Writing Studies 3302 Spring 2009

Where do we draw the line regarding reproduction? As I read the article "Embryo Police" I was conflicted regarding how far is too far? If there is an allowance of screening for genetic diseases and then termination of pregnancy resulting from the results, does that constitute the right of others to genetically modify embryos to create the perfect child? In some respects I agree with the HFEA, "Today sex-specific children, tomorrow a bioengineered master race." By perfecting children to be what we want them to be before they are even born seems very unnatural to me. It scares me to think of a world where there are genetically engineered human beings that will have more chances or opportunities because their parents could afford to give them that chance. Then on the other side is non genetically modified people with what is perceived as having lesser intelligence because their parents couldn't afford to provide them with the same opportunity. This not only will cause a wider gap between the classes but could initiate another holocaust. I understand that people want their children to not suffer horrible diseases or have the best possible chance of success but doesn't this in some ways stifle individuality? It is one thing to do IVF, but when we start screwing with the genetic code, providing the opportunity for higher intelligence, you are making that person what you want them to be instead of them making that decision for themselves and without medical intervention.

I thought Shelly presented an allegory of human potential, even with an element of satire. Victor’s knowledge or thirst for knowledge drove him to madness in creating the monster. The story depicts Victor’s first creation as grotesque and hideous. This is where I found an element of humorous satire–does the grotesqueness of the monster convey a notion humans can’t create “better” than God?–but of course, beauty is internal. Does science beg a “grotesque” evil as in the dilapidation of Victor by his own creation of his monster? Above all, I think it is interesting how Shelly’s story from the earlier 1800’s resembles the current issues today in the 21st century.

I definitely think bioengineering can serve a necessary purpose, however, as the reading implies, both implicitly and explicitly, it goes along with many potentially negative ramifications. Bioengineering seems to beg the question “what is natural” more than other issues. Could the idea of natural be a sort of delusion among humans? In my opinion, I think fertility treatment and in vitro selection is overstepping the line in the sand. As Koerner discusses, embryo selection presents an issue that extends beyond the immediate ethical implications of such a practice. Embryo selection would be a money driven practice that only those who have money could participate in. This would most likely create a polarization in social and economic classes (obviously). I wonder what religion would have to say about the God in that. Bioengineering can be a “good” thing too. I’ve heard about research being done at the U of M that seeks to take a person who needs a heart transplant, extract their stem cells and use them to grow the patient another heart. In effect, you could be your own donor.

Frankenstein is one of my favorite books, so I was really excited when I saw that we were going to discuss it. I think it does a great job at discussing a serious topic in an interesting and emotional way. Although this is a dramatized version of anything that would ever happen regarding unnatural creation of life, it is interesting to think of the consequences. For example, are there things that could go wrong in altering or choosing human characteristics? Could this negatively affect the person that these choices were made for or could it negatively affect people around them?
In the Embryo Police article, the main question that came up in my head is where do we draw the line? Is it ethical for us to screen for disease in babies, but not ethical for us to choose the sex of the baby? Can we choose other characteristics for the baby such as their eye color, height, etc? Or is this unethical? Would it create a “Genrich” and a “Natural” species of humans? Who decides what is okay and what is not? I personally am a fan of natural selection, but I wonder if my point of view would change if I was pregnant and I found out that my child would have a disease. I think these are all very difficult questions to answer, and everyone’s point of view is going to differ depending on what they have been through and their experiences.

We expect Genetic Engineering to be the salvation of humanity; most people will use this technological advance to wipe out disease. I do not think we can ever wipe out disease however hard we try. Some mental abnormalities cannot be traced to a source and there is no single gene that causes autism or cancer. Disease evolves alongside Humans and as long as we continue to be made of flesh, we will continue to be afflicted by pathogens that quicken our “natural deaths” On the topic of having a second child in order to save the first from a genetic problem, I remember back to an earlier class meeting, when Daniel mentioned something along the lines of “…No child should be brought into the World with a purpose”, and I agree whole heartedly. While it is amiable to save another life, I can make such a choice because I understand the implications but a new born child cannot make such a choice, and it does not seem right to create life with a single purpose in mind.

The irony of creating life and than being repulsed by his (Victor) own action is not lost on me. Parenthood is usually a surprise for most couples and there is a period of adjustment. I wonder why Victor Frankenstein selected beautiful features for his selection. Is it not enough to create life, but the life must be aesthetically pleasing? Boy or Girl. Faired hair or dark haired. Does it really matter in the end? Technically speaking there isn’t much genetic variation between the person next to me and myself. Humans live, experience emotions and make connections with other humans, and than we pass on. Parents ideally should want what is best for their child, but there is a fair line between giving your child a decent life and creating a “perfect” child to love. Unless it is truly in the child’s best interest, if it is a detectable and avoidable disease, genetic testing should be done, but other than that, I do not support genetic testing.

When talking about poverty and the importance of getting people out of it, discussions are based around the provision of basic necessities in life. Access to food, water and shelter in accordance to the environment along with basis clothing, etc. As you climb up the ladder from poverty stricken places to first world countries you get to economic and safety provisions as basics in necessities in life. I can easily see decision making in terms of a child's safety when being born added to the lists. If the safety of the child is at stake when born, i.e. disease or disorder, and steps can be taken genetically to bypass those happenings, then I think that is an ethically wise and morally just decision. Anything outside of that specific realm, i.e. aesthetically valued qualities or characteristics, is questionable. Unfortunately we all know where this could potentially lead. You let one foot in the door with this stuff and it inevitably leads down the road to loose legislation and deregulation and before you know it people will be picking their children from menus.

I liked the article Embryo Police. It brought up issues I have not totally considered, like picking a sex to avoid the child dieing young from a disease. I am apposed to it however, even it the author can show examples of when it may be appropriate. It has never made sense to me why it is so important for people to have offspring that share their same genetic information. Many years ago it may have, when you look at monarchs and such but today it just seems like a vanity contest to me. Also, there are so many people in the world to begin with why bring more in if you don't have to. Like people who breed dogs and cats, why not just go to the humane society and adopt there are too many out in the world to begin with that need homes. I suppose I may not understand, or will ever I have never had a strong urge to procreate and if I have a mommy itch someday I would rather look into adopt someone that has already been born. I would really like to have this author do another article like this, but for today with the new controversy of "octu-mom". To me that is total vanity. She already has children, and now she has even more! That really is a case for how lax our medical system has become, and that frightens me. Why wasn't she given a psychological evaluation to show what personality disorders she has, then maybe the doctors would not have gone through with it! Most women with that kind of narcissistic personality just get plastic surgery, which is also costly and wasteful, but babies live on and continue to make waste. Just for fun here are some numbers:
* 3,800 disposable diapers in the first 2.5 years
* 96% of American babies wear disposables, whereas only 6% of Chinese babies do. In India, 2%.
* Between 2000 and 2050, the U.S. will add 114 million kids to its population. Africa will add 1.2 billion—but their respective CO2 emissions will be the same. Zahara Jolie-Pitt will produce 45,000 lbs of CO2 yearly, compared with 221 lbs if she still lived in Ethiopia.
* One American child generates as much CO2 as 106 Haitian kids.
http://ecochildsplay.com/2009/02/05/carbon-babies-the-octuplets-and-8-nappy-bottoms/

These sort of statistics have made me not want to have children, I would rather enjoy the Earth as it is now not full of dirty diapers. I really could go on and on with opposition to IV babies and people like the "otcu-mom" or my co-worker that rents out her uterus to people around the world, but I will save it for my paper.

The issues regarding reproductive technology are all based on ethical and moral opinions concerning what is right or wrong for the whole of society. However, the technology itself is not always the sole cause of controversy and debate. The motivation behind use of the technology is often one factor in determining whether treatment should be permitted. If one pursues IVF to create a child that can provide life-saving bone marrow or stem cells to a dying sibling, what quality of life will this engineered “harvest child” have? Unfortunately, we don’t know yet: the real life examples of such children are not old enough to communicate the full effects that their ‘creation’ had on their lives. From another perspective, one would argue that it’s unethical to allow a child to suffer needlessly while this technology exists. On a side note, if anyone is interested, Jodi Picoult wrote a novel entitled “My Sister’s Keeper” on this subject.

Another factor that is taken into consideration is what implications this technology could have in the future. Does allowing one to choose the sex of one’s child mirror the male-favored sexism that has permeated our society for centuries? Will this lead to the “GenRich” dystopia mentioned in “Embryo Police”? Or will it alternatively lead to a society free of debilitating diseases and cancers?

The biggest question is: who gets to make the rules? In the UK, it is up to the HFEA, a small panel of individuals from varying backgrounds who are selected to make decisions that represent the opinions of the whole of society. But who ever said that the majority is always right?

I am so torn about what side of genetic engineering I am on. On the one hand, it is amazing the things we can do with it in terms of curing diseases and taking the death sentence away from others. But on the other hand, the slope is so slippery that we really are only a few steps away from genetically engineering the “GenRich versus the Natural” humans and our species separating. There is also such a fine line between what constitutes human life in terms of stem cell research. This makes me want to say that we should just stop the research and therefore cease all the controversies as well. But at the same time there are such good things that come out of stem cell research. I just don’t know what side to pick.
Before we go any farther with this research, though, I think we should have to pass a governmentally or maybe globally accepted definition of what a human being is and then base answers to controversies off of that. For example, it could clarify if a clone was human or not and at what point an embryo becomes a human.

As a side note, I just want to comment on how the situation of the Hashimis and the Nashes in the “Embryo Police” article remind me of the book My Sister’s Keeper by Jodi Piccoult, which I just finished reading. The book is about a family with a terminally ill child who genetically engineer another baby to be the perfect match for the ill one. The plot thickens when the engineered baby wants to stop being a donor for her sister. It was a really amazing book.

While reading Embryo Police, I was really surprised to find out that there was no regulation from the government on fertility clinics, when in comes to ethics of what they can and cant do. After considering it some more, I feel like a major player in this conflict of what a government should and shouldnt govern is the separation of church and state. Because our government was founded with the separation of church and state, it is unacceptable for me to say that I believe that making human life should be left up to God. No matter how many people feel this way, if there is no harm to secular society in choosing certain genes for a baby, government should not be able to stop families from doing so. When in comes to choosing the sex of a child, as long as one sex does not come to far outnumber the other, i see no secular reason for not being able to do so. Of course I find major religious issues with doing this, but am forced to put these ideas out of conversation when it comes to government.

I really enjoyed the Embryo police article because it is a topic that I think about quite often. I think that choosing a sex of a baby is going too far. I think that when expecting parents first learn the sex of their child it comes as a surprise not something that they have put in place. I think that this kind of thing is completely unnatural. We often discuss how do we define natural but I think that this is a perfect example to aid the definition of unnatural. Although their have been some good points of why choosing the sex of one's baby can be a good thing, such as avoiding awful disease I truly feel that that is something that comes with life. I think that people who decide to have a child should always be prepared for the best and the worst. The joys of having a child should not be whether or not the child is genetically perfect but instead the joy and happiness and optimum health that they can give a child, and vice versa after the child is conceived given which ever cards they are dealt. There are so many parents out there who just want a child and even after just a normal round of IVF are still unable and then often turn to adoption. I think that parents being so choosy about what their child will be like is a selfish and awful thing to do and really takes away the joy of conceiving, the birth and the ability to bare children at all. I think that science has provided mankind with so many unique and interesting ways to conceive that this kind of thing is people always wanting more and being greedy. Like the article mentioned IVF started as a positive thing and it keeps going further, possibly too far. I think that the ideas that this article stated for future implications of this procedure is quite correct. This is a procedure, like many others, that will just keep going further and further until we put a stop to it. Before long we will babies and children that are more like machines than they are careless, free loving individuals raised by selfish, and wealthy at that, types of parents. Because conceiving and child birth can often be a natural thing, I think that this will always be a costly procedure and will only continue to be more expensive.

The article, Embryo Police, just makes me wonder how far our technology will go. Are we going to make babies now? I do not understand that whole process and I do not understand why people would want to do it. That is almost sick for me. You do not decide on what sex you want your child to be. You just have to let the natural course take it's action. Let the natural process work. It is so unnatural to make children like that and to choose their sex. Who even knows who decides the child's sex. If it's decided before they are even born by "God" or what. Maybe a body just develops who knows. I do not like the whole thing with messing with embryos and kind of playing around with them because you never know what that could cause for the future of those children. If they will live a normal life and live a healthy life.
As far as the Frankenstein book goes- which is a made up story, I do not think that science should go that far into trying to make someone a human which in the end is a robot figure who ends up having or learning feelings. It is sad to create anything. I am not for science going that far.

I know I am jumping somewhat ahead here, but I want to comment on the article Capper sent out in through email that regards Gregory Stock's lecture about biotech being the future of evolution. He comments on embryo screening and how it has already been implemented to weed out potentially harmful diseases before birth. That sounds great in a nutshell... prevent your child from suffering a fate that could have been removed all by selectively choosing which embryos to fertilize. The question I have to ask then is where does it stop? He continues to go on saying that this method is already becoming a very common one, and with more refinement, it will be used to eliminate all diseases from human DNA. Again, sounds great... but at what cost? He says that the natural course of humanity is to pursue an easier route, that we will always be on the lookout for new ways to improve our lives and increase the pleasure that is allocated from them. Yes I do think that is true, but I also think that the idea of choice is another innate human quality. Choice has continued our survival, choice has been the catalyst to many atrocities and miracles alike, and it is that choice that could lead us to a path we may not want to go.

It could be that I have seen too many Sci-Fi flicks about genetic enhancement or robots controlling humans, but it is a scary thought. If we tamper with the human genome too much by weeding out all these imperfections, would that change our species altogether? Not initially, but after generations of genetic engineering I think that could be a great possibility, and that again is scary to me. Scientists are already saying that people's immune systems are weaker than people were fifty years ago, thanks to the antibacterial soaps we use. That lack of exposure to germs may lead to worse problems in the future, just to make sure you were clean now. I think that idea could be directly applied to genetic engineering. It sounds great now to modify your kids DNA to make them a genius and a star athlete, but we could be removing a type of genome that is directly connected to our survival… the natural way we became into being by thousands of years of evolution. Saying that biotechnology will drive our evolution in the future is not correct, it will only modify it and induce more rapid changes. Evolution was meant to take a long time, allowing nature to weed out imperfections by mating and adapting, not tampering with your DNA. As I said before, it is just a scary thought about what if, and we will only know the outcome when it happens… and at that point it may be too late.

I think that I am personally conflicted in whether or not I feel this is right because I see a small amount of cases that could be beneficial and then I see a lot more that are probably self-serving. I don’t doubt that in certain instances, like the one mentioned in the article, that it could be great joy to a family to have a child of the certain sex. However, I also have an inkling that they don’t actually know what they’re doing when they ask a doctor to do this for them. I think that this could have terrible consequences in a country like China. China is a country that is so obsessed with giving birth to male children that if this procedure was readily available in the country, there would be much fewer women. I understand that most families in China could probably not afford to do this, but I think that is kind of beside the point.
As was mentioned in the article, it puts the world on a slippery slope. Once this becomes common, then parents are going to want children with certain traits. I guess I don’t think it is right for parents to be breeding the most ideal athlete, or the smartest child possible. However, I see some benefit in the ability to weed out certain genetic diseases that could afflict the child later in life. I think that there is really no way to prevent sex selection, and eventually trait selection, from becoming widespread in the world. If one country outlaws it, the scientists and doctors who practice it can move to another country. I think it is a difficult situation to tackle and I am glad that I’m not the person in charge of regulating it.

While looking through the movie Gattaca for relevance to todays posting, I found two great quotes that can be applied to what we are talking about.

"I not only think that we will tamper with Mother Nature, I think Mother wants us to." -Willard Gaylin

"Consider God's handiwork; who can straighten what He hath made crooked?" - Ecclesiastes 7:13.

While looking through the movie Gattaca for relevance to todays posting, I found two great quotes that can be applied to what we are talking about.

"I not only think that we will tamper with Mother Nature, I think Mother wants us to." -Willard Gaylin

"Consider God's handiwork; who can straighten what He hath made crooked?" - Ecclesiastes 7:13.

It seems like everyone is having the same thoughts on the readings that I had. The main question that I am asking myself (and it seems everyone is asking) is where the line gets drawn when selecting traits. We can select for gender, but then is it okay to select for height or intelligence? If we got to this point of being to design our children, what would the future look like? I think the world’s social system would change dramatically. For example, if a few thousand couples in the United States wanted to make track star babies and they were able to, these babies would no longer be assured their track star status, because what used to be good would now be the norm. Or, if everyone is selecting for intelligence, then what used to be smart becomes average intelligence. One way that I could see this happening is that only the rich could select for their traits. If this were the case, then the rich would be the smart, athletic ones, and the gap between the rich and the poor would widen more than it already is. I don’t think I am against gene selection in some cases, but I think that it definitely is a slippery slope, and at the bottom of the slope is somewhere I definitely don’t want to see the world be.

"Today sex-specific children, tomorrow a bioengineered master race."-Brendan Koerner

Until I read the “Embryo Police” article, this possibility had never occurred to me, even though it makes perfect sense. An embryo that has a unique design because it was not derived from a natural process, could lead to a mutation while growing. However, would scientists intentionally implant these embryos in hopes of receiving a cluster of “gifted” children? Would they want to expand on this and produce more of these children to begin a new race of elite humans? I certainly hope not. If they are less susceptible to illnesses or diseases and perhaps are more intellectual than the normal human then I don’t see a problem with those characteristics. However, if they are much more advanced than we had initially anticipated, then our species will be in some level of jeopardy because we would see them as a threat. Similar to what Frankenstein tried to accomplish with the Creature, when we (humanity in general) are faced with the product of our own creation and are incapable of controlling it because we fear the creation, we will more than likely lose the control and suffer the consequences of our impulsive actions. Although I am uncertain of type of consequences that may arise, in situations like these, when man attempts to play God, a happy ending is typically never in order.

I am glad we are discussing stem cell research and the views of different religions regarding stem cell research. Overall, I think the Religious Tolerance website did a good job presenting all sides of the stem cell debate. However, the website is somewhat out of date in terms of the rapidly breaking studies using human stem cells. The website discussed how the Massachusetts Family Institute claimed adult stem cells are the only stem cells that have yielded cures. This is a common argument for those opposed to stem cell research. The website did not mention a promising clinical trial that will begin this summer by Geron Corp. using human embryonic stem cells to treat spinal cord injury.

While adult stem cells and induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells are promising, we need to continue embryonic stem cell research. Embryonic stem cell research is the “gold standard” because it is what actually happens in human development. iPS is complicated, and involves many intervening factors. We need embryonic stem cell research to compare the efficacy and safety of iPS to the baseline of what actually happens in human development. Remember, evey embryonic stem cell used for research that received federal funding would otherwise be destroyed. Why not put that cell to the best use possible trying to cure devastating diseases and conditions? It is estimated that there are 128 million Americans who could potentially benefit from stem cell research treatments and/or cures.

This issue is very important to me. I wrote this after President Obama signed the stem cell Executive Order: http://newvoicesforresearch.blogspot.com/2009/03/exciting-day-for-science-in-america.html
Also see this press release I authored: http://www.ssscr.org/Obama_EO

I remember us talking about genetic engineering briefly earlier this semester. One of the most dominant arguments used against genetic engineering that few actually know of is, or at least is reported the least frequently, is the harmful effects on natural variation.

The most important biological function relating to evolution is mutation, the random reassembly of DNA molecules in a recently conceived zygote going through meiosis and mitosis. Some mutations are so subtle that their existence is undetected and does not effect the new organism at all. Other mutations can be extremely detrimental to the health of a new organism. Or, the mutation could benefit the new born organism because it gives that organism a specific feature that enables it to survive better in nature. The idea of natural selection is based upon which physical characteristics allow species to the best chances of surviving and passing on their characteristics to their offspring.

If humans begin engineering children, random mutation is completely being taken out of the picture. And although we could create a child to be have the best characteristics available, we may be unknowingly disabling a mutation that would ensure survival, such as a gene that makes people immune to a deadly virus. Genetic engineering is a fancy way of saying "playing God" and though we have the technology to do so, we do not have the omniscient and selfless wisdom or responsibility to assume that power.

In response to Embryo Police, This article truly showed how much we are pushing the limits and redefining the term “natural.” Women are giving birth in their sixties now and ill children are having their tissue harvested in the hopes that someday they could be turned into reproducible cells. Maybe there is a reason why these things did not ever happen until we made them happen. Humans are getting to the point where we can almost bypass a simple concept such as male plus female equals offspring. The issue here is determining whether or not we want to preserve the natural aspect of things, or even if we should. Does life become less precious once we can create it whenever we want in a lab? Many couples try repeatedly to get pregnant, but if life can be created in a lab with little effort, does the value go down? Should it?

One of the motivations for cloning presented in the articles was that of replacing people who had died. To me, this motivation seems backwards because there is a huge difference between someone’s physical characteristics and their personality. As shown with identical twins, just because two people have the same DNA does not mean that they will have the same personality traits. Physically, the cloned person will be the same, but if someone is loved and greatly missed, it is usually for their non-physical traits. Cloning does not reproduce these non-physical traits. In regards to new technology emerging that could bring us to a Brave New World like reproduction process, the laws governing these processes are going to be crucial. Our constitution tries to separate church and state, but an issue like cloning and laboratory creation of life will definitely bring religious issues into the law making process.

I don’t necessarily agree with what the Mastertons are trying to do. Yes, I can sympathize, although I have never been in their position. It must have been very difficult for them to finally have a daughter only to have her taken away from them once and for all. But the HFEA has the entire United Kingdom to look after, and one case of ambiguity isn’t going to make them change their entire perspective. And then, let’s use our imaginations to picture if the Mastertons actually did change the HFEA’s mind and they were allowed to choose use sexual selection. How would that daughter feel? “Yeah, we had another daughter before you who we loved but she died, so now you’re here to kind of take her place. No pressure or anything.” That’s a lot to live up to, and it’s hard to really imagine what it would feel like to know that you were CHOSEN to be the way you are. Not a lot of free will there. And then the fact that the Mastertons are basically trying to replace their dead daughter is a little repulsive to me. You can’t replace a dead child; anything that you use to try to fill the void won’t fit entirely. And in this case specifically, I think that trying to replace Nicole is sort of an insult to her memory.

I think bioengineering is a good idea as long as it is carefully planned out. I could honestly care less if parents want sex-specific kids. They should have the right to raise the kids they want to raise. I want my kids to have a better life than I did. With advances in bioengineering technology my kids could have a lot more opportunity than I had. They should be healthier, smarter, and less susceptible to disease. I don't know why anyone wouldn't want that for their children. I can see the slogan now... "Designer humans! Unnatural selection has arrived." The biggest issue would be cost. How could they charge for designed human beings? By trait? Or maybe they'll market package deals. "Lower the risk of heart problems and cancer with package 1, or have higher IQs with package two, or get both for with 20% of the combined price!" This path will be walked down, just like every other path that has potential for grossing huge profits. Even if the Frankenstein situation occurred, and man made life got out of hand and uncontrollable, I'd try to embrace the destruction and hope that my genes become a part of the cesspool propagating evolution, no matter how grotesque the outcome becomes.

“It’s not a question of if it’s going to happen, it’s when and where and how it’s going to happen.” –Gregory Stock

Clearly from website link we got to The Fertility Institutes this is the case.

I was just arguing with a friend the other day about the ethical ramifications of genetic engineering for enhancement of human life and it was his inability to understand reasoning behind the above quote that made it impossible to continue the discussion. Before I wanted to discuss ethical or political implications of genetically engineering better humans, I wanted to set the premise that the eventuality was inevitable and he couldn’t get past the idea of, “I just don’t agree it should happen in the first place.” My friend or anyone else for that matter disagreeing with the use of genetic technologies to enhance humans isn’t going to put more than a minor roadblock at best, in front of what promises to make humans lives longer, healthier, and happier.

INEVITABILITY, is the most important point that can be made when starting any conversation having to do with the ethical and political implications of genetic engineering technologies as they are applied to humans. It’s from this basis that intelligent and more importantly, practical discussion of how these technologies will affect our society can take place. As Gregory Stock suggested, we are coming to an age where “the lines are going to blur, and they already are between therapy and enhancement, between treatment and prevention, and between need and desire.”

The types of discussions I want to have are about how we create a situation where this technology is available to everyone and not just the super rich or how the United States can lead in innovation in order to help spur our economy.

The genetic engineering of humans is wrong and should be banned. Though I would ardently argue for rational thought on most other subjects, my opinion on this matter is not based on any sort of scientific reasoning; it comes solely from my ethical compass. Some would ask: What is the harm in merely selecting the sex of a child before carrying out a pregnancy? In his article, “Embryo Police,” Brendan Koerner answers the question: “Today sex-specific children, tomorrow a bioengineered master race.” Before knowing it, we would be selecting interests and IQ. We would be selecting against children that might be considered nerds or might turn out to be gay. What would a world be like without nerds or without gay people? Though society tends to deem certain traits disadvantageous, these are the traits that humble us. These are the traits that help us learn and overcome. These are the traits that make us who we are. Without evil, there can be no good. Without disadvantages, we are no longer human. We lose our deep understanding and appreciation for life. We are no longer individuals. We lose our identity.

HJDZtI comment2 ,

VkL97N comment1 ,

Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!

Great site. Keep doing.

BFh0tO

+1