn't afford to select genes that predispose you to becoming tall / strong / better cardiovascular function.
<br> <br>
Want to grow up to become a model?  Sorry, your parents couldn't afford to give you a slender physique, blond, and blue eyes.
<br> <br>
Want health insurance?  Sure, but it's going to be more expensive because your parents couldn't afford to eliminate your risk of ALS.
<br> <br>
The challenging part is that yeah, if I have the choice to prevent my future kids from developing life-shortening diseases, I've got to do it.
<br> <br>
Tough ethical choices ahead of us, imho.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , there may not be any holding back the tide , but genetic " screening " , " designing " , or whatever you want to call it has a real danger of helping create even more of a class-based society , this one even more difficult for individuals to breach .
Keep in mind this procedure will only available to those who can afford it .
Want to grow up to become an athlete ?
Sorry , your parents could n't afford to select genes that predispose you to becoming tall / strong / better cardiovascular function .
Want to grow up to become a model ?
Sorry , your parents could n't afford to give you a slender physique , blond , and blue eyes .
Want health insurance ?
Sure , but it 's going to be more expensive because your parents could n't afford to eliminate your risk of ALS .
The challenging part is that yeah , if I have the choice to prevent my future kids from developing life-shortening diseases , I 've got to do it .
Tough ethical choices ahead of us , imho .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, there may not be any holding back the tide, but genetic "screening", "designing", or whatever you want to call it has a real danger of helping create even more of a class-based society, this one even more difficult for individuals to breach.
Keep in mind this procedure will only available to those who can afford it.
Want to grow up to become an athlete?
Sorry, your parents couldn't afford to select genes that predispose you to becoming tall / strong / better cardiovascular function.
Want to grow up to become a model?
Sorry, your parents couldn't afford to give you a slender physique, blond, and blue eyes.
Want health insurance?
Sure, but it's going to be more expensive because your parents couldn't afford to eliminate your risk of ALS.
The challenging part is that yeah, if I have the choice to prevent my future kids from developing life-shortening diseases, I've got to do it.
Tough ethical choices ahead of us, imho.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28350837</id>
	<title>Maybe not such a bad thing ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245179100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe allowing the screening of traits isn't such a bad thing.  If the parents that wanted blondes also wanted smart kids it could help to increase our average overall intelligence.  There's a lot of truth to the movie Idocracy<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... the dumb breed much more prolifically than the smart.  This is evidenced by the over all lack of "nookie" for the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. target demographic.  We like to think that although unintentionally celibate, we are at least smarter than your average bear<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe allowing the screening of traits is n't such a bad thing .
If the parents that wanted blondes also wanted smart kids it could help to increase our average overall intelligence .
There 's a lot of truth to the movie Idocracy ... the dumb breed much more prolifically than the smart .
This is evidenced by the over all lack of " nookie " for the / .
target demographic .
We like to think that although unintentionally celibate , we are at least smarter than your average bear : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe allowing the screening of traits isn't such a bad thing.
If the parents that wanted blondes also wanted smart kids it could help to increase our average overall intelligence.
There's a lot of truth to the movie Idocracy ... the dumb breed much more prolifically than the smart.
This is evidenced by the over all lack of "nookie" for the /.
target demographic.
We like to think that although unintentionally celibate, we are at least smarter than your average bear :)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28350085</id>
	<title>Re:what is the big deal?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245176700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"In hindsight, aborting a potential human in the womb seems a lot less brutal."</p><p>Actually, I believe that argues in the opposite direction - we, as a society, perhaps should not declare someone "human" until they have proven it so?  I'd propose that beings remain "potential" humans until age 35 or until they display some overwhelming sign that they are indeed human.  Prior to that, they can be killed with impunity like the animals they are.</p><p>Too arbitrary?  Perhaps.  But the alternate, applying the Precautionary Principle and allowing "potential humans" to develop, would preclude the selection activities they are using.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" In hindsight , aborting a potential human in the womb seems a lot less brutal .
" Actually , I believe that argues in the opposite direction - we , as a society , perhaps should not declare someone " human " until they have proven it so ?
I 'd propose that beings remain " potential " humans until age 35 or until they display some overwhelming sign that they are indeed human .
Prior to that , they can be killed with impunity like the animals they are.Too arbitrary ?
Perhaps. But the alternate , applying the Precautionary Principle and allowing " potential humans " to develop , would preclude the selection activities they are using .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"In hindsight, aborting a potential human in the womb seems a lot less brutal.
"Actually, I believe that argues in the opposite direction - we, as a society, perhaps should not declare someone "human" until they have proven it so?
I'd propose that beings remain "potential" humans until age 35 or until they display some overwhelming sign that they are indeed human.
Prior to that, they can be killed with impunity like the animals they are.Too arbitrary?
Perhaps.  But the alternate, applying the Precautionary Principle and allowing "potential humans" to develop, would preclude the selection activities they are using.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348493</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348665</id>
	<title>Birthright Lottery</title>
	<author>Spy Handler</author>
	<datestamp>1245172200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Forbid anyone from breeding unless they are very lucky or very smart, and in a few generations we will have a population of geniuses and very lucky people.</p><p>To get into a position where u can forbid people from breeding is the hard part.... first there would have to be a total global economic collapse before u can seize power like that....  maybe after the Puppeteers leave</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Forbid anyone from breeding unless they are very lucky or very smart , and in a few generations we will have a population of geniuses and very lucky people.To get into a position where u can forbid people from breeding is the hard part.... first there would have to be a total global economic collapse before u can seize power like that.... maybe after the Puppeteers leave</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Forbid anyone from breeding unless they are very lucky or very smart, and in a few generations we will have a population of geniuses and very lucky people.To get into a position where u can forbid people from breeding is the hard part.... first there would have to be a total global economic collapse before u can seize power like that....  maybe after the Puppeteers leave</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28349517</id>
	<title>Slashdotters might care when...</title>
	<author>devleopard</author>
	<datestamp>1245174900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mr. and Mrs. Jones, we've been able to isolate the genetic material, and we see two possibilities. One will likely be very intelligent, but will prefer spending time alone on a computer to social interaction. The other will be physically fit, to the point of being a star football player. He won't be very intelligent, but he'll be very outgoing and should easily fit into all the popular crowds. Which one would you choose?</p><p>By the way, I have cystic fibrosis, and while it does suck, it's who I am. I like being a geek; I don't know what would have happened had a been a healthy strapping young lad.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mr. and Mrs. Jones , we 've been able to isolate the genetic material , and we see two possibilities .
One will likely be very intelligent , but will prefer spending time alone on a computer to social interaction .
The other will be physically fit , to the point of being a star football player .
He wo n't be very intelligent , but he 'll be very outgoing and should easily fit into all the popular crowds .
Which one would you choose ? By the way , I have cystic fibrosis , and while it does suck , it 's who I am .
I like being a geek ; I do n't know what would have happened had a been a healthy strapping young lad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mr. and Mrs. Jones, we've been able to isolate the genetic material, and we see two possibilities.
One will likely be very intelligent, but will prefer spending time alone on a computer to social interaction.
The other will be physically fit, to the point of being a star football player.
He won't be very intelligent, but he'll be very outgoing and should easily fit into all the popular crowds.
Which one would you choose?By the way, I have cystic fibrosis, and while it does suck, it's who I am.
I like being a geek; I don't know what would have happened had a been a healthy strapping young lad.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28351417</id>
	<title>Re:An Ethical Quandry without an easy answer</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245181320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are you out of your god damned mind?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you out of your god damned mind ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you out of your god damned mind?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348401</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348597</id>
	<title>Re:I don't get it...</title>
	<author>Khashishi</author>
	<datestamp>1245171960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Eye color and hair color are such trivialities. Sex is not, and will have profound impact on the child's life.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Eye color and hair color are such trivialities .
Sex is not , and will have profound impact on the child 's life .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Eye color and hair color are such trivialities.
Sex is not, and will have profound impact on the child's life.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348055</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28350919</id>
	<title>Re:I don't get it...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245179400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...this sort of selection and discarding is either a choice like many others that parents make or murder; take your pick.</p></div><p>I find it somewhat odd that this fertility clinic has decided to stop offering hair- and eye-color screening.  Most, if not all, of those that consider screening to be murder (I am one of them) would make no distinction between screening for eye color or genetic disease.  In other words, murder is murder and they (we) would be opposed to screening of any kind.  So why bow to pressure on just one or two points?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...this sort of selection and discarding is either a choice like many others that parents make or murder ; take your pick.I find it somewhat odd that this fertility clinic has decided to stop offering hair- and eye-color screening .
Most , if not all , of those that consider screening to be murder ( I am one of them ) would make no distinction between screening for eye color or genetic disease .
In other words , murder is murder and they ( we ) would be opposed to screening of any kind .
So why bow to pressure on just one or two points ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...this sort of selection and discarding is either a choice like many others that parents make or murder; take your pick.I find it somewhat odd that this fertility clinic has decided to stop offering hair- and eye-color screening.
Most, if not all, of those that consider screening to be murder (I am one of them) would make no distinction between screening for eye color or genetic disease.
In other words, murder is murder and they (we) would be opposed to screening of any kind.
So why bow to pressure on just one or two points?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348603</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348195</id>
	<title>Heavy Metal Baby</title>
	<author>Audiophyle</author>
	<datestamp>1245170280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Do they allow you choose whether the baby will have red irises, pre-painted black fingernails, a perm that needs no hair spray, and "Whitesnake" pre-tattooed on its chest?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do they allow you choose whether the baby will have red irises , pre-painted black fingernails , a perm that needs no hair spray , and " Whitesnake " pre-tattooed on its chest ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do they allow you choose whether the baby will have red irises, pre-painted black fingernails, a perm that needs no hair spray, and "Whitesnake" pre-tattooed on its chest?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348969</id>
	<title>If you make the screening tight enough...</title>
	<author>blind biker</author>
	<datestamp>1245173100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Einstein or Newton would (will) have never been born.</p><p>But whatever. Let humanity fuck itself, at this point I'm just going to watch from the side how things go down the wazoo.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Einstein or Newton would ( will ) have never been born.But whatever .
Let humanity fuck itself , at this point I 'm just going to watch from the side how things go down the wazoo .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Einstein or Newton would (will) have never been born.But whatever.
Let humanity fuck itself, at this point I'm just going to watch from the side how things go down the wazoo.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348603</id>
	<title>Re:I don't get it...</title>
	<author>CodeBuster</author>
	<datestamp>1245171960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>From what I understand, the principal objection of many people who are opposed to this sort of selection is that otherwise viable fertilized embryos, which do not meet the selection criteria, are discarded during the process. So, depending upon how one answers the "when does life begin?" question and the views one takes on the related issue of Abortion this sort of selection and discarding is either a choice like many others that parents make or murder; take your pick.</htmltext>
<tokenext>From what I understand , the principal objection of many people who are opposed to this sort of selection is that otherwise viable fertilized embryos , which do not meet the selection criteria , are discarded during the process .
So , depending upon how one answers the " when does life begin ?
" question and the views one takes on the related issue of Abortion this sort of selection and discarding is either a choice like many others that parents make or murder ; take your pick .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From what I understand, the principal objection of many people who are opposed to this sort of selection is that otherwise viable fertilized embryos, which do not meet the selection criteria, are discarded during the process.
So, depending upon how one answers the "when does life begin?
" question and the views one takes on the related issue of Abortion this sort of selection and discarding is either a choice like many others that parents make or murder; take your pick.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348055</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348205</id>
	<title>Re:An Ethical Quandry without an easy answer</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245170280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Except there is no god, so you can't play him. Once more, religion gets in the way of science.<br>Imagine all the advances in science and medicine if we could get religion out of the way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except there is no god , so you ca n't play him .
Once more , religion gets in the way of science.Imagine all the advances in science and medicine if we could get religion out of the way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except there is no god, so you can't play him.
Once more, religion gets in the way of science.Imagine all the advances in science and medicine if we could get religion out of the way.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348081</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28351763</id>
	<title>Re:An Ethical Quandry without an easy answer</title>
	<author>syousef</author>
	<datestamp>1245182520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>This really doesn't seem to be about religion to me.</i></p><p>Religious fervor seems perfectly reasonable and rational to the religious.</p><p><i>Part of the thrill of parenting, is the gamble about what kind of child you will end up with. </i></p><p>Perhaps there are others that don't enjoy this "thrill" and find it offputting or at best a trade off that they must currently make in order to be a parent. Just because you seem to enjoy the "gamble" as you put it, is not a good reason for pushing that belief on others. I wonder how in favour of gambling you'd be if your kids had special needs.</p><p><i>Hell, why not just make baby farms as described in the Matrix? If we're going to take the gamble out of genetics, whats left for us?</i></p><p>This is ridiculous. What's left is to raise a healthy child, perhaps one that has features you want. It's an illogical and disingenuous leap to start talking about baby farms or the matrix.</p><p>I think monkeys are moderating these days.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This really does n't seem to be about religion to me.Religious fervor seems perfectly reasonable and rational to the religious.Part of the thrill of parenting , is the gamble about what kind of child you will end up with .
Perhaps there are others that do n't enjoy this " thrill " and find it offputting or at best a trade off that they must currently make in order to be a parent .
Just because you seem to enjoy the " gamble " as you put it , is not a good reason for pushing that belief on others .
I wonder how in favour of gambling you 'd be if your kids had special needs.Hell , why not just make baby farms as described in the Matrix ?
If we 're going to take the gamble out of genetics , whats left for us ? This is ridiculous .
What 's left is to raise a healthy child , perhaps one that has features you want .
It 's an illogical and disingenuous leap to start talking about baby farms or the matrix.I think monkeys are moderating these days .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This really doesn't seem to be about religion to me.Religious fervor seems perfectly reasonable and rational to the religious.Part of the thrill of parenting, is the gamble about what kind of child you will end up with.
Perhaps there are others that don't enjoy this "thrill" and find it offputting or at best a trade off that they must currently make in order to be a parent.
Just because you seem to enjoy the "gamble" as you put it, is not a good reason for pushing that belief on others.
I wonder how in favour of gambling you'd be if your kids had special needs.Hell, why not just make baby farms as described in the Matrix?
If we're going to take the gamble out of genetics, whats left for us?This is ridiculous.
What's left is to raise a healthy child, perhaps one that has features you want.
It's an illogical and disingenuous leap to start talking about baby farms or the matrix.I think monkeys are moderating these days.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348401</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348389</id>
	<title>Inadvertent selection</title>
	<author>langelgjm</author>
	<datestamp>1245171180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I mean, if you can get just the kid you want...why not? What are the objections? Hell, when they can start letting you pick if you kid is going to be smart and/or athletic...are they gonna can that choice too?</p></div><p>One problem with allowing any sort of conscious selection on the part of humans is the possibility that we'll select against something we think is pernicious, but turns out to be beneficial - or something that has both pernicious and beneficial effects that we don't fully understand. For example, carrying a single sickle-cell anemia allele makes you more resistant to malaria.</p><p>Granted, selecting among several embryos to pick one that has X hair color or eye color probably won't approach this sort of danger, but as the technology advances, and people begin to select against all sorts of perceived pernicious traits, we may end up inadvertently eliminating a good deal of genetic diversity, which could prove to be very problematic.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I mean , if you can get just the kid you want...why not ?
What are the objections ?
Hell , when they can start letting you pick if you kid is going to be smart and/or athletic...are they gon na can that choice too ? One problem with allowing any sort of conscious selection on the part of humans is the possibility that we 'll select against something we think is pernicious , but turns out to be beneficial - or something that has both pernicious and beneficial effects that we do n't fully understand .
For example , carrying a single sickle-cell anemia allele makes you more resistant to malaria.Granted , selecting among several embryos to pick one that has X hair color or eye color probably wo n't approach this sort of danger , but as the technology advances , and people begin to select against all sorts of perceived pernicious traits , we may end up inadvertently eliminating a good deal of genetic diversity , which could prove to be very problematic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I mean, if you can get just the kid you want...why not?
What are the objections?
Hell, when they can start letting you pick if you kid is going to be smart and/or athletic...are they gonna can that choice too?One problem with allowing any sort of conscious selection on the part of humans is the possibility that we'll select against something we think is pernicious, but turns out to be beneficial - or something that has both pernicious and beneficial effects that we don't fully understand.
For example, carrying a single sickle-cell anemia allele makes you more resistant to malaria.Granted, selecting among several embryos to pick one that has X hair color or eye color probably won't approach this sort of danger, but as the technology advances, and people begin to select against all sorts of perceived pernicious traits, we may end up inadvertently eliminating a good deal of genetic diversity, which could prove to be very problematic.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348055</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348047</id>
	<title>what is the big deal?</title>
	<author>alen</author>
	<datestamp>1245169560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>some people may want their kids to look like them. or not</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>some people may want their kids to look like them .
or not</tokentext>
<sentencetext>some people may want their kids to look like them.
or not</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28351151</id>
	<title>Re:I don't get it...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245180360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>the principal objection of many people who are opposed to this sort of selection is that otherwise viable fertilized embryos, which do not meet the selection criteria, are discarded during the process.</p> </div><p>Um, except fertility clinics usually create 10-30 fertilized embryos. So they're not "otherwise viable" because no one is going to have 30 kids just because somebody fertilized an egg in a test tube for them.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>the principal objection of many people who are opposed to this sort of selection is that otherwise viable fertilized embryos , which do not meet the selection criteria , are discarded during the process .
Um , except fertility clinics usually create 10-30 fertilized embryos .
So they 're not " otherwise viable " because no one is going to have 30 kids just because somebody fertilized an egg in a test tube for them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the principal objection of many people who are opposed to this sort of selection is that otherwise viable fertilized embryos, which do not meet the selection criteria, are discarded during the process.
Um, except fertility clinics usually create 10-30 fertilized embryos.
So they're not "otherwise viable" because no one is going to have 30 kids just because somebody fertilized an egg in a test tube for them.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348603</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28350201</id>
	<title>Re:I don't get it...</title>
	<author>cayenne8</author>
	<datestamp>1245177060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>"I made my children the usual way, by fucking and waiting. And they look like me. And I like them the way they are. Sure, they have their quirks, but who doesn't?</i><p><i>

If you can't breed children, adopt some. There's no lack of children in the planet. "</i> </p><p>
I don't think there will be any shortage of people doing it the 'old fashioned' way like you. Hell, if I had a kid, I've often thought I'd want to be suprised at the sex of it, when it hit the atmosphere. I'm the kind of person, ever since being a kid, that I WANT to know where the Xmas gifts are hidden, so that I don't accidentally find them and ruin the surprise.</p><p>
That being said...I <b>do</b> want tests run on a potential child, especially at the age I'm getting to, to find out if it is malformed, genetically sick (such at down's syndrome, etc)...so I can get rid of it early, and try again for a normal kid.</p><p>
Aside from the mental and fiscal headaches a deformed or retarted child would provide...I am getting a bit older, and don't have the time and stamina to take care of a bad seed, and also try to keep having a normal one. I'm getting to the age soon to where I might have only one shot at a kid I'd keep...so, I want to start with the best I can start with.</p><p>
Mind you...I'm not that big on having a kid, but, if I ever decide to settle with a chick that wants one, I'd be thinking that way. I've spent most of my life to this point to avoid having them...got rid of a few of them in fact.</p><p>
So choosing what comes with one if I had one...really isn't that big a deal to me, especially if the choice is made pre-implantation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" I made my children the usual way , by fucking and waiting .
And they look like me .
And I like them the way they are .
Sure , they have their quirks , but who does n't ?
If you ca n't breed children , adopt some .
There 's no lack of children in the planet .
" I do n't think there will be any shortage of people doing it the 'old fashioned ' way like you .
Hell , if I had a kid , I 've often thought I 'd want to be suprised at the sex of it , when it hit the atmosphere .
I 'm the kind of person , ever since being a kid , that I WANT to know where the Xmas gifts are hidden , so that I do n't accidentally find them and ruin the surprise .
That being said...I do want tests run on a potential child , especially at the age I 'm getting to , to find out if it is malformed , genetically sick ( such at down 's syndrome , etc ) ...so I can get rid of it early , and try again for a normal kid .
Aside from the mental and fiscal headaches a deformed or retarted child would provide...I am getting a bit older , and do n't have the time and stamina to take care of a bad seed , and also try to keep having a normal one .
I 'm getting to the age soon to where I might have only one shot at a kid I 'd keep...so , I want to start with the best I can start with .
Mind you...I 'm not that big on having a kid , but , if I ever decide to settle with a chick that wants one , I 'd be thinking that way .
I 've spent most of my life to this point to avoid having them...got rid of a few of them in fact .
So choosing what comes with one if I had one...really is n't that big a deal to me , especially if the choice is made pre-implantation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I made my children the usual way, by fucking and waiting.
And they look like me.
And I like them the way they are.
Sure, they have their quirks, but who doesn't?
If you can't breed children, adopt some.
There's no lack of children in the planet.
" 
I don't think there will be any shortage of people doing it the 'old fashioned' way like you.
Hell, if I had a kid, I've often thought I'd want to be suprised at the sex of it, when it hit the atmosphere.
I'm the kind of person, ever since being a kid, that I WANT to know where the Xmas gifts are hidden, so that I don't accidentally find them and ruin the surprise.
That being said...I do want tests run on a potential child, especially at the age I'm getting to, to find out if it is malformed, genetically sick (such at down's syndrome, etc)...so I can get rid of it early, and try again for a normal kid.
Aside from the mental and fiscal headaches a deformed or retarted child would provide...I am getting a bit older, and don't have the time and stamina to take care of a bad seed, and also try to keep having a normal one.
I'm getting to the age soon to where I might have only one shot at a kid I'd keep...so, I want to start with the best I can start with.
Mind you...I'm not that big on having a kid, but, if I ever decide to settle with a chick that wants one, I'd be thinking that way.
I've spent most of my life to this point to avoid having them...got rid of a few of them in fact.
So choosing what comes with one if I had one...really isn't that big a deal to me, especially if the choice is made pre-implantation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348757</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28350611</id>
	<title>Re:I am just waiting for</title>
	<author>Locke2005</author>
	<datestamp>1245178380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>if they could prove that sexual preference is genetic</i> How could sexual preference be genetic? By definition, genetic traits are inherited from your parents. A gay gene would very quickly be eliminated from the gene pool! There are documented instances of twins where one was gay and one was straight, but I don't recall if they were fraternal or identical. Some susceptibility to "gayness" might be genetic, but I believe the current scientific data points more towards sexual preference being a lot like right or left handedness.</htmltext>
<tokenext>if they could prove that sexual preference is genetic How could sexual preference be genetic ?
By definition , genetic traits are inherited from your parents .
A gay gene would very quickly be eliminated from the gene pool !
There are documented instances of twins where one was gay and one was straight , but I do n't recall if they were fraternal or identical .
Some susceptibility to " gayness " might be genetic , but I believe the current scientific data points more towards sexual preference being a lot like right or left handedness .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if they could prove that sexual preference is genetic How could sexual preference be genetic?
By definition, genetic traits are inherited from your parents.
A gay gene would very quickly be eliminated from the gene pool!
There are documented instances of twins where one was gay and one was straight, but I don't recall if they were fraternal or identical.
Some susceptibility to "gayness" might be genetic, but I believe the current scientific data points more towards sexual preference being a lot like right or left handedness.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348337</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28357153</id>
	<title>Re:An Ethical Quandry without an easy answer</title>
	<author>mattwarden</author>
	<datestamp>1245168060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Uhhh, what? Stupid people are not harmful. It's aligning a bunch of stupid people in a common purpose (like keeling ze eenfeedels!) that is harmful. Relatedly, I don't think that religion like we have today could originate in our current atmosphere. Information flows too freely, and I don't see how we could end up with as many localizations of differing myths.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Uhhh , what ?
Stupid people are not harmful .
It 's aligning a bunch of stupid people in a common purpose ( like keeling ze eenfeedels !
) that is harmful .
Relatedly , I do n't think that religion like we have today could originate in our current atmosphere .
Information flows too freely , and I do n't see how we could end up with as many localizations of differing myths .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uhhh, what?
Stupid people are not harmful.
It's aligning a bunch of stupid people in a common purpose (like keeling ze eenfeedels!
) that is harmful.
Relatedly, I don't think that religion like we have today could originate in our current atmosphere.
Information flows too freely, and I don't see how we could end up with as many localizations of differing myths.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348491</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28354745</id>
	<title>Trait selection is bizarre and silly.</title>
	<author>mosb1000</author>
	<datestamp>1245152460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Who cares about these things?  Who is to say that one trait is better than another?  Maybe if you were making people for a specific purpose, but then you moved from the realm of bizarre and silly to the realm of creepy and evil.<br><br>This is the problem I have with in-vitro fertilization in general.  If you can't reproduce naturally, it is more healthy psychologically to accept it and look into other alternatives (like adoption, or helping your friends and siblings raise their children).  Going to extreme lengths to have children means that you are obsessed with it.  Parents who are obsessed with their children are bad parents.<br><br>If you are planning to have children, and planning what your children will be like, and planning to send them to the best college so they can be a doctor and make you proud, all you plans are really about you and your child's role as an extension of yourself.  You can say that you are doing it for their good, buy you have no way to know them or what they will want so any decision you make is really a projection of your own feelings.  This is generally what passes for parenting in our society, so I can't really fault someone who does this anymore than someone who tells their children they are worthless unless they go to college.<br><br>Still, it's all screwed up.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Who cares about these things ?
Who is to say that one trait is better than another ?
Maybe if you were making people for a specific purpose , but then you moved from the realm of bizarre and silly to the realm of creepy and evil.This is the problem I have with in-vitro fertilization in general .
If you ca n't reproduce naturally , it is more healthy psychologically to accept it and look into other alternatives ( like adoption , or helping your friends and siblings raise their children ) .
Going to extreme lengths to have children means that you are obsessed with it .
Parents who are obsessed with their children are bad parents.If you are planning to have children , and planning what your children will be like , and planning to send them to the best college so they can be a doctor and make you proud , all you plans are really about you and your child 's role as an extension of yourself .
You can say that you are doing it for their good , buy you have no way to know them or what they will want so any decision you make is really a projection of your own feelings .
This is generally what passes for parenting in our society , so I ca n't really fault someone who does this anymore than someone who tells their children they are worthless unless they go to college.Still , it 's all screwed up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who cares about these things?
Who is to say that one trait is better than another?
Maybe if you were making people for a specific purpose, but then you moved from the realm of bizarre and silly to the realm of creepy and evil.This is the problem I have with in-vitro fertilization in general.
If you can't reproduce naturally, it is more healthy psychologically to accept it and look into other alternatives (like adoption, or helping your friends and siblings raise their children).
Going to extreme lengths to have children means that you are obsessed with it.
Parents who are obsessed with their children are bad parents.If you are planning to have children, and planning what your children will be like, and planning to send them to the best college so they can be a doctor and make you proud, all you plans are really about you and your child's role as an extension of yourself.
You can say that you are doing it for their good, buy you have no way to know them or what they will want so any decision you make is really a projection of your own feelings.
This is generally what passes for parenting in our society, so I can't really fault someone who does this anymore than someone who tells their children they are worthless unless they go to college.Still, it's all screwed up.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348875</id>
	<title>I think it is ALL okay for other people</title>
	<author>erroneus</author>
	<datestamp>1245172920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not something I would like ever do.  I consider myself old fashioned in many ways.  But at the same time, I wouldn't even dream of imposing my ideals on other people.  And frankly the idea is rather fascinating even if it is a bit Frankenstein-like.</p><p>And in practice this could also lead to other things as well.  Screening against genetic diseases or ultimately, screening to promote useful mutations that could make living on other planets more possible.  This sort of thing is just at the beginning stages and the surface has barely been scratched.  We're just monkeys hitting rocks with bones relatively speaking.</p><p>How does a genetically selected child feel about him/herself?  It's hard to know until we find out.  Screening for better resistance to disease, better general health and a lot of things make children happier.  I had two half-brothers who both lived beyond their predicted life expectancy and it was a VERY miserable life for the both of them.  They had muscular dystrophy and to keep them ticking, they did all sorts of horrible things including fusing their spines and putting them in breathing machines.  They were not comfortable or happy.  (The kicker for me is that the MD gene was already identified before they were born and the choice was made to have children anyway... to me that is sick and disgusting especially after watching the results first-hand.)  So I can appreciate the viewpoint of screening and selection even to some extremes.</p><p>I have three sons.  They are all in good shape physically and mentally.  One outgrew asthma, the youngest tested positive for all sorts of allergies and seems to have outgrown or overcome them all.  But I consider that to be lucky, not evidence of some superiority or another.  But how nice would it be if your children don't need to suffer the way we did?  Got an "obesity gene" or two?  Screen for it.  Skin that freckles too much or is otherwise too white?  Nose too big?  Crowded teeth and need braces?</p><p>The only problem I have with this is that only rich people can afford this kind of thing and if it came to the point that only good-lookin' people were wealthy and the rest of us ugly people were poor, then I'd say we would have a problem that would be pretty hard to dig ourselves out of -- a genetic caste system.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not something I would like ever do .
I consider myself old fashioned in many ways .
But at the same time , I would n't even dream of imposing my ideals on other people .
And frankly the idea is rather fascinating even if it is a bit Frankenstein-like.And in practice this could also lead to other things as well .
Screening against genetic diseases or ultimately , screening to promote useful mutations that could make living on other planets more possible .
This sort of thing is just at the beginning stages and the surface has barely been scratched .
We 're just monkeys hitting rocks with bones relatively speaking.How does a genetically selected child feel about him/herself ?
It 's hard to know until we find out .
Screening for better resistance to disease , better general health and a lot of things make children happier .
I had two half-brothers who both lived beyond their predicted life expectancy and it was a VERY miserable life for the both of them .
They had muscular dystrophy and to keep them ticking , they did all sorts of horrible things including fusing their spines and putting them in breathing machines .
They were not comfortable or happy .
( The kicker for me is that the MD gene was already identified before they were born and the choice was made to have children anyway... to me that is sick and disgusting especially after watching the results first-hand .
) So I can appreciate the viewpoint of screening and selection even to some extremes.I have three sons .
They are all in good shape physically and mentally .
One outgrew asthma , the youngest tested positive for all sorts of allergies and seems to have outgrown or overcome them all .
But I consider that to be lucky , not evidence of some superiority or another .
But how nice would it be if your children do n't need to suffer the way we did ?
Got an " obesity gene " or two ?
Screen for it .
Skin that freckles too much or is otherwise too white ?
Nose too big ?
Crowded teeth and need braces ? The only problem I have with this is that only rich people can afford this kind of thing and if it came to the point that only good-lookin ' people were wealthy and the rest of us ugly people were poor , then I 'd say we would have a problem that would be pretty hard to dig ourselves out of -- a genetic caste system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not something I would like ever do.
I consider myself old fashioned in many ways.
But at the same time, I wouldn't even dream of imposing my ideals on other people.
And frankly the idea is rather fascinating even if it is a bit Frankenstein-like.And in practice this could also lead to other things as well.
Screening against genetic diseases or ultimately, screening to promote useful mutations that could make living on other planets more possible.
This sort of thing is just at the beginning stages and the surface has barely been scratched.
We're just monkeys hitting rocks with bones relatively speaking.How does a genetically selected child feel about him/herself?
It's hard to know until we find out.
Screening for better resistance to disease, better general health and a lot of things make children happier.
I had two half-brothers who both lived beyond their predicted life expectancy and it was a VERY miserable life for the both of them.
They had muscular dystrophy and to keep them ticking, they did all sorts of horrible things including fusing their spines and putting them in breathing machines.
They were not comfortable or happy.
(The kicker for me is that the MD gene was already identified before they were born and the choice was made to have children anyway... to me that is sick and disgusting especially after watching the results first-hand.
)  So I can appreciate the viewpoint of screening and selection even to some extremes.I have three sons.
They are all in good shape physically and mentally.
One outgrew asthma, the youngest tested positive for all sorts of allergies and seems to have outgrown or overcome them all.
But I consider that to be lucky, not evidence of some superiority or another.
But how nice would it be if your children don't need to suffer the way we did?
Got an "obesity gene" or two?
Screen for it.
Skin that freckles too much or is otherwise too white?
Nose too big?
Crowded teeth and need braces?The only problem I have with this is that only rich people can afford this kind of thing and if it came to the point that only good-lookin' people were wealthy and the rest of us ugly people were poor, then I'd say we would have a problem that would be pretty hard to dig ourselves out of -- a genetic caste system.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28349809</id>
	<title>Re:Now we'll have a genetic class-based society...</title>
	<author>celtic\_hackr</author>
	<datestamp>1245175920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Want to grow up to become an athlete?  Sorry, your parents couldn't afford to select genes that predispose you to becoming tall / strong / better cardiovascular function.</p></div><p>
Or you could do it the old fashioned way and eat healthy, stay away from unhealthy things, work out a lot and practice, practice, practice.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Want to grow up to become a model?  Sorry, your parents couldn't afford to give you a slender physique, blond, and blue eyes.</p></div><p>
Or you could just become anorexic like all the successful models</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Want health insurance?  Sure, but it's going to be more expensive because your parents couldn't afford to eliminate your risk of ALS.</p></div><p>
Good salient point.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The challenging part is that yeah, if I have the choice to prevent my future kids from developing life-shortening diseases, I've got to do it.



Tough ethical choices ahead of us, imho.</p></div><p> I don't see why this is an ethical issue. So people want children with particular traits. Traits that evolutionarily speaking would, most likely, be naturally selected more often than not anyway. Better genes going forward. Or at least the ones that would probably rank higher in desirability, which would be selected more anyway. I mean when the last time you said wow, that is one truly ugly person, I must mate with her/him? Selecting for better, faster, stronger, smarter, better looking, less disease prone mates (and thus hopefully children) is what natural selection is and always has been all about. So now we have a new, improved, tool to help the process along. Where's the moral dilemma? the only worry we should have is governments or religion dictating them, rather than individuals. Oh wait, that's what the Pope is doing! Be afraid, be very afraid.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Want to grow up to become an athlete ?
Sorry , your parents could n't afford to select genes that predispose you to becoming tall / strong / better cardiovascular function .
Or you could do it the old fashioned way and eat healthy , stay away from unhealthy things , work out a lot and practice , practice , practice.Want to grow up to become a model ?
Sorry , your parents could n't afford to give you a slender physique , blond , and blue eyes .
Or you could just become anorexic like all the successful modelsWant health insurance ?
Sure , but it 's going to be more expensive because your parents could n't afford to eliminate your risk of ALS .
Good salient point.The challenging part is that yeah , if I have the choice to prevent my future kids from developing life-shortening diseases , I 've got to do it .
Tough ethical choices ahead of us , imho .
I do n't see why this is an ethical issue .
So people want children with particular traits .
Traits that evolutionarily speaking would , most likely , be naturally selected more often than not anyway .
Better genes going forward .
Or at least the ones that would probably rank higher in desirability , which would be selected more anyway .
I mean when the last time you said wow , that is one truly ugly person , I must mate with her/him ?
Selecting for better , faster , stronger , smarter , better looking , less disease prone mates ( and thus hopefully children ) is what natural selection is and always has been all about .
So now we have a new , improved , tool to help the process along .
Where 's the moral dilemma ?
the only worry we should have is governments or religion dictating them , rather than individuals .
Oh wait , that 's what the Pope is doing !
Be afraid , be very afraid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Want to grow up to become an athlete?
Sorry, your parents couldn't afford to select genes that predispose you to becoming tall / strong / better cardiovascular function.
Or you could do it the old fashioned way and eat healthy, stay away from unhealthy things, work out a lot and practice, practice, practice.Want to grow up to become a model?
Sorry, your parents couldn't afford to give you a slender physique, blond, and blue eyes.
Or you could just become anorexic like all the successful modelsWant health insurance?
Sure, but it's going to be more expensive because your parents couldn't afford to eliminate your risk of ALS.
Good salient point.The challenging part is that yeah, if I have the choice to prevent my future kids from developing life-shortening diseases, I've got to do it.
Tough ethical choices ahead of us, imho.
I don't see why this is an ethical issue.
So people want children with particular traits.
Traits that evolutionarily speaking would, most likely, be naturally selected more often than not anyway.
Better genes going forward.
Or at least the ones that would probably rank higher in desirability, which would be selected more anyway.
I mean when the last time you said wow, that is one truly ugly person, I must mate with her/him?
Selecting for better, faster, stronger, smarter, better looking, less disease prone mates (and thus hopefully children) is what natural selection is and always has been all about.
So now we have a new, improved, tool to help the process along.
Where's the moral dilemma?
the only worry we should have is governments or religion dictating them, rather than individuals.
Oh wait, that's what the Pope is doing!
Be afraid, be very afraid.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348333</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348545</id>
	<title>Re:picking the sex is more evil</title>
	<author>Spy Handler</author>
	<datestamp>1245171780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>i agree it's a disgusting practice, but consider that the most common method of baby sex selection is simply aborting female fetuses.</p><p>So what you gonna do, outlaw abortion? This is Slashdot, mention anti-abortion or global warming skepticism or anything nice about Microsoft and be prepared for instant -1 (Troll)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>i agree it 's a disgusting practice , but consider that the most common method of baby sex selection is simply aborting female fetuses.So what you gon na do , outlaw abortion ?
This is Slashdot , mention anti-abortion or global warming skepticism or anything nice about Microsoft and be prepared for instant -1 ( Troll )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i agree it's a disgusting practice, but consider that the most common method of baby sex selection is simply aborting female fetuses.So what you gonna do, outlaw abortion?
This is Slashdot, mention anti-abortion or global warming skepticism or anything nice about Microsoft and be prepared for instant -1 (Troll)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348115</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28350399</id>
	<title>Screening before fertilization</title>
	<author>GeorgeMonroy</author>
	<datestamp>1245177660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can't screening be done before the eggs are fertilized?  To me a fertilized egg is a human at that point so whether it is implanted or not you are destroying a human life.  I would imagine that there should be a way to choose what traits you want from the sperm and egg instead of messing around with a fertilized egg/human.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ca n't screening be done before the eggs are fertilized ?
To me a fertilized egg is a human at that point so whether it is implanted or not you are destroying a human life .
I would imagine that there should be a way to choose what traits you want from the sperm and egg instead of messing around with a fertilized egg/human .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can't screening be done before the eggs are fertilized?
To me a fertilized egg is a human at that point so whether it is implanted or not you are destroying a human life.
I would imagine that there should be a way to choose what traits you want from the sperm and egg instead of messing around with a fertilized egg/human.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28349623</id>
	<title>Re:I am just waiting for</title>
	<author>yali</author>
	<datestamp>1245175320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Technically I'm going to be Godwinning the discussion, but for what it's worth, I'm not accusing anybody of anything, just throwing in some historical background...
</p><p>Early in the 20th century, a lot of very prominent, very reasonable people thought <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics#United\_States" title="wikipedia.org">eugenics</a> [wikipedia.org] was a good idea. People like Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Alexander Graham Bell were all supporters. It's only with the perspective of history (the horrors of WWII) that eugenics has been so widely viewed as a bad thing, because the holocaust was (among other things) a case of eugenics taken to an extreme.
</p><p>As a result, I think the historical evidence gives a lot of people enormous hesitation and unease about whether and how genetic screening / artificial selection can be done ethically. The Nazis were an extreme case and nobody is saying we're anywhere near that. (Tangent: Is that like an anti-Godwin? Does that mean I win the discussion?) But we need to figure out, as a society, where to draw lines so that we don't go down a slipperly slope. And for many people, the line is that we can screen out traits that will cause clear and unambiguous suffering, as long as the suffering is an intrinsic part of the condition and not a societal response (as would be the case, for example, for somebody born gay in a homophobic society).
</p><p>Bottom line, I think things like eye and hair color remind people too much of where eugenics has gone horribly, horribly wrong. And it's not just a matter of parents' individual choice, because if enough people do it, it changes the makeup of society and the gene pool for all future generations. So I think it is very reasonable that people want to make sure the technology doesn't outpace the ethical deliberations, so we can figure out rules and lines to draw.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Technically I 'm going to be Godwinning the discussion , but for what it 's worth , I 'm not accusing anybody of anything , just throwing in some historical background.. . Early in the 20th century , a lot of very prominent , very reasonable people thought eugenics [ wikipedia.org ] was a good idea .
People like Teddy Roosevelt , Woodrow Wilson , and Alexander Graham Bell were all supporters .
It 's only with the perspective of history ( the horrors of WWII ) that eugenics has been so widely viewed as a bad thing , because the holocaust was ( among other things ) a case of eugenics taken to an extreme .
As a result , I think the historical evidence gives a lot of people enormous hesitation and unease about whether and how genetic screening / artificial selection can be done ethically .
The Nazis were an extreme case and nobody is saying we 're anywhere near that .
( Tangent : Is that like an anti-Godwin ?
Does that mean I win the discussion ?
) But we need to figure out , as a society , where to draw lines so that we do n't go down a slipperly slope .
And for many people , the line is that we can screen out traits that will cause clear and unambiguous suffering , as long as the suffering is an intrinsic part of the condition and not a societal response ( as would be the case , for example , for somebody born gay in a homophobic society ) .
Bottom line , I think things like eye and hair color remind people too much of where eugenics has gone horribly , horribly wrong .
And it 's not just a matter of parents ' individual choice , because if enough people do it , it changes the makeup of society and the gene pool for all future generations .
So I think it is very reasonable that people want to make sure the technology does n't outpace the ethical deliberations , so we can figure out rules and lines to draw .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Technically I'm going to be Godwinning the discussion, but for what it's worth, I'm not accusing anybody of anything, just throwing in some historical background...
Early in the 20th century, a lot of very prominent, very reasonable people thought eugenics [wikipedia.org] was a good idea.
People like Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Alexander Graham Bell were all supporters.
It's only with the perspective of history (the horrors of WWII) that eugenics has been so widely viewed as a bad thing, because the holocaust was (among other things) a case of eugenics taken to an extreme.
As a result, I think the historical evidence gives a lot of people enormous hesitation and unease about whether and how genetic screening / artificial selection can be done ethically.
The Nazis were an extreme case and nobody is saying we're anywhere near that.
(Tangent: Is that like an anti-Godwin?
Does that mean I win the discussion?
) But we need to figure out, as a society, where to draw lines so that we don't go down a slipperly slope.
And for many people, the line is that we can screen out traits that will cause clear and unambiguous suffering, as long as the suffering is an intrinsic part of the condition and not a societal response (as would be the case, for example, for somebody born gay in a homophobic society).
Bottom line, I think things like eye and hair color remind people too much of where eugenics has gone horribly, horribly wrong.
And it's not just a matter of parents' individual choice, because if enough people do it, it changes the makeup of society and the gene pool for all future generations.
So I think it is very reasonable that people want to make sure the technology doesn't outpace the ethical deliberations, so we can figure out rules and lines to draw.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348337</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348899</id>
	<title>Just think about it.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245172920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you knew that you were going to be born with all of your imperfections.  Would you allow yourself to be born?  Then why would you choose for someone else?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you knew that you were going to be born with all of your imperfections .
Would you allow yourself to be born ?
Then why would you choose for someone else ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you knew that you were going to be born with all of your imperfections.
Would you allow yourself to be born?
Then why would you choose for someone else?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348339</id>
	<title>Re:I don't get it...</title>
	<author>smooth wombat</author>
	<datestamp>1245170940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><em>Hell, when they can start letting you pick if you kid is going to be smart and/or athletic...are they gonna can that choice too?</em>

<br> <br>

Most likely, it reminds people of at least one country where the government wanted a specific type of person.*  That, and if someone didn't like the eye/hair color, they would destroy the blob of cells which some people consider to be a person.  And we all know the Pope's stand on this subject.

<br> <br>

As far as picking the sex, there are numerous countries where a male child is wanted and if it's a girl, it is killed or sold.  This of course has a distinct downside.  See <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/04/13/60minutes/main1496589.shtml" title="cbsnews.com">this story</a> [cbsnews.com] for tidbits of the situation.

<br> <br>

*Funny how those who suffered the most are now demanding their own country be person specific with no "mixed blood".</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hell , when they can start letting you pick if you kid is going to be smart and/or athletic...are they gon na can that choice too ?
Most likely , it reminds people of at least one country where the government wanted a specific type of person .
* That , and if someone did n't like the eye/hair color , they would destroy the blob of cells which some people consider to be a person .
And we all know the Pope 's stand on this subject .
As far as picking the sex , there are numerous countries where a male child is wanted and if it 's a girl , it is killed or sold .
This of course has a distinct downside .
See this story [ cbsnews.com ] for tidbits of the situation .
* Funny how those who suffered the most are now demanding their own country be person specific with no " mixed blood " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hell, when they can start letting you pick if you kid is going to be smart and/or athletic...are they gonna can that choice too?
Most likely, it reminds people of at least one country where the government wanted a specific type of person.
*  That, and if someone didn't like the eye/hair color, they would destroy the blob of cells which some people consider to be a person.
And we all know the Pope's stand on this subject.
As far as picking the sex, there are numerous countries where a male child is wanted and if it's a girl, it is killed or sold.
This of course has a distinct downside.
See this story [cbsnews.com] for tidbits of the situation.
*Funny how those who suffered the most are now demanding their own country be person specific with no "mixed blood".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348055</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28349819</id>
	<title>Every sperm is sacred...</title>
	<author>advocate\_one</author>
	<datestamp>1245175920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> <tt>DAD:<br>There are Jews in the world.<br>There are Buddhists.<br>There are Hindus and Mormons, and then<br>There are those that follow Mohammed, but<br>I've never been one of them.<br> <br>I'm a Roman Catholic,<br>And have been since before I was born,<br>And the one thing they say about Catholics is:<br>They'll take you as soon as you're warm.<br> <br>You don't have to be a six-footer.<br>You don't have to have a great brain.<br>You don't have to have any clothes on. You're<br>A Catholic the moment Dad came,<br> <br>Because<br> <br>Every sperm is sacred.<br>Every sperm is great.<br>If a sperm is wasted,<br>God gets quite irate.<br> <br>CHILDREN:<br>Every sperm is sacred.<br>Every sperm is great.<br>If a sperm is wasted,<br>God gets quite irate.</tt></p></div> </blockquote><p>
with apologies to Monty Python... but as far as I'm concerned on this issue... the Pope is right... and the selection process shouldn't even screen for sex either...
</p><p>"Your comment has too few characters per line (currently 15.3)." WTF??????? This filtering is getting ridiculous... I was going to quote the entire song... but couldn't get round this stupid block...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>DAD : There are Jews in the world.There are Buddhists.There are Hindus and Mormons , and thenThere are those that follow Mohammed , butI 've never been one of them .
I 'm a Roman Catholic,And have been since before I was born,And the one thing they say about Catholics is : They 'll take you as soon as you 're warm .
You do n't have to be a six-footer.You do n't have to have a great brain.You do n't have to have any clothes on .
You'reA Catholic the moment Dad came , Because Every sperm is sacred.Every sperm is great.If a sperm is wasted,God gets quite irate .
CHILDREN : Every sperm is sacred.Every sperm is great.If a sperm is wasted,God gets quite irate .
with apologies to Monty Python... but as far as I 'm concerned on this issue... the Pope is right... and the selection process should n't even screen for sex either.. . " Your comment has too few characters per line ( currently 15.3 ) .
" WTF ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
This filtering is getting ridiculous... I was going to quote the entire song... but could n't get round this stupid block.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> DAD:There are Jews in the world.There are Buddhists.There are Hindus and Mormons, and thenThere are those that follow Mohammed, butI've never been one of them.
I'm a Roman Catholic,And have been since before I was born,And the one thing they say about Catholics is:They'll take you as soon as you're warm.
You don't have to be a six-footer.You don't have to have a great brain.You don't have to have any clothes on.
You'reA Catholic the moment Dad came, Because Every sperm is sacred.Every sperm is great.If a sperm is wasted,God gets quite irate.
CHILDREN:Every sperm is sacred.Every sperm is great.If a sperm is wasted,God gets quite irate.
with apologies to Monty Python... but as far as I'm concerned on this issue... the Pope is right... and the selection process shouldn't even screen for sex either...
"Your comment has too few characters per line (currently 15.3).
" WTF???????
This filtering is getting ridiculous... I was going to quote the entire song... but couldn't get round this stupid block...
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28349189</id>
	<title>Re:The Line Goes here</title>
	<author>religious freak</author>
	<datestamp>1245173820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We know where the line is <b>in the USA</b>.  Somehow I have a feeling Europe's line is a bit further out.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We know where the line is in the USA .
Somehow I have a feeling Europe 's line is a bit further out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We know where the line is in the USA.
Somehow I have a feeling Europe's line is a bit further out.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348263</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28352263</id>
	<title>Re:I don't get it...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245184620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"viable fertilized embryos" are not people. They have no rights, no feelings and we don't have to satisfy some fundamentalist idiots by pretending we don't care what color its eyes or hair are.</p><p>If I ever have to use the services of such a fertility clinic, I want the kid to be like I want him to be. It's my sperm, my wife's eggs, our money, our choice, our kid and no fundamentalist of any kind's fucking business. I'm not going to give up on some totally viable, predictable, and therefore influencable choices, such as hair or eye color in therms of embryos just to satisfy some misguided political correctness across the country.</p><p>Thanks for playing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" viable fertilized embryos " are not people .
They have no rights , no feelings and we do n't have to satisfy some fundamentalist idiots by pretending we do n't care what color its eyes or hair are.If I ever have to use the services of such a fertility clinic , I want the kid to be like I want him to be .
It 's my sperm , my wife 's eggs , our money , our choice , our kid and no fundamentalist of any kind 's fucking business .
I 'm not going to give up on some totally viable , predictable , and therefore influencable choices , such as hair or eye color in therms of embryos just to satisfy some misguided political correctness across the country.Thanks for playing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"viable fertilized embryos" are not people.
They have no rights, no feelings and we don't have to satisfy some fundamentalist idiots by pretending we don't care what color its eyes or hair are.If I ever have to use the services of such a fertility clinic, I want the kid to be like I want him to be.
It's my sperm, my wife's eggs, our money, our choice, our kid and no fundamentalist of any kind's fucking business.
I'm not going to give up on some totally viable, predictable, and therefore influencable choices, such as hair or eye color in therms of embryos just to satisfy some misguided political correctness across the country.Thanks for playing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348603</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28349647</id>
	<title>Re:An Ethical Quandry without an easy answer</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245175380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This argument, is in many ways, the epitome of an illogical argument. It has too many emotions and not enough facts as to why it would be bad to allow these choices.
<br> <br>
All you used to back up your claims were your own emotional perspectives on the subject. Being able to choose to not have a child with autism, or prone to breast cancer / diabetes / etc.. could not only make your life better as a care giver, but would also increase the quality and length of the life of the child.
<br> <br>
While we are at that point, who cares if you make their eyes blue or their hair brown? This is another instance of someone doing things that would make them happy that you want to stop even though it does not affect you in any way.
<br> <br>
Near the end you claim that there are forces in this world we do not understand and should not meddle with. You say that we should heed the warnings, no matter who they come from. This is very anti-science. If you never try new things, you will learn nothing in this world.
<br> <br>
You may not trade the moment of hearing your daughter had brown eyes, but you know what? Some people wouldn't trade hearing "The procedure worked! It's a girl with blue eyes and black hair!", and I'm for people being able to pick either option.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This argument , is in many ways , the epitome of an illogical argument .
It has too many emotions and not enough facts as to why it would be bad to allow these choices .
All you used to back up your claims were your own emotional perspectives on the subject .
Being able to choose to not have a child with autism , or prone to breast cancer / diabetes / etc.. could not only make your life better as a care giver , but would also increase the quality and length of the life of the child .
While we are at that point , who cares if you make their eyes blue or their hair brown ?
This is another instance of someone doing things that would make them happy that you want to stop even though it does not affect you in any way .
Near the end you claim that there are forces in this world we do not understand and should not meddle with .
You say that we should heed the warnings , no matter who they come from .
This is very anti-science .
If you never try new things , you will learn nothing in this world .
You may not trade the moment of hearing your daughter had brown eyes , but you know what ?
Some people would n't trade hearing " The procedure worked !
It 's a girl with blue eyes and black hair !
" , and I 'm for people being able to pick either option .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This argument, is in many ways, the epitome of an illogical argument.
It has too many emotions and not enough facts as to why it would be bad to allow these choices.
All you used to back up your claims were your own emotional perspectives on the subject.
Being able to choose to not have a child with autism, or prone to breast cancer / diabetes / etc.. could not only make your life better as a care giver, but would also increase the quality and length of the life of the child.
While we are at that point, who cares if you make their eyes blue or their hair brown?
This is another instance of someone doing things that would make them happy that you want to stop even though it does not affect you in any way.
Near the end you claim that there are forces in this world we do not understand and should not meddle with.
You say that we should heed the warnings, no matter who they come from.
This is very anti-science.
If you never try new things, you will learn nothing in this world.
You may not trade the moment of hearing your daughter had brown eyes, but you know what?
Some people wouldn't trade hearing "The procedure worked!
It's a girl with blue eyes and black hair!
", and I'm for people being able to pick either option.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348401</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28350007</id>
	<title>Re:An Ethical Quandry without an easy answer</title>
	<author>jacksdl</author>
	<datestamp>1245176460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes, surprises are wonderful.  Sometimes random chance produces a great outcome -- sometimes it doesn't.  Saying that making these decisions is "playing God" or that we aren't wise enough to make them is a cop out.  Either you're saying that you have no preference and all outcomes are equal -- or that the choices are too hard. <br> <br>

The choices are hard -- avoiding them isn't the answer.  As Stewart Brand said, "We are as gods and might as well get good at it."</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , surprises are wonderful .
Sometimes random chance produces a great outcome -- sometimes it does n't .
Saying that making these decisions is " playing God " or that we are n't wise enough to make them is a cop out .
Either you 're saying that you have no preference and all outcomes are equal -- or that the choices are too hard .
The choices are hard -- avoiding them is n't the answer .
As Stewart Brand said , " We are as gods and might as well get good at it .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, surprises are wonderful.
Sometimes random chance produces a great outcome -- sometimes it doesn't.
Saying that making these decisions is "playing God" or that we aren't wise enough to make them is a cop out.
Either you're saying that you have no preference and all outcomes are equal -- or that the choices are too hard.
The choices are hard -- avoiding them isn't the answer.
As Stewart Brand said, "We are as gods and might as well get good at it.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348401</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28357187</id>
	<title>Re:Now we'll have a genetic class-based society...</title>
	<author>mattwarden</author>
	<datestamp>1245168540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; genetic "screening", "designing", or whatever you want to call it<br>&gt; has a real danger of helping create even more of a class-based<br>&gt; society, this one even more difficult for individuals to breach.</p><p>Sorry, you seem to be unfamiliar with sexual selection principles. This already happens. Do you feel more comfortable because there is a bit more randomness that might make things a little more equal? This is the same old argument. Would you rather have everyone more equal even if it means everyone is worse off?</p><p>&gt; Keep in mind this procedure will only available to those who can<br>&gt; afford it.</p><p>Obviously...</p><p>&gt; Want to grow up to become an athlete? Sorry, your parents couldn't<br>&gt; afford to select genes that predispose you to becoming tall / strong<br>&gt; / better cardiovascular function.</p><p>The screening only alters the likelihood of getting what was already possible. It does not create new possibilities. It does not remove existing possibilities from poor people.</p><p>&gt; Want health insurance? Sure, but it's going to be more expensive<br>&gt; because your parents couldn't afford to eliminate your risk of ALS.</p><p>Actually, everyone's insurance premiums would be lower. Let me know if you need an explanation on how insurance works...</p><p>&gt; The challenging part is that yeah, if I have the choice to prevent<br>&gt; my future kids from developing life-shortening diseases, I've got<br>&gt; to do it.</p><p>And you should have the right to do it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; genetic " screening " , " designing " , or whatever you want to call it &gt; has a real danger of helping create even more of a class-based &gt; society , this one even more difficult for individuals to breach.Sorry , you seem to be unfamiliar with sexual selection principles .
This already happens .
Do you feel more comfortable because there is a bit more randomness that might make things a little more equal ?
This is the same old argument .
Would you rather have everyone more equal even if it means everyone is worse off ? &gt; Keep in mind this procedure will only available to those who can &gt; afford it.Obviously... &gt; Want to grow up to become an athlete ?
Sorry , your parents could n't &gt; afford to select genes that predispose you to becoming tall / strong &gt; / better cardiovascular function.The screening only alters the likelihood of getting what was already possible .
It does not create new possibilities .
It does not remove existing possibilities from poor people. &gt; Want health insurance ?
Sure , but it 's going to be more expensive &gt; because your parents could n't afford to eliminate your risk of ALS.Actually , everyone 's insurance premiums would be lower .
Let me know if you need an explanation on how insurance works... &gt; The challenging part is that yeah , if I have the choice to prevent &gt; my future kids from developing life-shortening diseases , I 've got &gt; to do it.And you should have the right to do it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; genetic "screening", "designing", or whatever you want to call it&gt; has a real danger of helping create even more of a class-based&gt; society, this one even more difficult for individuals to breach.Sorry, you seem to be unfamiliar with sexual selection principles.
This already happens.
Do you feel more comfortable because there is a bit more randomness that might make things a little more equal?
This is the same old argument.
Would you rather have everyone more equal even if it means everyone is worse off?&gt; Keep in mind this procedure will only available to those who can&gt; afford it.Obviously...&gt; Want to grow up to become an athlete?
Sorry, your parents couldn't&gt; afford to select genes that predispose you to becoming tall / strong&gt; / better cardiovascular function.The screening only alters the likelihood of getting what was already possible.
It does not create new possibilities.
It does not remove existing possibilities from poor people.&gt; Want health insurance?
Sure, but it's going to be more expensive&gt; because your parents couldn't afford to eliminate your risk of ALS.Actually, everyone's insurance premiums would be lower.
Let me know if you need an explanation on how insurance works...&gt; The challenging part is that yeah, if I have the choice to prevent&gt; my future kids from developing life-shortening diseases, I've got&gt; to do it.And you should have the right to do it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348333</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348247</id>
	<title>Re:picking the sex is more evil</title>
	<author>diskofish</author>
	<datestamp>1245170520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Disgusting or not, it alters the natural balance.  I suppose one way China is dealing with the droves of young, frustrated men is to give them guns and put them in the army.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Disgusting or not , it alters the natural balance .
I suppose one way China is dealing with the droves of young , frustrated men is to give them guns and put them in the army .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Disgusting or not, it alters the natural balance.
I suppose one way China is dealing with the droves of young, frustrated men is to give them guns and put them in the army.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348115</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28360771</id>
	<title>Re:An Ethical Quandry without an easy answer</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245249660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>And once again, Science gets in the way of humanity.</p></div><p>Mod parent up. For two reasons:</p><p>1) I am tired of the "religion is the root of all evil" retardedness that prevails on here and gets modded "insightful".</p><p>Anyone remember Nazi Germany!? Blindly and adamantly following science (Darwinism to the extreme) didn't exactly lead that country in what the rest of the world deemed a good or ethical direction.</p><p>2) What the poster is saying is accurate. Depression, anxiety, greed, etc. Are at all time highs in our society while religion bashing is becoming all the rage.</p><p>What puzzles me is why would you seek to destroy one of the only remaining institutions that works to call out all the bad things about humanity and trains and encourages people to overcome and eradicate those traits?</p><p>Of course every religious person is a hypocrit. But the point is many of them are at least trying to change because they BELIEVE they should be something better. Who cares why they believe it.</p><p>Embrace science all you want. It's done alot of good no doubt. My son would be dead without all the medical/technological advances we have now...</p><p>But without religion he might also be manically depressed, bored, etc without the hope and long term perspective that his religion provides him.</p><p>No doctor or scientist can currently say how long he'll live. At this point they can't even give him hope. But religion can and if that keeps him going for another year... another 10 years...</p><p>Why would anyone want to take away the only thing that can provide hope to people like that?</p><p>I'll answer.</p><p>Ignorance and close mindedness.</p><p>Personally I think screening is a good thing. Although I wouldn't trade my son for any other kid in the world I'm certainly thinking twice about having another that could possibly have the same condition.</p><p>So here I am a religious person actually entertaining the idea. Sorry if I broke anyones precious stereotype.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And once again , Science gets in the way of humanity.Mod parent up .
For two reasons : 1 ) I am tired of the " religion is the root of all evil " retardedness that prevails on here and gets modded " insightful " .Anyone remember Nazi Germany ! ?
Blindly and adamantly following science ( Darwinism to the extreme ) did n't exactly lead that country in what the rest of the world deemed a good or ethical direction.2 ) What the poster is saying is accurate .
Depression , anxiety , greed , etc .
Are at all time highs in our society while religion bashing is becoming all the rage.What puzzles me is why would you seek to destroy one of the only remaining institutions that works to call out all the bad things about humanity and trains and encourages people to overcome and eradicate those traits ? Of course every religious person is a hypocrit .
But the point is many of them are at least trying to change because they BELIEVE they should be something better .
Who cares why they believe it.Embrace science all you want .
It 's done alot of good no doubt .
My son would be dead without all the medical/technological advances we have now...But without religion he might also be manically depressed , bored , etc without the hope and long term perspective that his religion provides him.No doctor or scientist can currently say how long he 'll live .
At this point they ca n't even give him hope .
But religion can and if that keeps him going for another year... another 10 years...Why would anyone want to take away the only thing that can provide hope to people like that ? I 'll answer.Ignorance and close mindedness.Personally I think screening is a good thing .
Although I would n't trade my son for any other kid in the world I 'm certainly thinking twice about having another that could possibly have the same condition.So here I am a religious person actually entertaining the idea .
Sorry if I broke anyones precious stereotype .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And once again, Science gets in the way of humanity.Mod parent up.
For two reasons:1) I am tired of the "religion is the root of all evil" retardedness that prevails on here and gets modded "insightful".Anyone remember Nazi Germany!?
Blindly and adamantly following science (Darwinism to the extreme) didn't exactly lead that country in what the rest of the world deemed a good or ethical direction.2) What the poster is saying is accurate.
Depression, anxiety, greed, etc.
Are at all time highs in our society while religion bashing is becoming all the rage.What puzzles me is why would you seek to destroy one of the only remaining institutions that works to call out all the bad things about humanity and trains and encourages people to overcome and eradicate those traits?Of course every religious person is a hypocrit.
But the point is many of them are at least trying to change because they BELIEVE they should be something better.
Who cares why they believe it.Embrace science all you want.
It's done alot of good no doubt.
My son would be dead without all the medical/technological advances we have now...But without religion he might also be manically depressed, bored, etc without the hope and long term perspective that his religion provides him.No doctor or scientist can currently say how long he'll live.
At this point they can't even give him hope.
But religion can and if that keeps him going for another year... another 10 years...Why would anyone want to take away the only thing that can provide hope to people like that?I'll answer.Ignorance and close mindedness.Personally I think screening is a good thing.
Although I wouldn't trade my son for any other kid in the world I'm certainly thinking twice about having another that could possibly have the same condition.So here I am a religious person actually entertaining the idea.
Sorry if I broke anyones precious stereotype.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348483</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348631</id>
	<title>Re:picking the sex is more evil</title>
	<author>Khashishi</author>
	<datestamp>1245172080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Still, it's better to select sex before conception than after birth (infanticide). So let them select the sex of their child.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Still , it 's better to select sex before conception than after birth ( infanticide ) .
So let them select the sex of their child .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Still, it's better to select sex before conception than after birth (infanticide).
So let them select the sex of their child.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348115</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28350155</id>
	<title>Re:An Ethical Quandry without an easy answer</title>
	<author>Jake Griffin</author>
	<datestamp>1245176940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Except there is no god, so you can't play him.</p></div><p>Yea, and Heath Ledger never played The Joker, and millions and millions of parents around the world never played the Easter Bunny or Santa Clause. BTW, I am <i>not</i> comparing God (who I whole heartedly believe does exist) to these characters. I am simply pointing out the error in your logic.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Except there is no god , so you ca n't play him.Yea , and Heath Ledger never played The Joker , and millions and millions of parents around the world never played the Easter Bunny or Santa Clause .
BTW , I am not comparing God ( who I whole heartedly believe does exist ) to these characters .
I am simply pointing out the error in your logic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except there is no god, so you can't play him.Yea, and Heath Ledger never played The Joker, and millions and millions of parents around the world never played the Easter Bunny or Santa Clause.
BTW, I am not comparing God (who I whole heartedly believe does exist) to these characters.
I am simply pointing out the error in your logic.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348205</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28351815</id>
	<title>Even the pope ... come on man</title>
	<author>fish\_in\_the\_c</author>
	<datestamp>1245182760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>even the pope objected? The pope objects to in vitro fertilization as immoral and beneath the dignity of the human being.  Why would it be surprising to anybody that this is also objected too.</p><p>Simple fact, why wouldn&#226;(TM)t they do this? I mean either the embryos created in-vitro are human beings and should be treated with human dignity or they are a few cells of interesting chemicals.  In the first place in vitro fertilization itself if immoral , because it requires the destruction of human beings and sanitizes the creation of human persons in an unhealthy way removing it from the natural beauty within which every human person has a right to be created. Or in vitro is not immoral because all you have afterwards are some interesting chemicals.  Choosing the characteristics of those chemicals is supposed to be immoral why?</p><p>In my mind the answer is obvious in vitro fertilization is itself immoral, the pope would agree.<br>I think this hair, eye selection just makes it more obvious that what we are dealing with here are not simply , eggs, or embryos or chemicals, we are dealing with human beings who should be treated with the respect due to human beigns.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>even the pope objected ?
The pope objects to in vitro fertilization as immoral and beneath the dignity of the human being .
Why would it be surprising to anybody that this is also objected too.Simple fact , why wouldn   ( TM ) t they do this ?
I mean either the embryos created in-vitro are human beings and should be treated with human dignity or they are a few cells of interesting chemicals .
In the first place in vitro fertilization itself if immoral , because it requires the destruction of human beings and sanitizes the creation of human persons in an unhealthy way removing it from the natural beauty within which every human person has a right to be created .
Or in vitro is not immoral because all you have afterwards are some interesting chemicals .
Choosing the characteristics of those chemicals is supposed to be immoral why ? In my mind the answer is obvious in vitro fertilization is itself immoral , the pope would agree.I think this hair , eye selection just makes it more obvious that what we are dealing with here are not simply , eggs , or embryos or chemicals , we are dealing with human beings who should be treated with the respect due to human beigns .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>even the pope objected?
The pope objects to in vitro fertilization as immoral and beneath the dignity of the human being.
Why would it be surprising to anybody that this is also objected too.Simple fact, why wouldnâ(TM)t they do this?
I mean either the embryos created in-vitro are human beings and should be treated with human dignity or they are a few cells of interesting chemicals.
In the first place in vitro fertilization itself if immoral , because it requires the destruction of human beings and sanitizes the creation of human persons in an unhealthy way removing it from the natural beauty within which every human person has a right to be created.
Or in vitro is not immoral because all you have afterwards are some interesting chemicals.
Choosing the characteristics of those chemicals is supposed to be immoral why?In my mind the answer is obvious in vitro fertilization is itself immoral, the pope would agree.I think this hair, eye selection just makes it more obvious that what we are dealing with here are not simply , eggs, or embryos or chemicals, we are dealing with human beings who should be treated with the respect due to human beigns.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28441889</id>
	<title>Re:An Ethical Quandry without an easy answer</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245783060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>This really doesn't seem to be about religion to me.<br>

I have 2 children. I love them dearly, and would never change anything about them. Part of the thrill of parenting, is the gamble about what kind of child you will end up with.</p></div></blockquote><p>

As other posters have pointed out, that's pretty sick.</p><blockquote><div><p>To be able to choose the traits of your children, seems to make it all a bit superficial to me</p></div></blockquote><p>

So you think choosing for your child not to have MS, downs, breast cancer or any other screenable trait is "superficial"?  I think most people would choose to ensure their children didn't have such afflictions if they could.</p><blockquote><div><p>Why not just grow them in a test tube?</p></div></blockquote><p>

I suspect this is rhetorical, but I ask it back to you in all seriousness... why not?  If it were possible to gestate a child in a "test tube" (I would suggest an artificial womb would be necessary) then can you explain why that should be discouraged or illegal?  Two parents can pay a third party to carry their child to term, so what would be your objection to a woman who can't bear children from growing their child in an artificial womb?  If you have no objection to that, can an able-bodied woman use the same artificial womb?</p><blockquote><div><p>Hell, why not just make baby farms as described in the Matrix?</p></div> </blockquote><p>

This is purely emotive and does not really help the discussion.  I think we can agree that enslaving humans for power generation is a bad thing and move on.</p><blockquote><div><p>If we're going to take the gamble out of genetics, whats left for us?</p></div></blockquote><p>

Oh, I don't know, the part where you actually have to raise your children?  The part where you are responsible for their development and are involved in their lives?</p><blockquote><div><p>As far as "Playing god" or whatever name you want to give it, "God" in this instance does not neccesarily refer to any given diety, but simply refers to the unknown force that normally determines the traits of your child.</p></div></blockquote><p>

Are you sure you understand genetic reproduction?  There is no "unknown force that normally determines the traits of your child".  There is simply probability.</p><blockquote><div><p>I believe that there are forces in this world that we do not understand...</p></div></blockquote><p>

I agree.  Gravity being a good example.</p><blockquote><div><p>...that we should not understand,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></div></blockquote><p>

Er, no.  Seriously, NO.  Ignorance is never the answer, and refusing to even <b>try</b> and understand a "force" or phenomenon goes against the fundamental principles of the scientific method.</p><blockquote><div><p>...and that we should not meddle with because we don't understand them</p></div></blockquote><p>

You may have a point that some things beyond our current comprehension may require a large dose of caution, but we should always strive to improve our knowledge so that we <b>can</b> understand them in the future.</p><blockquote><div><p>Whether the decry came from the pope himself, or some guy living on the streets in new york, the message is still the same. By letting people choose their babies traits, we are taking away something that is profound.</p></div></blockquote><p>

And that would be... what?  What is this "profound" thing that has been "taken away"?</p><blockquote><div><p>When my first child was born, the first thing the nurse said to me was "Her eyes are brown... that never happens". I would not trade that moment for anything in the world.</p></div></blockquote><p>

And no-one is asking you to!  However you seem to imply that you would deny other people the right to choose the eye colour of their children.  And why would you do this?  Because it "take[s] away something that is profound", yet you don't say what that is?  Your argument isn't exactly convincing.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This really does n't seem to be about religion to me .
I have 2 children .
I love them dearly , and would never change anything about them .
Part of the thrill of parenting , is the gamble about what kind of child you will end up with .
As other posters have pointed out , that 's pretty sick.To be able to choose the traits of your children , seems to make it all a bit superficial to me So you think choosing for your child not to have MS , downs , breast cancer or any other screenable trait is " superficial " ?
I think most people would choose to ensure their children did n't have such afflictions if they could.Why not just grow them in a test tube ?
I suspect this is rhetorical , but I ask it back to you in all seriousness... why not ?
If it were possible to gestate a child in a " test tube " ( I would suggest an artificial womb would be necessary ) then can you explain why that should be discouraged or illegal ?
Two parents can pay a third party to carry their child to term , so what would be your objection to a woman who ca n't bear children from growing their child in an artificial womb ?
If you have no objection to that , can an able-bodied woman use the same artificial womb ? Hell , why not just make baby farms as described in the Matrix ?
This is purely emotive and does not really help the discussion .
I think we can agree that enslaving humans for power generation is a bad thing and move on.If we 're going to take the gamble out of genetics , whats left for us ?
Oh , I do n't know , the part where you actually have to raise your children ?
The part where you are responsible for their development and are involved in their lives ? As far as " Playing god " or whatever name you want to give it , " God " in this instance does not neccesarily refer to any given diety , but simply refers to the unknown force that normally determines the traits of your child .
Are you sure you understand genetic reproduction ?
There is no " unknown force that normally determines the traits of your child " .
There is simply probability.I believe that there are forces in this world that we do not understand.. . I agree .
Gravity being a good example....that we should not understand , .. . Er , no .
Seriously , NO .
Ignorance is never the answer , and refusing to even try and understand a " force " or phenomenon goes against the fundamental principles of the scientific method....and that we should not meddle with because we do n't understand them You may have a point that some things beyond our current comprehension may require a large dose of caution , but we should always strive to improve our knowledge so that we can understand them in the future.Whether the decry came from the pope himself , or some guy living on the streets in new york , the message is still the same .
By letting people choose their babies traits , we are taking away something that is profound .
And that would be... what ? What is this " profound " thing that has been " taken away " ? When my first child was born , the first thing the nurse said to me was " Her eyes are brown... that never happens " .
I would not trade that moment for anything in the world .
And no-one is asking you to !
However you seem to imply that you would deny other people the right to choose the eye colour of their children .
And why would you do this ?
Because it " take [ s ] away something that is profound " , yet you do n't say what that is ?
Your argument is n't exactly convincing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This really doesn't seem to be about religion to me.
I have 2 children.
I love them dearly, and would never change anything about them.
Part of the thrill of parenting, is the gamble about what kind of child you will end up with.
As other posters have pointed out, that's pretty sick.To be able to choose the traits of your children, seems to make it all a bit superficial to me

So you think choosing for your child not to have MS, downs, breast cancer or any other screenable trait is "superficial"?
I think most people would choose to ensure their children didn't have such afflictions if they could.Why not just grow them in a test tube?
I suspect this is rhetorical, but I ask it back to you in all seriousness... why not?
If it were possible to gestate a child in a "test tube" (I would suggest an artificial womb would be necessary) then can you explain why that should be discouraged or illegal?
Two parents can pay a third party to carry their child to term, so what would be your objection to a woman who can't bear children from growing their child in an artificial womb?
If you have no objection to that, can an able-bodied woman use the same artificial womb?Hell, why not just make baby farms as described in the Matrix?
This is purely emotive and does not really help the discussion.
I think we can agree that enslaving humans for power generation is a bad thing and move on.If we're going to take the gamble out of genetics, whats left for us?
Oh, I don't know, the part where you actually have to raise your children?
The part where you are responsible for their development and are involved in their lives?As far as "Playing god" or whatever name you want to give it, "God" in this instance does not neccesarily refer to any given diety, but simply refers to the unknown force that normally determines the traits of your child.
Are you sure you understand genetic reproduction?
There is no "unknown force that normally determines the traits of your child".
There is simply probability.I believe that there are forces in this world that we do not understand...

I agree.
Gravity being a good example....that we should not understand, ...

Er, no.
Seriously, NO.
Ignorance is never the answer, and refusing to even try and understand a "force" or phenomenon goes against the fundamental principles of the scientific method....and that we should not meddle with because we don't understand them

You may have a point that some things beyond our current comprehension may require a large dose of caution, but we should always strive to improve our knowledge so that we can understand them in the future.Whether the decry came from the pope himself, or some guy living on the streets in new york, the message is still the same.
By letting people choose their babies traits, we are taking away something that is profound.
And that would be... what?  What is this "profound" thing that has been "taken away"?When my first child was born, the first thing the nurse said to me was "Her eyes are brown... that never happens".
I would not trade that moment for anything in the world.
And no-one is asking you to!
However you seem to imply that you would deny other people the right to choose the eye colour of their children.
And why would you do this?
Because it "take[s] away something that is profound", yet you don't say what that is?
Your argument isn't exactly convincing.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348401</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28350731</id>
	<title>Re:I don't get it...</title>
	<author>sexconker</author>
	<datestamp>1245178740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Russians are demanding every citizen be a pure-bred Russian?</p><p>Putin is moving more quickly than we anticipated.<br>We're fucked.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Russians are demanding every citizen be a pure-bred Russian ? Putin is moving more quickly than we anticipated.We 're fucked .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Russians are demanding every citizen be a pure-bred Russian?Putin is moving more quickly than we anticipated.We're fucked.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348339</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28352521</id>
	<title>Why's everyone so down on randomness?</title>
	<author>wdnspoon</author>
	<datestamp>1245185580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The worst problem with controlling the genetics of \_any\_ population is that there's always going to be some trait which we don't fully comprehend the importance of. Obvious examples:
- Sickle cell anemia: considered a health problem to someone living in an American city, but elsewhere can provide life-saving resistance to malaria
- slow metabolism: while this makes you more likely to become fat/obese in a food-rich country spending your time indoors, you wouldn't want to be skinny if you had to hunt for every meal, and lived in the Canadian arctic (even with a Gortex coat you'd be at a disadvantage
- low IQ : there are plenty of jobs out there that normal/below average people are comfortable with, but the very intelligent would find unbearable.

And then, there's skin pigmentation: too little and you burn in the sun and need to wear sunscreen/stay inside, and too much and you produce less vitamin D and need to adjust your diet/stay outside.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The worst problem with controlling the genetics of \ _any \ _ population is that there 's always going to be some trait which we do n't fully comprehend the importance of .
Obvious examples : - Sickle cell anemia : considered a health problem to someone living in an American city , but elsewhere can provide life-saving resistance to malaria - slow metabolism : while this makes you more likely to become fat/obese in a food-rich country spending your time indoors , you would n't want to be skinny if you had to hunt for every meal , and lived in the Canadian arctic ( even with a Gortex coat you 'd be at a disadvantage - low IQ : there are plenty of jobs out there that normal/below average people are comfortable with , but the very intelligent would find unbearable .
And then , there 's skin pigmentation : too little and you burn in the sun and need to wear sunscreen/stay inside , and too much and you produce less vitamin D and need to adjust your diet/stay outside .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The worst problem with controlling the genetics of \_any\_ population is that there's always going to be some trait which we don't fully comprehend the importance of.
Obvious examples:
- Sickle cell anemia: considered a health problem to someone living in an American city, but elsewhere can provide life-saving resistance to malaria
- slow metabolism: while this makes you more likely to become fat/obese in a food-rich country spending your time indoors, you wouldn't want to be skinny if you had to hunt for every meal, and lived in the Canadian arctic (even with a Gortex coat you'd be at a disadvantage
- low IQ : there are plenty of jobs out there that normal/below average people are comfortable with, but the very intelligent would find unbearable.
And then, there's skin pigmentation: too little and you burn in the sun and need to wear sunscreen/stay inside, and too much and you produce less vitamin D and need to adjust your diet/stay outside.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28349997</id>
	<title>Your assumption rests on gross stereotype</title>
	<author>SuperKendall</author>
	<datestamp>1245176460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Want to grow up to become an athlete? Sorry, your parents couldn't afford to select genes that predispose you to becoming tall / strong / better cardiovascular function. </i><br><i>Want to grow up to become a model? Sorry, your parents couldn't afford to give you a slender physique, blond, and blue eyes. </i></p><p>Those are a really poor examples.  Even if you give a child those attributes they may not have the dexterity or will to really perform in sports.  By the time you kid grows up blond/blue eyed models may be as common as dirt - all you have is an attractive female.</p><p>Whatever you select for physically, is no guarantee of future success in anything - it's still up to the person to make those attributes work.  It may help a little but (in sports for example) it's not going to overcome someone with real drive for the subject.</p><p><i>Want health insurance? Sure, but it's going to be more expensive because your parents couldn't afford to eliminate your risk of ALS. </i></p><p>Not seeing the problem here.  You should be able to pay more up front to pay less for insurance over a lifetime, although that would in reality be a small factor in what you would pay compared to things like you being a smoker.</p><p>You should have to pay more for insurance if you are a higher risk.  If I choose to take up sky diving as a hobby I should pay for more life insurance, I am a greater risk  - any kind of insurance is all about balancing risk, and any attempt to skew away from that leads to financial ruin in the end.  The universe is not made to treat everyone equally and pretending like it should always fails eventually.</p><p><i>The challenging part is that yeah, if I have the choice to prevent my future kids from developing life-shortening diseases, I've got to do it. </i></p><p>I would have thought there to be a natural moral imperative to do so.  Do you *want* your kids to get ALS?  Do you not want them to have every advantage possible?  If you want kids you should do what you can to insure success.  Nature does this all the time and I don't see why we as a species have to hamstring ourselves.  If you are scared about people gaining advantage through genetic screening then why not go the other way and say all children should be raised in group homes so as not to have the advantage of a loving family?  That's unfair too, not everyone gets that.</p><p>In the end it's not going to give a huge advantage to the rich because as much as you design the initial person, environment is a huge factor in the person you eventually get.  Mixing genes from Winston Churchill, Ghandi, and Mother Teresa does not mean you'll necessarily get a good leader, or even a good short order cook. The rich have been able to spend money foolishly for all time and you would do well not to deny the natural impulse.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Want to grow up to become an athlete ?
Sorry , your parents could n't afford to select genes that predispose you to becoming tall / strong / better cardiovascular function .
Want to grow up to become a model ?
Sorry , your parents could n't afford to give you a slender physique , blond , and blue eyes .
Those are a really poor examples .
Even if you give a child those attributes they may not have the dexterity or will to really perform in sports .
By the time you kid grows up blond/blue eyed models may be as common as dirt - all you have is an attractive female.Whatever you select for physically , is no guarantee of future success in anything - it 's still up to the person to make those attributes work .
It may help a little but ( in sports for example ) it 's not going to overcome someone with real drive for the subject.Want health insurance ?
Sure , but it 's going to be more expensive because your parents could n't afford to eliminate your risk of ALS .
Not seeing the problem here .
You should be able to pay more up front to pay less for insurance over a lifetime , although that would in reality be a small factor in what you would pay compared to things like you being a smoker.You should have to pay more for insurance if you are a higher risk .
If I choose to take up sky diving as a hobby I should pay for more life insurance , I am a greater risk - any kind of insurance is all about balancing risk , and any attempt to skew away from that leads to financial ruin in the end .
The universe is not made to treat everyone equally and pretending like it should always fails eventually.The challenging part is that yeah , if I have the choice to prevent my future kids from developing life-shortening diseases , I 've got to do it .
I would have thought there to be a natural moral imperative to do so .
Do you * want * your kids to get ALS ?
Do you not want them to have every advantage possible ?
If you want kids you should do what you can to insure success .
Nature does this all the time and I do n't see why we as a species have to hamstring ourselves .
If you are scared about people gaining advantage through genetic screening then why not go the other way and say all children should be raised in group homes so as not to have the advantage of a loving family ?
That 's unfair too , not everyone gets that.In the end it 's not going to give a huge advantage to the rich because as much as you design the initial person , environment is a huge factor in the person you eventually get .
Mixing genes from Winston Churchill , Ghandi , and Mother Teresa does not mean you 'll necessarily get a good leader , or even a good short order cook .
The rich have been able to spend money foolishly for all time and you would do well not to deny the natural impulse .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Want to grow up to become an athlete?
Sorry, your parents couldn't afford to select genes that predispose you to becoming tall / strong / better cardiovascular function.
Want to grow up to become a model?
Sorry, your parents couldn't afford to give you a slender physique, blond, and blue eyes.
Those are a really poor examples.
Even if you give a child those attributes they may not have the dexterity or will to really perform in sports.
By the time you kid grows up blond/blue eyed models may be as common as dirt - all you have is an attractive female.Whatever you select for physically, is no guarantee of future success in anything - it's still up to the person to make those attributes work.
It may help a little but (in sports for example) it's not going to overcome someone with real drive for the subject.Want health insurance?
Sure, but it's going to be more expensive because your parents couldn't afford to eliminate your risk of ALS.
Not seeing the problem here.
You should be able to pay more up front to pay less for insurance over a lifetime, although that would in reality be a small factor in what you would pay compared to things like you being a smoker.You should have to pay more for insurance if you are a higher risk.
If I choose to take up sky diving as a hobby I should pay for more life insurance, I am a greater risk  - any kind of insurance is all about balancing risk, and any attempt to skew away from that leads to financial ruin in the end.
The universe is not made to treat everyone equally and pretending like it should always fails eventually.The challenging part is that yeah, if I have the choice to prevent my future kids from developing life-shortening diseases, I've got to do it.
I would have thought there to be a natural moral imperative to do so.
Do you *want* your kids to get ALS?
Do you not want them to have every advantage possible?
If you want kids you should do what you can to insure success.
Nature does this all the time and I don't see why we as a species have to hamstring ourselves.
If you are scared about people gaining advantage through genetic screening then why not go the other way and say all children should be raised in group homes so as not to have the advantage of a loving family?
That's unfair too, not everyone gets that.In the end it's not going to give a huge advantage to the rich because as much as you design the initial person, environment is a huge factor in the person you eventually get.
Mixing genes from Winston Churchill, Ghandi, and Mother Teresa does not mean you'll necessarily get a good leader, or even a good short order cook.
The rich have been able to spend money foolishly for all time and you would do well not to deny the natural impulse.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348333</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348421</id>
	<title>Re:An Ethical Quandry without an easy answer</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245171300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Playing God" is also an easy way to state the ethical quandary of making decisions in place of another being with their own free will. The phrase can be, and often is, religious, but it can also simply be another way of stating an atheistic ethical question.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Playing God " is also an easy way to state the ethical quandary of making decisions in place of another being with their own free will .
The phrase can be , and often is , religious , but it can also simply be another way of stating an atheistic ethical question .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Playing God" is also an easy way to state the ethical quandary of making decisions in place of another being with their own free will.
The phrase can be, and often is, religious, but it can also simply be another way of stating an atheistic ethical question.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348205</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28352919</id>
	<title>Re:I don't get it...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245144060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; *Funny how those who suffered the most are now demanding their own country be person specific with no "mixed blood".</p><p>I think I get what you're hinting at. I happen to be one of those blobs of cells in that country.</p><p>The only thing I "demand" is to lead a safe, free life. The way it's done right now leads to unfair treatment of some individuals, and I do regret that. I don't know of any better way, though, that will ensure my survival. If someone finds one, I'd support it.</p><p>The only discrimination I support is one based on a person's intent (such as, intentions to kill me and destroy my country), and has nothing to do with blood mixing. By the way, it's not hard to find what the intent is when a person publicly announces it. As a matter of fact, there is a very high correlation between certain "bloods" and those violent intentions, statements, and actions. So some people confuse the discrimination of intent with discrimination of race.</p><p>I wish for the day where those other blobs of cells, regardless of their "blood", will be content with just living beside me (as opposed to: living without me).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; * Funny how those who suffered the most are now demanding their own country be person specific with no " mixed blood " .I think I get what you 're hinting at .
I happen to be one of those blobs of cells in that country.The only thing I " demand " is to lead a safe , free life .
The way it 's done right now leads to unfair treatment of some individuals , and I do regret that .
I do n't know of any better way , though , that will ensure my survival .
If someone finds one , I 'd support it.The only discrimination I support is one based on a person 's intent ( such as , intentions to kill me and destroy my country ) , and has nothing to do with blood mixing .
By the way , it 's not hard to find what the intent is when a person publicly announces it .
As a matter of fact , there is a very high correlation between certain " bloods " and those violent intentions , statements , and actions .
So some people confuse the discrimination of intent with discrimination of race.I wish for the day where those other blobs of cells , regardless of their " blood " , will be content with just living beside me ( as opposed to : living without me ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; *Funny how those who suffered the most are now demanding their own country be person specific with no "mixed blood".I think I get what you're hinting at.
I happen to be one of those blobs of cells in that country.The only thing I "demand" is to lead a safe, free life.
The way it's done right now leads to unfair treatment of some individuals, and I do regret that.
I don't know of any better way, though, that will ensure my survival.
If someone finds one, I'd support it.The only discrimination I support is one based on a person's intent (such as, intentions to kill me and destroy my country), and has nothing to do with blood mixing.
By the way, it's not hard to find what the intent is when a person publicly announces it.
As a matter of fact, there is a very high correlation between certain "bloods" and those violent intentions, statements, and actions.
So some people confuse the discrimination of intent with discrimination of race.I wish for the day where those other blobs of cells, regardless of their "blood", will be content with just living beside me (as opposed to: living without me).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348339</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348081</id>
	<title>An Ethical Quandry without an easy answer</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245169740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>On the one hand, this is pre-implantation and thus does not require the abortion of a fetus - no harm no foul, right?. One the other hand, it could easily be argued that one is playing god when you begin screening embryos for superficial traits.<br> <br>Of course, if you choose to make the second argument, then one would also be playing god when embryos are screened for diseases, and thus should be disallowed as well.</htmltext>
<tokenext>On the one hand , this is pre-implantation and thus does not require the abortion of a fetus - no harm no foul , right ? .
One the other hand , it could easily be argued that one is playing god when you begin screening embryos for superficial traits .
Of course , if you choose to make the second argument , then one would also be playing god when embryos are screened for diseases , and thus should be disallowed as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On the one hand, this is pre-implantation and thus does not require the abortion of a fetus - no harm no foul, right?.
One the other hand, it could easily be argued that one is playing god when you begin screening embryos for superficial traits.
Of course, if you choose to make the second argument, then one would also be playing god when embryos are screened for diseases, and thus should be disallowed as well.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28350709</id>
	<title>Re:I don't get it...</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1245178680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"I'm not sure I get it either. As a subsequent poster points out, it's screening, not "designing". Couples are choosing among existing embryos."</p><p>And?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" I 'm not sure I get it either .
As a subsequent poster points out , it 's screening , not " designing " .
Couples are choosing among existing embryos .
" And ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I'm not sure I get it either.
As a subsequent poster points out, it's screening, not "designing".
Couples are choosing among existing embryos.
"And?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348277</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28350765</id>
	<title>"...even the Pope objected..."</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1245178860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A bizarre statement, considering the Pope's opinion of IVF in general.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A bizarre statement , considering the Pope 's opinion of IVF in general .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A bizarre statement, considering the Pope's opinion of IVF in general.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348957</id>
	<title>Re:I am just waiting for</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245173040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It won't. This is *screening*, not engineering.</p><p>Let's say my girlfriend and I (cue the imposter jokes), who are both Caucasian, decide to have a kid and go to this clinic. They give her a shot that makes her crazy fertile, and she creates a boatload of embryos.  Doctors then look through and throw out the embryos that have diseases, leaving them with a reduced pool. Then from that they can pick the one to be born.</p><p>Perhaps we could pick a kid who tans better, but no matter how hard we try the two of us cannot produce a baby of another race (I hate that word).</p><p>Also, I think the lack of even apparent correlation of homosexuality with family shows that its not genetic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It wo n't .
This is * screening * , not engineering.Let 's say my girlfriend and I ( cue the imposter jokes ) , who are both Caucasian , decide to have a kid and go to this clinic .
They give her a shot that makes her crazy fertile , and she creates a boatload of embryos .
Doctors then look through and throw out the embryos that have diseases , leaving them with a reduced pool .
Then from that they can pick the one to be born.Perhaps we could pick a kid who tans better , but no matter how hard we try the two of us can not produce a baby of another race ( I hate that word ) .Also , I think the lack of even apparent correlation of homosexuality with family shows that its not genetic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It won't.
This is *screening*, not engineering.Let's say my girlfriend and I (cue the imposter jokes), who are both Caucasian, decide to have a kid and go to this clinic.
They give her a shot that makes her crazy fertile, and she creates a boatload of embryos.
Doctors then look through and throw out the embryos that have diseases, leaving them with a reduced pool.
Then from that they can pick the one to be born.Perhaps we could pick a kid who tans better, but no matter how hard we try the two of us cannot produce a baby of another race (I hate that word).Also, I think the lack of even apparent correlation of homosexuality with family shows that its not genetic.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348337</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28349939</id>
	<title>pope?  what's a pope?</title>
	<author>TheGratefulNet</author>
	<datestamp>1245176280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>and why is this even relevant to the modern generation?</p><p>idiots in pointy hats count for nothing.  the guy (the office) stopped being relevant around the turn of the 20th century.</p><p>there isn't a bearded sky wizard.  there also isn't a santa claus or tooth fairy or easter bunny and people, once dead, don't rise up again (only to go back into hiding until some undisclosed time).</p><p>if you were told the jesus story and the names were all changed, you'd never believe in it and you'd think it was at the same level as oden and thor.</p><p>break free of the old delusions.  "free your mind and your ass will follow."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and why is this even relevant to the modern generation ? idiots in pointy hats count for nothing .
the guy ( the office ) stopped being relevant around the turn of the 20th century.there is n't a bearded sky wizard .
there also is n't a santa claus or tooth fairy or easter bunny and people , once dead , do n't rise up again ( only to go back into hiding until some undisclosed time ) .if you were told the jesus story and the names were all changed , you 'd never believe in it and you 'd think it was at the same level as oden and thor.break free of the old delusions .
" free your mind and your ass will follow .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and why is this even relevant to the modern generation?idiots in pointy hats count for nothing.
the guy (the office) stopped being relevant around the turn of the 20th century.there isn't a bearded sky wizard.
there also isn't a santa claus or tooth fairy or easter bunny and people, once dead, don't rise up again (only to go back into hiding until some undisclosed time).if you were told the jesus story and the names were all changed, you'd never believe in it and you'd think it was at the same level as oden and thor.break free of the old delusions.
"free your mind and your ass will follow.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348953</id>
	<title>Why this whole thing is ridiculus</title>
	<author>gnesterenko</author>
	<datestamp>1245173040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>@immakaku
<br>
"Kind of off-topic: but I think we're going down a slippery slope when we start screening DNA. It works against the process of evolution. What if there's a new fatal disease that only people with the breast cancer trait are equipped to fight?"

<p>
I would respond that the minute humanity developed the printing press and started practicing medicine which sustains people well past their natural point of death, evolution as we know it went out the window. I aggree with your point, but you've LOOONG missed the boat on that one. Any modern medical procedure cheats evolution so by your logic, we should abandon all medicine - again a point I aggree with since overpopulation is responsible for most of the worlds problems - but its not a solution any "sane" society would adopt - short of being faced with extinction as an alternative.

</p><p>
@svendensen
<br>
"Personally I don't want some religion to tell me what medical procedures I can/cannot have because they think their holy book would approve/disapprove."
<br>
+1 to that buddy

</p><p>
@nasor
<br>
"There seems to me to be a difference between "designing" a baby with genetic engineering or some such vs. simply screening a bunch of fertilized eggs and selecting the one you want. But of course, if the media called it "screening" rather than "designing," people wouldn't get nearly as worked up about it - and they know this, so they go with the more provocative language."
<br>
A BIG +1 to that.

</p><p>
And finally @Radtastik
<br>
You are absolutely right that this will create a class society - that Gattaca movie was nothing short of a prophecy IMO. My counterargument is that if you awnt to make an omelette, you gotta break some eggs. In other words, should the rights of those unable to afford such procedures be put ahead of human progress? Such technology may be expensive at first, but with use will be come stanard with time. Is it proper to deprive our race of a jump in evolution in terms of physical and mental capabilities just in the name of fairness? And if you answered yes to that question, I would ask you what planet you've been living on... life isn't fair. The universe is hostile. Life feeds on life feeds on life. Evolve or die. So on so forth. Like it or not, cybernetics and genetic engeneering IS the next step of human evolution since natural selection has been so weakened by modern medicine.

</p><p>
The question you SHOULD be asking is, are we going to be at the forefront of this next evolutionary step or are we going to let other nations beat us here as well? If they do, you can kiss our world dominance good-bye for good. Students abroad are already healthier and smarter then anything our public school can produce. Do we give up this advantage as well?

</p><p>
"The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>@ immakaku " Kind of off-topic : but I think we 're going down a slippery slope when we start screening DNA .
It works against the process of evolution .
What if there 's a new fatal disease that only people with the breast cancer trait are equipped to fight ?
" I would respond that the minute humanity developed the printing press and started practicing medicine which sustains people well past their natural point of death , evolution as we know it went out the window .
I aggree with your point , but you 've LOOONG missed the boat on that one .
Any modern medical procedure cheats evolution so by your logic , we should abandon all medicine - again a point I aggree with since overpopulation is responsible for most of the worlds problems - but its not a solution any " sane " society would adopt - short of being faced with extinction as an alternative .
@ svendensen " Personally I do n't want some religion to tell me what medical procedures I can/can not have because they think their holy book would approve/disapprove .
" + 1 to that buddy @ nasor " There seems to me to be a difference between " designing " a baby with genetic engineering or some such vs. simply screening a bunch of fertilized eggs and selecting the one you want .
But of course , if the media called it " screening " rather than " designing , " people would n't get nearly as worked up about it - and they know this , so they go with the more provocative language .
" A BIG + 1 to that .
And finally @ Radtastik You are absolutely right that this will create a class society - that Gattaca movie was nothing short of a prophecy IMO .
My counterargument is that if you awnt to make an omelette , you got ta break some eggs .
In other words , should the rights of those unable to afford such procedures be put ahead of human progress ?
Such technology may be expensive at first , but with use will be come stanard with time .
Is it proper to deprive our race of a jump in evolution in terms of physical and mental capabilities just in the name of fairness ?
And if you answered yes to that question , I would ask you what planet you 've been living on... life is n't fair .
The universe is hostile .
Life feeds on life feeds on life .
Evolve or die .
So on so forth .
Like it or not , cybernetics and genetic engeneering IS the next step of human evolution since natural selection has been so weakened by modern medicine .
The question you SHOULD be asking is , are we going to be at the forefront of this next evolutionary step or are we going to let other nations beat us here as well ?
If they do , you can kiss our world dominance good-bye for good .
Students abroad are already healthier and smarter then anything our public school can produce .
Do we give up this advantage as well ?
" The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>@immakaku

"Kind of off-topic: but I think we're going down a slippery slope when we start screening DNA.
It works against the process of evolution.
What if there's a new fatal disease that only people with the breast cancer trait are equipped to fight?
"


I would respond that the minute humanity developed the printing press and started practicing medicine which sustains people well past their natural point of death, evolution as we know it went out the window.
I aggree with your point, but you've LOOONG missed the boat on that one.
Any modern medical procedure cheats evolution so by your logic, we should abandon all medicine - again a point I aggree with since overpopulation is responsible for most of the worlds problems - but its not a solution any "sane" society would adopt - short of being faced with extinction as an alternative.
@svendensen

"Personally I don't want some religion to tell me what medical procedures I can/cannot have because they think their holy book would approve/disapprove.
"

+1 to that buddy


@nasor

"There seems to me to be a difference between "designing" a baby with genetic engineering or some such vs. simply screening a bunch of fertilized eggs and selecting the one you want.
But of course, if the media called it "screening" rather than "designing," people wouldn't get nearly as worked up about it - and they know this, so they go with the more provocative language.
"

A BIG +1 to that.
And finally @Radtastik

You are absolutely right that this will create a class society - that Gattaca movie was nothing short of a prophecy IMO.
My counterargument is that if you awnt to make an omelette, you gotta break some eggs.
In other words, should the rights of those unable to afford such procedures be put ahead of human progress?
Such technology may be expensive at first, but with use will be come stanard with time.
Is it proper to deprive our race of a jump in evolution in terms of physical and mental capabilities just in the name of fairness?
And if you answered yes to that question, I would ask you what planet you've been living on... life isn't fair.
The universe is hostile.
Life feeds on life feeds on life.
Evolve or die.
So on so forth.
Like it or not, cybernetics and genetic engeneering IS the next step of human evolution since natural selection has been so weakened by modern medicine.
The question you SHOULD be asking is, are we going to be at the forefront of this next evolutionary step or are we going to let other nations beat us here as well?
If they do, you can kiss our world dominance good-bye for good.
Students abroad are already healthier and smarter then anything our public school can produce.
Do we give up this advantage as well?
"The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28360645</id>
	<title>Re:An Ethical Quandry without an easy answer</title>
	<author>mog007</author>
	<datestamp>1245248940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Church never played a part in advancing science.  Ever.  Nor medicine.  Art, sure.  But modern medicine is dependent upon science, and modern science in the western world can trace its origins to Galileo.  The heliocentric model isn't the only scientific idea that the church didn't want people discussing.  The germ theory of disease spat in the face of scripture and centuries of priests making claims about disease.  Evolution wasn't accepted by the church until the 20th century.</p><p>As for the enlightened culture of Islam.  The fountain of knowledge in the Islamic world dried up in the 15th century, and it hasn't recovered since.  Islam has the ability to embrace science, but it hasn't happened since the fall of that era of enlightenment.  Of course there are plenty of Muslims who take the Koran with a grain of salt, and Christian who do the same with the Bible.  But they don't use religion to help them with their science, they put their religion on the coat rack when they step into the laboratory and do the science the way it works best: evidence.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Church never played a part in advancing science .
Ever. Nor medicine .
Art , sure .
But modern medicine is dependent upon science , and modern science in the western world can trace its origins to Galileo .
The heliocentric model is n't the only scientific idea that the church did n't want people discussing .
The germ theory of disease spat in the face of scripture and centuries of priests making claims about disease .
Evolution was n't accepted by the church until the 20th century.As for the enlightened culture of Islam .
The fountain of knowledge in the Islamic world dried up in the 15th century , and it has n't recovered since .
Islam has the ability to embrace science , but it has n't happened since the fall of that era of enlightenment .
Of course there are plenty of Muslims who take the Koran with a grain of salt , and Christian who do the same with the Bible .
But they do n't use religion to help them with their science , they put their religion on the coat rack when they step into the laboratory and do the science the way it works best : evidence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Church never played a part in advancing science.
Ever.  Nor medicine.
Art, sure.
But modern medicine is dependent upon science, and modern science in the western world can trace its origins to Galileo.
The heliocentric model isn't the only scientific idea that the church didn't want people discussing.
The germ theory of disease spat in the face of scripture and centuries of priests making claims about disease.
Evolution wasn't accepted by the church until the 20th century.As for the enlightened culture of Islam.
The fountain of knowledge in the Islamic world dried up in the 15th century, and it hasn't recovered since.
Islam has the ability to embrace science, but it hasn't happened since the fall of that era of enlightenment.
Of course there are plenty of Muslims who take the Koran with a grain of salt, and Christian who do the same with the Bible.
But they don't use religion to help them with their science, they put their religion on the coat rack when they step into the laboratory and do the science the way it works best: evidence.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348491</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28349699</id>
	<title>Sure they did...</title>
	<author>Maximum Prophet</author>
	<datestamp>1245175560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>...before capitulating to pressure to eliminate the eye and hair color screenings.</p></div><p>Medical records are supposed to be confidential, so when a set of parents asked for their embryos to be screened for hair and eye color who is going to know.  Most likely, the clinic will just stop advertising this service.  Much like the way doctors practice euthanasia in states that don't allow it.
<br> <br>
Beside, having blue eyes are a medical problem.   Blue eyed folks have more eye problems than brown eyed folk.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...before capitulating to pressure to eliminate the eye and hair color screenings.Medical records are supposed to be confidential , so when a set of parents asked for their embryos to be screened for hair and eye color who is going to know .
Most likely , the clinic will just stop advertising this service .
Much like the way doctors practice euthanasia in states that do n't allow it .
Beside , having blue eyes are a medical problem .
Blue eyed folks have more eye problems than brown eyed folk .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...before capitulating to pressure to eliminate the eye and hair color screenings.Medical records are supposed to be confidential, so when a set of parents asked for their embryos to be screened for hair and eye color who is going to know.
Most likely, the clinic will just stop advertising this service.
Much like the way doctors practice euthanasia in states that don't allow it.
Beside, having blue eyes are a medical problem.
Blue eyed folks have more eye problems than brown eyed folk.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28350851</id>
	<title>Re:An Ethical Quandry without an easy answer</title>
	<author>jwhitener</author>
	<datestamp>1245179160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Historically speaking, the Church/Islam encouraged science purely because they had money to support scientists.  There was no such thing as grants or state funding back then.  The Church was a big bank.  This was not because of anything inherent to Religion that encourages finding objective fact.</p><p>"What makes you think that these stupid people won't find something else to latch on to that has the same sort of negative effects as religion?"</p><p>There is no guarantee of course.  Take scientology for example.  However, encouraging any belief that has no basis in truth does not serve society well in the long term.</p><p>Perhaps instead of broadly calling religion 'bad', we should encourage people to learn about the history of their religion, and to view it as a personal choice, fully aware that it is not fact, but is instead, something they wish to believe.</p><p>The largest problem with religion, given that much of it is faith based, is that faith-based thinking can encroach into areas that it shouldn't.  I don't want a airplane engineer taking things on faith when it comes to designing an airplane!  Yet time and time again, we see citizens making, for example, health care choices, based on religious beliefs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Historically speaking , the Church/Islam encouraged science purely because they had money to support scientists .
There was no such thing as grants or state funding back then .
The Church was a big bank .
This was not because of anything inherent to Religion that encourages finding objective fact .
" What makes you think that these stupid people wo n't find something else to latch on to that has the same sort of negative effects as religion ?
" There is no guarantee of course .
Take scientology for example .
However , encouraging any belief that has no basis in truth does not serve society well in the long term.Perhaps instead of broadly calling religion 'bad ' , we should encourage people to learn about the history of their religion , and to view it as a personal choice , fully aware that it is not fact , but is instead , something they wish to believe.The largest problem with religion , given that much of it is faith based , is that faith-based thinking can encroach into areas that it should n't .
I do n't want a airplane engineer taking things on faith when it comes to designing an airplane !
Yet time and time again , we see citizens making , for example , health care choices , based on religious beliefs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Historically speaking, the Church/Islam encouraged science purely because they had money to support scientists.
There was no such thing as grants or state funding back then.
The Church was a big bank.
This was not because of anything inherent to Religion that encourages finding objective fact.
"What makes you think that these stupid people won't find something else to latch on to that has the same sort of negative effects as religion?
"There is no guarantee of course.
Take scientology for example.
However, encouraging any belief that has no basis in truth does not serve society well in the long term.Perhaps instead of broadly calling religion 'bad', we should encourage people to learn about the history of their religion, and to view it as a personal choice, fully aware that it is not fact, but is instead, something they wish to believe.The largest problem with religion, given that much of it is faith based, is that faith-based thinking can encroach into areas that it shouldn't.
I don't want a airplane engineer taking things on faith when it comes to designing an airplane!
Yet time and time again, we see citizens making, for example, health care choices, based on religious beliefs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348491</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28362391</id>
	<title>Re:what is the big deal?</title>
	<author>ginbot462</author>
	<datestamp>1245257940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Lioness:</p><p>Any cubs of less than 2 years old are killed by the male to stop any future rivals challenging him for the pride, and also to encourage the lionesses to go into heat, allowing him to begin his own dynasty. The lionesses allow this to happen -- a cruel edge to their mothering nature.</p></div></blockquote><p>Actually, most males cats do this as well. Tomcat's are bastards (in both senses).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Lioness : Any cubs of less than 2 years old are killed by the male to stop any future rivals challenging him for the pride , and also to encourage the lionesses to go into heat , allowing him to begin his own dynasty .
The lionesses allow this to happen -- a cruel edge to their mothering nature.Actually , most males cats do this as well .
Tomcat 's are bastards ( in both senses ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lioness:Any cubs of less than 2 years old are killed by the male to stop any future rivals challenging him for the pride, and also to encourage the lionesses to go into heat, allowing him to begin his own dynasty.
The lionesses allow this to happen -- a cruel edge to their mothering nature.Actually, most males cats do this as well.
Tomcat's are bastards (in both senses).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348493</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28350465</id>
	<title>Re:I don't get it...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245177900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What, are we stopping AI research because of Terminator? Get a grip, it's a movie.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What , are we stopping AI research because of Terminator ?
Get a grip , it 's a movie .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What, are we stopping AI research because of Terminator?
Get a grip, it's a movie.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348283</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28349729</id>
	<title>Re:I am just waiting for</title>
	<author>cayenne8</author>
	<datestamp>1245175680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>"I believe we will see some real outrage with "We can guarantee your baby will NOT be gay"</i> <p>
Really?</p><p>
I doubt seriously that you'd see any 'outrage' expressed at all. At least, not in the US. Being gay isn't exactly that popular, and still carries a pretty heavy stigma in society. Attitudes have come a long way, sure, but, it isn't accepted by the general public...especially not in private conversations amongst straight people. They may state one thing to be PC in public, but what they say out of the spotlight...much different.</p><p>
Heck..you can see what they do when they can vote and have that vote be anon.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" I believe we will see some real outrage with " We can guarantee your baby will NOT be gay " Really ?
I doubt seriously that you 'd see any 'outrage ' expressed at all .
At least , not in the US .
Being gay is n't exactly that popular , and still carries a pretty heavy stigma in society .
Attitudes have come a long way , sure , but , it is n't accepted by the general public...especially not in private conversations amongst straight people .
They may state one thing to be PC in public , but what they say out of the spotlight...much different .
Heck..you can see what they do when they can vote and have that vote be anon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I believe we will see some real outrage with "We can guarantee your baby will NOT be gay" 
Really?
I doubt seriously that you'd see any 'outrage' expressed at all.
At least, not in the US.
Being gay isn't exactly that popular, and still carries a pretty heavy stigma in society.
Attitudes have come a long way, sure, but, it isn't accepted by the general public...especially not in private conversations amongst straight people.
They may state one thing to be PC in public, but what they say out of the spotlight...much different.
Heck..you can see what they do when they can vote and have that vote be anon.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348337</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28350875</id>
	<title>Re:I don't get it...</title>
	<author>metlin</author>
	<datestamp>1245179280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At some point, technology works faster than evolution.</p><p>Sooner or later, we will reach a point where you can do more than just pick and choose sex and hair color. And that is inevitable.</p><p>If anything, I look forward to the days of super-humans who are smarter, faster, more nimble, more capable and more accomplished than their predecessors, when a super-human will be the new human.</p><p>After all, we are here as the pinnacle of those that died before us through evolution. I would rather speed up the process and help us get there faster.</p><p>If I could, I would choose all the best traits possible for my child (nature), and good resources for him or her to be successful (nurture). And I simply cannot understand how someone else wouldn't want to do the same for their progeny.</p><p>After all, think of the children - don't you want the best for them?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At some point , technology works faster than evolution.Sooner or later , we will reach a point where you can do more than just pick and choose sex and hair color .
And that is inevitable.If anything , I look forward to the days of super-humans who are smarter , faster , more nimble , more capable and more accomplished than their predecessors , when a super-human will be the new human.After all , we are here as the pinnacle of those that died before us through evolution .
I would rather speed up the process and help us get there faster.If I could , I would choose all the best traits possible for my child ( nature ) , and good resources for him or her to be successful ( nurture ) .
And I simply can not understand how someone else would n't want to do the same for their progeny.After all , think of the children - do n't you want the best for them ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At some point, technology works faster than evolution.Sooner or later, we will reach a point where you can do more than just pick and choose sex and hair color.
And that is inevitable.If anything, I look forward to the days of super-humans who are smarter, faster, more nimble, more capable and more accomplished than their predecessors, when a super-human will be the new human.After all, we are here as the pinnacle of those that died before us through evolution.
I would rather speed up the process and help us get there faster.If I could, I would choose all the best traits possible for my child (nature), and good resources for him or her to be successful (nurture).
And I simply cannot understand how someone else wouldn't want to do the same for their progeny.After all, think of the children - don't you want the best for them?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348757</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28349639</id>
	<title>Re:The Line Goes here</title>
	<author>mounthood</author>
	<datestamp>1245175380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Animal cruelty doesn't serve an important goal, but slaughter houses do. Disease resistance matters; hair color doesn't. Yes it's all culturally myopic, but it's explainable why the trivial would make people so upset.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Animal cruelty does n't serve an important goal , but slaughter houses do .
Disease resistance matters ; hair color does n't .
Yes it 's all culturally myopic , but it 's explainable why the trivial would make people so upset .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Animal cruelty doesn't serve an important goal, but slaughter houses do.
Disease resistance matters; hair color doesn't.
Yes it's all culturally myopic, but it's explainable why the trivial would make people so upset.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348263</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348201</id>
	<title>Re:I don't get it...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245170280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you could simply manufacture a child to your specifications, there might be less complaint.  But it doesn't work like this.  The clinic fertilises a number of eggs, then kills the embryos that don't match the specification.  Some people find this objectionable.</p><p>But this approach will quickly fail anyway.  As the number of things we can test for genetically multiplies, it won't be possible to create enough embryos to produce one that happens to have the "perfect" DNA from both mom and dad.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you could simply manufacture a child to your specifications , there might be less complaint .
But it does n't work like this .
The clinic fertilises a number of eggs , then kills the embryos that do n't match the specification .
Some people find this objectionable.But this approach will quickly fail anyway .
As the number of things we can test for genetically multiplies , it wo n't be possible to create enough embryos to produce one that happens to have the " perfect " DNA from both mom and dad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you could simply manufacture a child to your specifications, there might be less complaint.
But it doesn't work like this.
The clinic fertilises a number of eggs, then kills the embryos that don't match the specification.
Some people find this objectionable.But this approach will quickly fail anyway.
As the number of things we can test for genetically multiplies, it won't be possible to create enough embryos to produce one that happens to have the "perfect" DNA from both mom and dad.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348055</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28349099</id>
	<title>Re:Now we'll have a genetic class-based society...</title>
	<author>Kuciwalker</author>
	<datestamp>1245173580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As opposed to...<br> <br>

Want to grow up to become an athlete? Sorry, you didn't inherit the right genetic mix to predispose you to becoming tall / strong / better cardiovascular function.<br> <br>

Want to grow up to become a model? Sorry, you didn't inherit the right genetic mix to give you a slender physique, blond, and blue eyes.<br> <br>

Want health insurance? Sure, but it's going to be more expensive FOR EVERYONE regardless of your genetics because some luddite outlawed screening for genetic diseases.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As opposed to.. . Want to grow up to become an athlete ?
Sorry , you did n't inherit the right genetic mix to predispose you to becoming tall / strong / better cardiovascular function .
Want to grow up to become a model ?
Sorry , you did n't inherit the right genetic mix to give you a slender physique , blond , and blue eyes .
Want health insurance ?
Sure , but it 's going to be more expensive FOR EVERYONE regardless of your genetics because some luddite outlawed screening for genetic diseases .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As opposed to... 

Want to grow up to become an athlete?
Sorry, you didn't inherit the right genetic mix to predispose you to becoming tall / strong / better cardiovascular function.
Want to grow up to become a model?
Sorry, you didn't inherit the right genetic mix to give you a slender physique, blond, and blue eyes.
Want health insurance?
Sure, but it's going to be more expensive FOR EVERYONE regardless of your genetics because some luddite outlawed screening for genetic diseases.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348333</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348985</id>
	<title>That is no different from today</title>
	<author>aepervius</author>
	<datestamp>1245173160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The parents have no way to know whether the kid will want to be a model or a genius. And even if they hit jackpot, this is a NORMAL kid, it will have the same chance or possibility as other kids, and will be within the gaussian curve of population. Now if they ENHANCED a kid by changing its gene that would be something different.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The parents have no way to know whether the kid will want to be a model or a genius .
And even if they hit jackpot , this is a NORMAL kid , it will have the same chance or possibility as other kids , and will be within the gaussian curve of population .
Now if they ENHANCED a kid by changing its gene that would be something different .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The parents have no way to know whether the kid will want to be a model or a genius.
And even if they hit jackpot, this is a NORMAL kid, it will have the same chance or possibility as other kids, and will be within the gaussian curve of population.
Now if they ENHANCED a kid by changing its gene that would be something different.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348333</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28351101</id>
	<title>Re:An Ethical Quandry without an easy answer</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1245180120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When most people invoke the "Acting as god' clause, they are actually just reacting to the unknown becoming unkwon. Many people don't want science to reveal truths becasue they have hinged ther faith on disprovable ideas, instead of understanding the point of it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When most people invoke the " Acting as god ' clause , they are actually just reacting to the unknown becoming unkwon .
Many people do n't want science to reveal truths becasue they have hinged ther faith on disprovable ideas , instead of understanding the point of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When most people invoke the "Acting as god' clause, they are actually just reacting to the unknown becoming unkwon.
Many people don't want science to reveal truths becasue they have hinged ther faith on disprovable ideas, instead of understanding the point of it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348471</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348311</id>
	<title>Science is moving forward, but...</title>
	<author>Andr T.</author>
	<datestamp>1245170820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...there's a big difference between what you CAN do and what you SHOULD do. Science does not obligate you to do everything it says that will work.  Eg: atomic bombs.

<p>I think there's a big discussion to be developed in the matter of what you can do and what you should do, but that argument is just dumb.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...there 's a big difference between what you CAN do and what you SHOULD do .
Science does not obligate you to do everything it says that will work .
Eg : atomic bombs .
I think there 's a big discussion to be developed in the matter of what you can do and what you should do , but that argument is just dumb .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...there's a big difference between what you CAN do and what you SHOULD do.
Science does not obligate you to do everything it says that will work.
Eg: atomic bombs.
I think there's a big discussion to be developed in the matter of what you can do and what you should do, but that argument is just dumb.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28354219</id>
	<title>Re:Now we'll have a genetic class-based society...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245149400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No it doesn't lead us there at all.  This is real life, not the movie Gattica.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No it does n't lead us there at all .
This is real life , not the movie Gattica .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No it doesn't lead us there at all.
This is real life, not the movie Gattica.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348333</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348733</id>
	<title>Re:The Line Goes here</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245172440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From TFA:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The backlash was widespread. Quoted in the New York Daily News on February 23, the Pope himself condemned the &#226;oeobsessive search for the perfect child.&#226; The pontiff complained, &#226;oeA new mentality is creeping in that tends to justify a different consideration of life and personal dignity.&#226; The roman Catholic Church objects to all applications of PGD because they invariably involve the destruction of blastocysts.</p></div><p>He objects to the disease resistance and sex choosing too, so mentioning him in the summary makes no sense IMO. I don't think Popes are usually known for their liberal viewpoints. An equally as pointless but slightly more sensible line would have been "The Pope objects, as usual".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From TFA : The backlash was widespread .
Quoted in the New York Daily News on February 23 , the Pope himself condemned the   oeobsessive search for the perfect child.   The pontiff complained ,   oeA new mentality is creeping in that tends to justify a different consideration of life and personal dignity.   The roman Catholic Church objects to all applications of PGD because they invariably involve the destruction of blastocysts.He objects to the disease resistance and sex choosing too , so mentioning him in the summary makes no sense IMO .
I do n't think Popes are usually known for their liberal viewpoints .
An equally as pointless but slightly more sensible line would have been " The Pope objects , as usual " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From TFA:The backlash was widespread.
Quoted in the New York Daily News on February 23, the Pope himself condemned the âoeobsessive search for the perfect child.â The pontiff complained, âoeA new mentality is creeping in that tends to justify a different consideration of life and personal dignity.â The roman Catholic Church objects to all applications of PGD because they invariably involve the destruction of blastocysts.He objects to the disease resistance and sex choosing too, so mentioning him in the summary makes no sense IMO.
I don't think Popes are usually known for their liberal viewpoints.
An equally as pointless but slightly more sensible line would have been "The Pope objects, as usual".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348263</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28349209</id>
	<title>Re:The Line Goes here</title>
	<author>electrosoccertux</author>
	<datestamp>1245173940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does this mean there will be different brands of designer babies? So you could get a D&amp;G Designer Baby, or a Versace baby, or perhaps a Gucci Baby?</p><p>Gucci Gucci coo?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does this mean there will be different brands of designer babies ?
So you could get a D&amp;G Designer Baby , or a Versace baby , or perhaps a Gucci Baby ? Gucci Gucci coo ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does this mean there will be different brands of designer babies?
So you could get a D&amp;G Designer Baby, or a Versace baby, or perhaps a Gucci Baby?Gucci Gucci coo?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348263</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28351191</id>
	<title>Re:picking the sex is more evil</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1245180540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, enforcing a gender is more evil. At worse case, a country that enforces a gender through an easy and cheep screening process will either change that policy in a hurry, or be gone in 40 years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , enforcing a gender is more evil .
At worse case , a country that enforces a gender through an easy and cheep screening process will either change that policy in a hurry , or be gone in 40 years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, enforcing a gender is more evil.
At worse case, a country that enforces a gender through an easy and cheep screening process will either change that policy in a hurry, or be gone in 40 years.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348115</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28350087</id>
	<title>Re:The reaction is not a big surprise</title>
	<author>Ogive17</author>
	<datestamp>1245176700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why is the scapegoat always religous whackos?  I think embreyo screening is a bad idea and I'm not religous.  Not everyone who disagrees with a specific scientific "breakthrough" is a zealot.<br>
<br>
Some of us just like to err on the side of caution.  It's dangerous to engineer life.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is the scapegoat always religous whackos ?
I think embreyo screening is a bad idea and I 'm not religous .
Not everyone who disagrees with a specific scientific " breakthrough " is a zealot .
Some of us just like to err on the side of caution .
It 's dangerous to engineer life .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is the scapegoat always religous whackos?
I think embreyo screening is a bad idea and I'm not religous.
Not everyone who disagrees with a specific scientific "breakthrough" is a zealot.
Some of us just like to err on the side of caution.
It's dangerous to engineer life.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348719</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28371859</id>
	<title>Re:I am just waiting for</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245327300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Of course, if they could prove that sexual preference is genetic I believe we will see some real outrage with "We can guarantee your baby will NOT be gay"</p></div><p>Only this outrage won't be coming from the people who are currently against trait selection.  It's probably the one way to get conservatives onside.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course , if they could prove that sexual preference is genetic I believe we will see some real outrage with " We can guarantee your baby will NOT be gay " Only this outrage wo n't be coming from the people who are currently against trait selection .
It 's probably the one way to get conservatives onside .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course, if they could prove that sexual preference is genetic I believe we will see some real outrage with "We can guarantee your baby will NOT be gay"Only this outrage won't be coming from the people who are currently against trait selection.
It's probably the one way to get conservatives onside.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348337</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348757</id>
	<title>Re:I don't get it...</title>
	<author>daem0n1x</author>
	<datestamp>1245172500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
I'm not sure if this is just silly or borderline nazi, but I don't like it.
</p><p>
I made my children the usual way, by fucking and waiting. And they look like me. And I like them the way they are. Sure, they have their quirks, but who doesn't?
</p><p>
If you can't breed children, adopt some. There's no lack of children in the planet.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not sure if this is just silly or borderline nazi , but I do n't like it .
I made my children the usual way , by fucking and waiting .
And they look like me .
And I like them the way they are .
Sure , they have their quirks , but who does n't ?
If you ca n't breed children , adopt some .
There 's no lack of children in the planet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
I'm not sure if this is just silly or borderline nazi, but I don't like it.
I made my children the usual way, by fucking and waiting.
And they look like me.
And I like them the way they are.
Sure, they have their quirks, but who doesn't?
If you can't breed children, adopt some.
There's no lack of children in the planet.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348055</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348575</id>
	<title>Re:Heavy Metal Baby</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245171840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>eww, get "Whitesnake" out of that post and away from the word "Metal"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>eww , get " Whitesnake " out of that post and away from the word " Metal "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>eww, get "Whitesnake" out of that post and away from the word "Metal"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348195</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28349377</id>
	<title>Re:what is the big deal?</title>
	<author>cbs4385</author>
	<datestamp>1245174480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not really, to quote my mom:<blockquote><div><p>I brought you into this world, and I can take you out again.  It'd just take nine months to replace you.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
This would just be pre screening for appearance instead of a post screen for trainability
&lt;/scrasm&gt;</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not really , to quote my mom : I brought you into this world , and I can take you out again .
It 'd just take nine months to replace you .
This would just be pre screening for appearance instead of a post screen for trainability</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not really, to quote my mom:I brought you into this world, and I can take you out again.
It'd just take nine months to replace you.
This would just be pre screening for appearance instead of a post screen for trainability

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348235</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348119</id>
	<title>Re:what is the big deal?</title>
	<author>noundi</author>
	<datestamp>1245169980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Old fashion screwing has helped 99\%* of the population achieve this goal through the history of mankind.<br> <br> <br>*DISCLAIMER: Yes I pulled this number out of my ass. Wanna fight about it?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Old fashion screwing has helped 99 \ % * of the population achieve this goal through the history of mankind .
* DISCLAIMER : Yes I pulled this number out of my ass .
Wan na fight about it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Old fashion screwing has helped 99\%* of the population achieve this goal through the history of mankind.
*DISCLAIMER: Yes I pulled this number out of my ass.
Wanna fight about it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348047</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28351575</id>
	<title>Property rights</title>
	<author>TheSync</author>
	<datestamp>1245181920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A couple owns the sperm, owns the egg, and owns the womb.  Property rights say you should be able to do anything you want this property unless you are actively hurting someone.  Having one eye color or another is not hurting anyone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A couple owns the sperm , owns the egg , and owns the womb .
Property rights say you should be able to do anything you want this property unless you are actively hurting someone .
Having one eye color or another is not hurting anyone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A couple owns the sperm, owns the egg, and owns the womb.
Property rights say you should be able to do anything you want this property unless you are actively hurting someone.
Having one eye color or another is not hurting anyone.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28356207</id>
	<title>Re:I don't get it...</title>
	<author>Lars512</author>
	<datestamp>1245160980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The randomness of not getting to choose is probably a good thing for some choices. Think of cultures where one gender is preferred in children. You really don't want people to have a choice in such a matter, lest population-wide gender ratios get skewed. Eye and hair colour really doesn't matter at all in comparison, unless choosing these has far-reaching and poorly understood consequences into other aspects of the child's make-up. We could probably estimate these consequences by cataloguing people who already have these traits.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The randomness of not getting to choose is probably a good thing for some choices .
Think of cultures where one gender is preferred in children .
You really do n't want people to have a choice in such a matter , lest population-wide gender ratios get skewed .
Eye and hair colour really does n't matter at all in comparison , unless choosing these has far-reaching and poorly understood consequences into other aspects of the child 's make-up .
We could probably estimate these consequences by cataloguing people who already have these traits .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The randomness of not getting to choose is probably a good thing for some choices.
Think of cultures where one gender is preferred in children.
You really don't want people to have a choice in such a matter, lest population-wide gender ratios get skewed.
Eye and hair colour really doesn't matter at all in comparison, unless choosing these has far-reaching and poorly understood consequences into other aspects of the child's make-up.
We could probably estimate these consequences by cataloguing people who already have these traits.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348277</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348267</id>
	<title>Ginger Gene</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245170640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe the one hope of eradicating the Ginger Gene is now gone...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe the one hope of eradicating the Ginger Gene is now gone.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe the one hope of eradicating the Ginger Gene is now gone...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28349319</id>
	<title>I read the summary this way...</title>
	<author>Culture20</author>
	<datestamp>1245174300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>'Zieg Heil!' the fertility service proclaimed -- before capitulating to pressure to eliminate the eye and hair color screenings.<br>
I would like to thank the academy for the honor of the Godwin with which I am being bestowed.  I with full foresight call eugenics purveyors Nazi scientists.</htmltext>
<tokenext>'Zieg Heil !
' the fertility service proclaimed -- before capitulating to pressure to eliminate the eye and hair color screenings .
I would like to thank the academy for the honor of the Godwin with which I am being bestowed .
I with full foresight call eugenics purveyors Nazi scientists .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'Zieg Heil!
' the fertility service proclaimed -- before capitulating to pressure to eliminate the eye and hair color screenings.
I would like to thank the academy for the honor of the Godwin with which I am being bestowed.
I with full foresight call eugenics purveyors Nazi scientists.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348491</id>
	<title>Re:An Ethical Quandry without an easy answer</title>
	<author>langelgjm</author>
	<datestamp>1245171600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Once more, religion gets in the way of science.
Imagine all the advances in science and medicine if we could get religion out of the way.</p></div><p>Historically speaking, the Church (Galileo notwithstanding!) and Islam during the medieval period played a very large part in encouraging the development of science, medicine, and the arts. It varied by time period and region, but the link can't be denied.</p><p>Second, one thing that confuses me about these sorts of statements is this - presumably, you think religion is just some nonsense that stupid people latch on to. But even if you get rid of religion, people are still going to be stupid. What makes you think that these stupid people won't find something else to latch on to that has the same sort of negative effects as religion? In fact, getting rid of religion might leave a vacuum that could be filled by something worse...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Once more , religion gets in the way of science .
Imagine all the advances in science and medicine if we could get religion out of the way.Historically speaking , the Church ( Galileo notwithstanding !
) and Islam during the medieval period played a very large part in encouraging the development of science , medicine , and the arts .
It varied by time period and region , but the link ca n't be denied.Second , one thing that confuses me about these sorts of statements is this - presumably , you think religion is just some nonsense that stupid people latch on to .
But even if you get rid of religion , people are still going to be stupid .
What makes you think that these stupid people wo n't find something else to latch on to that has the same sort of negative effects as religion ?
In fact , getting rid of religion might leave a vacuum that could be filled by something worse.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Once more, religion gets in the way of science.
Imagine all the advances in science and medicine if we could get religion out of the way.Historically speaking, the Church (Galileo notwithstanding!
) and Islam during the medieval period played a very large part in encouraging the development of science, medicine, and the arts.
It varied by time period and region, but the link can't be denied.Second, one thing that confuses me about these sorts of statements is this - presumably, you think religion is just some nonsense that stupid people latch on to.
But even if you get rid of religion, people are still going to be stupid.
What makes you think that these stupid people won't find something else to latch on to that has the same sort of negative effects as religion?
In fact, getting rid of religion might leave a vacuum that could be filled by something worse...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348205</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28357121</id>
	<title>Re:An Ethical Quandry without an easy answer</title>
	<author>mattwarden</author>
	<datestamp>1245167880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thank you for sharing your point of view. I respect your beliefs and will fight to make sure you are allowed to live your life based on those beliefs and those with opposing beliefs do not infringe on your freedom. I expect you to do the same.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thank you for sharing your point of view .
I respect your beliefs and will fight to make sure you are allowed to live your life based on those beliefs and those with opposing beliefs do not infringe on your freedom .
I expect you to do the same .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thank you for sharing your point of view.
I respect your beliefs and will fight to make sure you are allowed to live your life based on those beliefs and those with opposing beliefs do not infringe on your freedom.
I expect you to do the same.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348401</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28350457</id>
	<title>In any case it's dangerous</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245177900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>The end argument to this is simply that eugenics in any form has had no positive history. That in it of itself should be a least a cause for pause before proceeding.

And: The fact that you have people still considering traits like hair and eye color in the 21st century after centuries of racisim and exploitation tells me that we're still not ready for this power. We are going to screw this up guaranteed.

It starts with eye and hair color, then it goes down the slipperly path of ethnic/"racial" traits.

I for one believe this should only be used for people who have confirmed genetic defects so as not to bring into the world a child that will suffer needlessly.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The end argument to this is simply that eugenics in any form has had no positive history .
That in it of itself should be a least a cause for pause before proceeding .
And : The fact that you have people still considering traits like hair and eye color in the 21st century after centuries of racisim and exploitation tells me that we 're still not ready for this power .
We are going to screw this up guaranteed .
It starts with eye and hair color , then it goes down the slipperly path of ethnic/ " racial " traits .
I for one believe this should only be used for people who have confirmed genetic defects so as not to bring into the world a child that will suffer needlessly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The end argument to this is simply that eugenics in any form has had no positive history.
That in it of itself should be a least a cause for pause before proceeding.
And: The fact that you have people still considering traits like hair and eye color in the 21st century after centuries of racisim and exploitation tells me that we're still not ready for this power.
We are going to screw this up guaranteed.
It starts with eye and hair color, then it goes down the slipperly path of ethnic/"racial" traits.
I for one believe this should only be used for people who have confirmed genetic defects so as not to bring into the world a child that will suffer needlessly.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348709</id>
	<title>We tried that, it didn't work out so well</title>
	<author>wsanders</author>
	<datestamp>1245172320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>- Adolf H, Herman and the Gang</p><p>[ I think I can claim an exemption to Godwin's Law here, or can I?]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>- Adolf H , Herman and the Gang [ I think I can claim an exemption to Godwin 's Law here , or can I ?
]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>- Adolf H, Herman and the Gang[ I think I can claim an exemption to Godwin's Law here, or can I?
]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348055</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28351673</id>
	<title>Re:I don't get it...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245182220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't understand how people are defining "viable" here.  If a zygote is known to have increased risk of breast cancer later in life, is it not viable?   If you know it will have cystic fibrosis, is it viable?  What about downs' syndrome, which ought to be easily detectable and develops with certainty?</p><p>I think this is what GATTACA worries about: as we gain the ability to detect flaws before gestation even begins, will our definition of "viable" slip?  How long until a couple genes influencing intellect are identified, and zygotes with the "wrong" type are considered not "viable?"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't understand how people are defining " viable " here .
If a zygote is known to have increased risk of breast cancer later in life , is it not viable ?
If you know it will have cystic fibrosis , is it viable ?
What about downs ' syndrome , which ought to be easily detectable and develops with certainty ? I think this is what GATTACA worries about : as we gain the ability to detect flaws before gestation even begins , will our definition of " viable " slip ?
How long until a couple genes influencing intellect are identified , and zygotes with the " wrong " type are considered not " viable ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't understand how people are defining "viable" here.
If a zygote is known to have increased risk of breast cancer later in life, is it not viable?
If you know it will have cystic fibrosis, is it viable?
What about downs' syndrome, which ought to be easily detectable and develops with certainty?I think this is what GATTACA worries about: as we gain the ability to detect flaws before gestation even begins, will our definition of "viable" slip?
How long until a couple genes influencing intellect are identified, and zygotes with the "wrong" type are considered not "viable?
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348603</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28356307</id>
	<title>Re:I don't get it...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245161760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Designing and screening are the same thing.  You actively screen out possibilities that aren't solutions to the problem at hand, which is exactly what is happening here - many embryos are created, they are all screened for potential defects, and only the ones with proper genes are implanted.  About the only other thing you could do to further to design a baby would be to change its DNA after it was implanted.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Designing and screening are the same thing .
You actively screen out possibilities that are n't solutions to the problem at hand , which is exactly what is happening here - many embryos are created , they are all screened for potential defects , and only the ones with proper genes are implanted .
About the only other thing you could do to further to design a baby would be to change its DNA after it was implanted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Designing and screening are the same thing.
You actively screen out possibilities that aren't solutions to the problem at hand, which is exactly what is happening here - many embryos are created, they are all screened for potential defects, and only the ones with proper genes are implanted.
About the only other thing you could do to further to design a baby would be to change its DNA after it was implanted.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348277</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28365245</id>
	<title>Re:An Ethical Quandry without an easy answer</title>
	<author>HydroPhonic</author>
	<datestamp>1245271200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"Her eyes are brown... that never happens". I would not trade that moment for anything in the world.</p></div><p>The moment when you discovered the improbability of <i>your</i> DNA being the cause?!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Her eyes are brown... that never happens " .
I would not trade that moment for anything in the world.The moment when you discovered the improbability of your DNA being the cause ?
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Her eyes are brown... that never happens".
I would not trade that moment for anything in the world.The moment when you discovered the improbability of your DNA being the cause?
!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348401</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348719</id>
	<title>The reaction is not a big surprise</title>
	<author>HangingChad</author>
	<datestamp>1245172380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Back in my college days I did research on how to skew the sex ratio in horses in favor of females.  An ugly mare can still be used as a brood mare but a male that isn't in the top 1-2\% of perfection is basically dog food.

</p><p>So I blundered in with the help of a research scientist at my college and a local vet and achieved a 75\% success rate.  I thought it was a good thing.  Cutting down the number of unwanted animals, raising the profit margin on running a horse park.  It was cheap, safe and many times it worked.  BZZZZT!  The practice (and me) were almost universally despised.  Not just dislike, genuine hatred. I routinely got threatening phone calls, even one death threat.

</p><p>Small breeders said it would just be another way for big breeders to keep them out of the market, a small subset argued it was playing with nature, that was mainly the religious whack jobs. The breed registry threatened to delist any animals born via the procedure and when the found out there was no way to tell the embryo had been screened, threated to ban any park caught using it.

</p><p>If people go that berserko over horses I can only imagine the reaction applying some of those techniques to human embryos.   But it's been going on a lot longer than most of you realize, though wisely not in this country.  Whether humans or animals I can guarantee the practice is hugely profitable.

</p><p>Personally, I don't think there's anything wrong with screening embryos to reduce cancer and inherited disease, but you might want to consider getting a bullet proof vest if you're going to publicly support that position.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Back in my college days I did research on how to skew the sex ratio in horses in favor of females .
An ugly mare can still be used as a brood mare but a male that is n't in the top 1-2 \ % of perfection is basically dog food .
So I blundered in with the help of a research scientist at my college and a local vet and achieved a 75 \ % success rate .
I thought it was a good thing .
Cutting down the number of unwanted animals , raising the profit margin on running a horse park .
It was cheap , safe and many times it worked .
BZZZZT ! The practice ( and me ) were almost universally despised .
Not just dislike , genuine hatred .
I routinely got threatening phone calls , even one death threat .
Small breeders said it would just be another way for big breeders to keep them out of the market , a small subset argued it was playing with nature , that was mainly the religious whack jobs .
The breed registry threatened to delist any animals born via the procedure and when the found out there was no way to tell the embryo had been screened , threated to ban any park caught using it .
If people go that berserko over horses I can only imagine the reaction applying some of those techniques to human embryos .
But it 's been going on a lot longer than most of you realize , though wisely not in this country .
Whether humans or animals I can guarantee the practice is hugely profitable .
Personally , I do n't think there 's anything wrong with screening embryos to reduce cancer and inherited disease , but you might want to consider getting a bullet proof vest if you 're going to publicly support that position .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Back in my college days I did research on how to skew the sex ratio in horses in favor of females.
An ugly mare can still be used as a brood mare but a male that isn't in the top 1-2\% of perfection is basically dog food.
So I blundered in with the help of a research scientist at my college and a local vet and achieved a 75\% success rate.
I thought it was a good thing.
Cutting down the number of unwanted animals, raising the profit margin on running a horse park.
It was cheap, safe and many times it worked.
BZZZZT!  The practice (and me) were almost universally despised.
Not just dislike, genuine hatred.
I routinely got threatening phone calls, even one death threat.
Small breeders said it would just be another way for big breeders to keep them out of the market, a small subset argued it was playing with nature, that was mainly the religious whack jobs.
The breed registry threatened to delist any animals born via the procedure and when the found out there was no way to tell the embryo had been screened, threated to ban any park caught using it.
If people go that berserko over horses I can only imagine the reaction applying some of those techniques to human embryos.
But it's been going on a lot longer than most of you realize, though wisely not in this country.
Whether humans or animals I can guarantee the practice is hugely profitable.
Personally, I don't think there's anything wrong with screening embryos to reduce cancer and inherited disease, but you might want to consider getting a bullet proof vest if you're going to publicly support that position.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28349249</id>
	<title>Re:Now we'll have a genetic class-based society...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245174060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>After reading the other comments, I don't understand how most of them don't see that this is a more important issue than the destruction of a mass of cells and another religion vs science conflict. Only one other highly rated commenter could remember what the Nazi's tried to achieve.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>After reading the other comments , I do n't understand how most of them do n't see that this is a more important issue than the destruction of a mass of cells and another religion vs science conflict .
Only one other highly rated commenter could remember what the Nazi 's tried to achieve .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After reading the other comments, I don't understand how most of them don't see that this is a more important issue than the destruction of a mass of cells and another religion vs science conflict.
Only one other highly rated commenter could remember what the Nazi's tried to achieve.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348333</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348455</id>
	<title>Re:picking the sex is more evil</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245171360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>an absolutely disgusting practice</p></div><p>Why? Because it offends you? Let the free market rule! When there are a shortage of girls, girls will become more valuable, and we'll see the return of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bride\_price" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">bride price</a> [wikipedia.org] to Chinese culture.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>an absolutely disgusting practiceWhy ?
Because it offends you ?
Let the free market rule !
When there are a shortage of girls , girls will become more valuable , and we 'll see the return of the bride price [ wikipedia.org ] to Chinese culture .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>an absolutely disgusting practiceWhy?
Because it offends you?
Let the free market rule!
When there are a shortage of girls, girls will become more valuable, and we'll see the return of the bride price [wikipedia.org] to Chinese culture.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348115</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28349685</id>
	<title>Re:Now we'll have a genetic class-based society...</title>
	<author>nEoN nOoDlE</author>
	<datestamp>1245175500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's really no different than our society today. Want to grow up to be a model? Sorry, kid, your parents were ugly so you too got the ugly gene. Humans do rudimentary genetic screening every single time they choose a mate. Pretty people date pretty people, smart people date smart people, etc. How does genetic designing emphasize this gap? The beautiful people of today will still have beautiful people of tomorrow, and more importantly, the rich people of today will still give one leg up to their children of tomorrow. People's class isn't chosen by genetics, it's chosen by money. Bill Gates is a really rich person who could never be a model, but he came from rich parents so he's had the fortunate opportunities that poorer people didn't. There are also plenty more ugly, stupid, brown haired, brown eyed, short, fat rich people who are also in the upper class because they've inherited it. On the other side, there are plenty of blue eyed, blond haired, tall, slender, smart people who will never have the opportunities to come out of their inherited poverty.</p><p>Also, while cosmetic medicine like this is expensive and can only be afforded by wealthy people at first, the price goes down where anyone can afford it. Look at boob jobs and lasik. You could get each of those for a few grand today, whereas it cost in the tens of thousands a few years ago. Those cosmetic surgeries are now open to people of all classes, as will this one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's really no different than our society today .
Want to grow up to be a model ?
Sorry , kid , your parents were ugly so you too got the ugly gene .
Humans do rudimentary genetic screening every single time they choose a mate .
Pretty people date pretty people , smart people date smart people , etc .
How does genetic designing emphasize this gap ?
The beautiful people of today will still have beautiful people of tomorrow , and more importantly , the rich people of today will still give one leg up to their children of tomorrow .
People 's class is n't chosen by genetics , it 's chosen by money .
Bill Gates is a really rich person who could never be a model , but he came from rich parents so he 's had the fortunate opportunities that poorer people did n't .
There are also plenty more ugly , stupid , brown haired , brown eyed , short , fat rich people who are also in the upper class because they 've inherited it .
On the other side , there are plenty of blue eyed , blond haired , tall , slender , smart people who will never have the opportunities to come out of their inherited poverty.Also , while cosmetic medicine like this is expensive and can only be afforded by wealthy people at first , the price goes down where anyone can afford it .
Look at boob jobs and lasik .
You could get each of those for a few grand today , whereas it cost in the tens of thousands a few years ago .
Those cosmetic surgeries are now open to people of all classes , as will this one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's really no different than our society today.
Want to grow up to be a model?
Sorry, kid, your parents were ugly so you too got the ugly gene.
Humans do rudimentary genetic screening every single time they choose a mate.
Pretty people date pretty people, smart people date smart people, etc.
How does genetic designing emphasize this gap?
The beautiful people of today will still have beautiful people of tomorrow, and more importantly, the rich people of today will still give one leg up to their children of tomorrow.
People's class isn't chosen by genetics, it's chosen by money.
Bill Gates is a really rich person who could never be a model, but he came from rich parents so he's had the fortunate opportunities that poorer people didn't.
There are also plenty more ugly, stupid, brown haired, brown eyed, short, fat rich people who are also in the upper class because they've inherited it.
On the other side, there are plenty of blue eyed, blond haired, tall, slender, smart people who will never have the opportunities to come out of their inherited poverty.Also, while cosmetic medicine like this is expensive and can only be afforded by wealthy people at first, the price goes down where anyone can afford it.
Look at boob jobs and lasik.
You could get each of those for a few grand today, whereas it cost in the tens of thousands a few years ago.
Those cosmetic surgeries are now open to people of all classes, as will this one.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348333</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348963</id>
	<title>Opening Screen?</title>
	<author>Flea of Pain</author>
	<datestamp>1245173040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I really, really hope this gets to the point where you can go into a clinic and get the good old Fallout 3 or Mass Effect character creation screen.  I mean seriously, how awesome would that be?!  My kid is definitely getting +4 to luck, then I can send him or her (I haven't gotten to the sex selection screen yet) to Vegas!!!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I really , really hope this gets to the point where you can go into a clinic and get the good old Fallout 3 or Mass Effect character creation screen .
I mean seriously , how awesome would that be ? !
My kid is definitely getting + 4 to luck , then I can send him or her ( I have n't gotten to the sex selection screen yet ) to Vegas ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I really, really hope this gets to the point where you can go into a clinic and get the good old Fallout 3 or Mass Effect character creation screen.
I mean seriously, how awesome would that be?!
My kid is definitely getting +4 to luck, then I can send him or her (I haven't gotten to the sex selection screen yet) to Vegas!!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28349719</id>
	<title>Even if you didnt specifically say it...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245175620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>-1, Godwin.</htmltext>
<tokenext>-1 , Godwin .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>-1, Godwin.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348339</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28350387</id>
	<title>Gambling on physiology != meaning of parenthood</title>
	<author>Pheidias</author>
	<datestamp>1245177660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's great that your kids turned out well, and I don't doubt that the surprises were thrilling. But how can you deny other parents the chance to give their children whatever advantages they can, as they see them?<br><br>On the issue of the forces we do not understand, yes, they are out there. We do not understand everything yet. But we understand a great deal more than we did 200 years ago, and it is a fair guess that we'll make a comparable amount of progress in the next 40 or so. Then genetics will not hold great mysteries for us. We will be on to something even more profound, like how matter came to be or why light has a speed limit or how many universes there are...</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's great that your kids turned out well , and I do n't doubt that the surprises were thrilling .
But how can you deny other parents the chance to give their children whatever advantages they can , as they see them ? On the issue of the forces we do not understand , yes , they are out there .
We do not understand everything yet .
But we understand a great deal more than we did 200 years ago , and it is a fair guess that we 'll make a comparable amount of progress in the next 40 or so .
Then genetics will not hold great mysteries for us .
We will be on to something even more profound , like how matter came to be or why light has a speed limit or how many universes there are.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's great that your kids turned out well, and I don't doubt that the surprises were thrilling.
But how can you deny other parents the chance to give their children whatever advantages they can, as they see them?On the issue of the forces we do not understand, yes, they are out there.
We do not understand everything yet.
But we understand a great deal more than we did 200 years ago, and it is a fair guess that we'll make a comparable amount of progress in the next 40 or so.
Then genetics will not hold great mysteries for us.
We will be on to something even more profound, like how matter came to be or why light has a speed limit or how many universes there are...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348401</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348479</id>
	<title>Re:picking the sex is more evil</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245171540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>They should outlaw sex selection. an absolutely disgusting practice</p></div><p>Why?</p><p>You say it's disgusting and evil, without offering an argument as to why.</p><p>So, back it up.</p><p>Personally, I'm ambivalent toward it, and there are potentially good reasons for it.  Say, if all males or females in a family have a debilitating disease, or if they are only capable of 'naturally' producing one sex, or to help solve an unbalanced gender ratio in a population (which of course should be roughly 1-1, but I digress).</p><p>The only real objection I can think of is how the child may view themselves knowing (or not knowing) that they were intended a certain way, as opposed to rolling the dice to see what happens.</p><p>It's just as likely that there would be a new wave of 'All-Natural' babies to avoid any perceived social stigma.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They should outlaw sex selection .
an absolutely disgusting practiceWhy ? You say it 's disgusting and evil , without offering an argument as to why.So , back it up.Personally , I 'm ambivalent toward it , and there are potentially good reasons for it .
Say , if all males or females in a family have a debilitating disease , or if they are only capable of 'naturally ' producing one sex , or to help solve an unbalanced gender ratio in a population ( which of course should be roughly 1-1 , but I digress ) .The only real objection I can think of is how the child may view themselves knowing ( or not knowing ) that they were intended a certain way , as opposed to rolling the dice to see what happens.It 's just as likely that there would be a new wave of 'All-Natural ' babies to avoid any perceived social stigma .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They should outlaw sex selection.
an absolutely disgusting practiceWhy?You say it's disgusting and evil, without offering an argument as to why.So, back it up.Personally, I'm ambivalent toward it, and there are potentially good reasons for it.
Say, if all males or females in a family have a debilitating disease, or if they are only capable of 'naturally' producing one sex, or to help solve an unbalanced gender ratio in a population (which of course should be roughly 1-1, but I digress).The only real objection I can think of is how the child may view themselves knowing (or not knowing) that they were intended a certain way, as opposed to rolling the dice to see what happens.It's just as likely that there would be a new wave of 'All-Natural' babies to avoid any perceived social stigma.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348115</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348701</id>
	<title>Science may be moving forward</title>
	<author>serutan</author>
	<datestamp>1245172320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But it never seems to outrun ignorance and religion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But it never seems to outrun ignorance and religion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But it never seems to outrun ignorance and religion.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348271</id>
	<title>Fa!gorz</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245170640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">see. The number They started to</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>see .
The number They started to [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>see.
The number They started to [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348147</id>
	<title>fat vs. big bones vs. fluffy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245170100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Me: "All the kids in school call me fat."<br>My Mom:"You're not fat. You're big boned."<br>Me: "That's what I said."</p><p>I wonder if they'll offer screenings for obesity? bad vision? propensity to tell lame jokes? desire to dwell in the basement past age 18?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.'ers need to know these things...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Me : " All the kids in school call me fat .
" My Mom : " You 're not fat .
You 're big boned .
" Me : " That 's what I said .
" I wonder if they 'll offer screenings for obesity ?
bad vision ?
propensity to tell lame jokes ?
desire to dwell in the basement past age 18 ?
/.'ers need to know these things.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Me: "All the kids in school call me fat.
"My Mom:"You're not fat.
You're big boned.
"Me: "That's what I said.
"I wonder if they'll offer screenings for obesity?
bad vision?
propensity to tell lame jokes?
desire to dwell in the basement past age 18?
/.'ers need to know these things...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28353207</id>
	<title>Re:I don't get it...</title>
	<author>Bartab</author>
	<datestamp>1245145080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why, pray tell, would I want to expend my resources raising children not genetically related to me? I have selfish genes, and if they're not going to spread, then I'm gonna party all night long with my resources and give-a-fuck what happens to others genes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why , pray tell , would I want to expend my resources raising children not genetically related to me ?
I have selfish genes , and if they 're not going to spread , then I 'm gon na party all night long with my resources and give-a-fuck what happens to others genes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why, pray tell, would I want to expend my resources raising children not genetically related to me?
I have selfish genes, and if they're not going to spread, then I'm gonna party all night long with my resources and give-a-fuck what happens to others genes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348757</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28349109</id>
	<title>Even the Pope objected?</title>
	<author>whiledo</author>
	<datestamp>1245173640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>But when their pre-implantation diagnostic services began including the baby's eye and hair color, even the Pope objected</p></div><p>I'm pretty sure the Pope was objecting the entire time.  Last year, they even made it <a href="http://www.vatican.va/roman\_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc\_con\_cfaith\_doc\_20081208\_dignitas-personae\_en.html" title="vatican.va">official company policy</a> [vatican.va] that IVF=abortion.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But when their pre-implantation diagnostic services began including the baby 's eye and hair color , even the Pope objectedI 'm pretty sure the Pope was objecting the entire time .
Last year , they even made it official company policy [ vatican.va ] that IVF = abortion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But when their pre-implantation diagnostic services began including the baby's eye and hair color, even the Pope objectedI'm pretty sure the Pope was objecting the entire time.
Last year, they even made it official company policy [vatican.va] that IVF=abortion.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348211</id>
	<title>Re:I don't get it...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245170340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"What's wrong with trying to get the eye color or hair color you want?"</p><p>I think the only way not to get the eye color or hair color you don't want is to abort the fetus after finding out it does not have the eye color or hair color you want.</p><p>It'd be one thing to abort because of genetic propensity for cystic fibrosis... but because of eye color?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" What 's wrong with trying to get the eye color or hair color you want ?
" I think the only way not to get the eye color or hair color you do n't want is to abort the fetus after finding out it does not have the eye color or hair color you want.It 'd be one thing to abort because of genetic propensity for cystic fibrosis... but because of eye color ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"What's wrong with trying to get the eye color or hair color you want?
"I think the only way not to get the eye color or hair color you don't want is to abort the fetus after finding out it does not have the eye color or hair color you want.It'd be one thing to abort because of genetic propensity for cystic fibrosis... but because of eye color?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348055</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28352689</id>
	<title>Question for ./ community</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245143100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I do not believe in intefering with the mystical process whereby life comes forth, and I have no wish to play God.  <br> My wife and I have been blessed with our child and we love him to death.  Yes, I was a little surprised that he is black (we're both pasty white Caucasians), but we love him and accept him fully as ours.  <br> And he's so cute and well adjusted, although he's only a few years young, it makes this young dad's heart burst at the seams with pride!!  And other people love him to death too!  For example, you should see my wife's tennis instructor (who is black) play with him!  They even look alike!  It's so cute.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do not believe in intefering with the mystical process whereby life comes forth , and I have no wish to play God .
My wife and I have been blessed with our child and we love him to death .
Yes , I was a little surprised that he is black ( we 're both pasty white Caucasians ) , but we love him and accept him fully as ours .
And he 's so cute and well adjusted , although he 's only a few years young , it makes this young dad 's heart burst at the seams with pride ! !
And other people love him to death too !
For example , you should see my wife 's tennis instructor ( who is black ) play with him !
They even look alike !
It 's so cute .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I do not believe in intefering with the mystical process whereby life comes forth, and I have no wish to play God.
My wife and I have been blessed with our child and we love him to death.
Yes, I was a little surprised that he is black (we're both pasty white Caucasians), but we love him and accept him fully as ours.
And he's so cute and well adjusted, although he's only a few years young, it makes this young dad's heart burst at the seams with pride!!
And other people love him to death too!
For example, you should see my wife's tennis instructor (who is black) play with him!
They even look alike!
It's so cute.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28350461</id>
	<title>Re:An Ethical Quandry without an easy answer</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245177900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In fact, getting rid of religion might leave a vacuum that could be filled by something worse...</p></div><p>The console wars take a bloody turn...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In fact , getting rid of religion might leave a vacuum that could be filled by something worse...The console wars take a bloody turn.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In fact, getting rid of religion might leave a vacuum that could be filled by something worse...The console wars take a bloody turn...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348491</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_158207_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348055
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348339
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28349621
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_158207_113</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348333
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28349685
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_158207_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348055
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348337
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348957
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_158207_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348263
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348615
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_158207_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348333
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28351423
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_158207_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348081
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348205
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348491
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28351163
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_158207_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348047
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348235
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348345
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_158207_103</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348081
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348205
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348401
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28351347
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_158207_99</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348115
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28358007
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_158207_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348081
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348205
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348401
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28352725
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_158207_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348055
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348603
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28350919
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_158207_90</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348055
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348277
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28350709
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_158207_110</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348115
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348545
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_158207_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348115
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348247
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_158207_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348115
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28350195
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_158207_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348081
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348205
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348401
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28349105
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_158207_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348195
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348575
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_158207_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348055
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348339
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28349449
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_158207_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348081
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348205
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348421
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_158207_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348719
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28350795
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_158207_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348055
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348283
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28350465
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_158207_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348333
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28350529
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_158207_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348055
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348757
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28350201
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_158207_111</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348333
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28349813
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_158207_102</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348081
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348205
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348401
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28350387
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_158207_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348081
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348205
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348401
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28441889
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_158207_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348081
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348205
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348483
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28360771
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_158207_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348047
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348235
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348493
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28362391
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_158207_101</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348055
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348337
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28371859
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_158207_97</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348055
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348211
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28349663
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_158207_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348333
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28349099
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_158207_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348263
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28349189
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_158207_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348055
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348603
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28350661
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_158207_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348081
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348205
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348505
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_158207_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348081
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348205
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348401
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28350007
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_158207_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348055
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348339
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28352919
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_158207_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348115
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28352239
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_158207_117</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348055
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348603
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28350917
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_158207_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348081
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348205
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348497
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28350327
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_158207_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348333
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28354219
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_158207_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348081
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348205
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348401
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28351763
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_158207_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348055
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348337
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28350611
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_158207_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348115
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348405
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_158207_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348333
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28351545
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_158207_107</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348081
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348205
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348471
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28351101
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_158207_109</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348047
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348119
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_158207_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348055
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348339
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28349719
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_158207_100</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348081
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348205
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348559
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_158207_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348081
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348205
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348491
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28357153
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_158207_94</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348333
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348873
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_158207_114</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348081
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348205
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348401
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28353711
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_158207_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348333
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348839
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_158207_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348055
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348757
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28353207
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_158207_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348081
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348205
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348491
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28350461
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_158207_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348081
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348205
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348401
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28349951
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_158207_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348081
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348205
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348471
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28351531
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_158207_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348055
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348201
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_158207_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348081
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348205
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348491
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28354543
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_158207_91</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348115
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28358089
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_158207_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348047
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348235
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348493
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28350085
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_158207_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348081
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348205
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348491
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28360645
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_158207_115</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348047
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348235
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28349377
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_158207_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348081
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348205
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348401
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28350945
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_158207_106</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348055
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348757
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28350875
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_158207_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348081
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348205
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348401
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348563
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_158207_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348081
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348205
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348401
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28357121
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_158207_105</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348081
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348205
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348497
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28350777
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_158207_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348055
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348603
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28351151
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_158207_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348263
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348733
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_158207_92</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348195
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348327
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_158207_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348055
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348597
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_158207_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348333
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28349025
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_158207_112</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348333
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28352599
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_158207_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348055
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348337
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28352981
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_158207_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348047
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348235
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348493
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28351555
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_158207_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348047
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348235
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348493
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28351685
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_158207_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348055
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348603
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28351791
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_158207_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348333
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28349455
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_158207_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348055
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348709
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_158207_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348055
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348337
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28349269
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_158207_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348055
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348389
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28350791
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_158207_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348333
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28349809
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_158207_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348081
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348205
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348401
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28351069
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_158207_104</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348333
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28349997
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_158207_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348115
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348631
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28351113
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_158207_98</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348115
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348455
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_158207_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348055
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348337
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28349623
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_158207_118</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348055
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348277
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28356307
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_158207_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348055
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348277
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28356207
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_158207_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348081
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348205
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348401
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28349647
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_158207_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348081
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348205
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348401
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28351417
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_158207_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348081
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348205
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348401
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348621
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_158207_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348263
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28349639
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_158207_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348055
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348337
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348787
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_158207_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348263
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28350125
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_158207_95</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348115
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348479
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_158207_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348081
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348205
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348471
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28353165
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_158207_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348047
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348235
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348493
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28356403
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_158207_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348081
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348205
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348491
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28351493
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_158207_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348333
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28357187
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_158207_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348055
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348337
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28357115
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_158207_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348081
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348205
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348483
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28349127
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_158207_96</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348055
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348603
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28351673
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_158207_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348115
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28350721
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_158207_116</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348055
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348337
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28349729
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_158207_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348055
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348603
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28349831
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_158207_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348081
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348205
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348491
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28350863
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_158207_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348081
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348205
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348491
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28351885
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_158207_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348333
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28349249
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_158207_89</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348055
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348339
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28350731
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_158207_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348081
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348205
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28350155
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_158207_93</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348333
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348985
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_158207_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348055
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348603
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28352263
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_158207_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348115
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28351191
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_158207_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348263
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28349209
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_158207_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348719
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28350087
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_158207_108</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348081
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348205
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348491
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28350851
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_158207_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348115
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348601
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28350281
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_158207_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348081
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348205
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348401
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28365245
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_158207.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348041
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_158207.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348333
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28351545
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28349025
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28349809
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28349455
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28354219
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348839
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28352599
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348985
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28357187
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28351423
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28349249
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28349813
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28349685
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28349997
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348873
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28350529
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28349099
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_158207.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348195
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348327
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348575
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_158207.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28349939
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_158207.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348719
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28350087
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28350795
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_158207.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348047
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348235
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348493
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28351685
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28350085
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28356403
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28351555
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28362391
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348345
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28349377
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348119
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_158207.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28350399
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_158207.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28350739
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_158207.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348267
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_158207.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348055
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348603
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28352263
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28350919
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28351151
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28351791
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28350917
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28351673
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28349831
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28350661
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348597
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348389
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28350791
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348709
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348211
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28349663
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348201
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348337
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28352981
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348787
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28357115
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28350611
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28349623
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28349269
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348957
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28371859
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28349729
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348339
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28350731
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28349621
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28352919
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28349719
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28349449
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348757
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28350201
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28353207
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28350875
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348283
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28350465
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348277
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28356207
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28350709
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28356307
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_158207.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348147
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_158207.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348115
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348455
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348247
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28350721
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348545
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28352239
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28358007
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28358089
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348479
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348631
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28351113
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348601
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28350281
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28351191
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348405
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28350195
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_158207.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348081
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348205
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348483
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28360771
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28349127
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348421
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28350155
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348471
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28351531
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28353165
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28351101
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348559
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348491
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28354543
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28350461
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28351493
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28360645
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28351885
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28350863
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28350851
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28351163
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28357153
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348505
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348401
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348621
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28351069
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28353711
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28349105
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28350945
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28357121
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28350007
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28365245
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28350387
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28351347
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348563
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28351763
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28441889
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28349647
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28349951
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28351417
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28352725
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348497
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28350327
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28350777
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_158207.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348263
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28349189
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348733
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28349639
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28350125
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348615
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28349209
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_158207.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_158207.28348159
</commentlist>
</conversation>
