NationStates Jolt Archive

I have submitted a proposal, and I would appreciate if some of you would tell me your opinion about it, and if you like it, approve it. You can find it by searching for "Ban Designer Children"

Description: This resolution proposes a world wide ban on all designer children, or the genetic engineering of ones unborn child. Under this resolution, all genetic engineering of an unborn child for cosmetic purposes shall be banned. Genetic engineering for cosmetic purposes is considered to be the changing of the child's eye color, hair color, skin color, nationality and/or race, and all other physical appearances. Genetic engineering of an unborn child shall only be permitted under certain circumstances. This would include circumstances in which genetic engineering would provide the person the ability to lead a normal life and be free from genetic diseases, or genetic predisposal to certain medical conditions.

* Reads proposal ...

" Okay, but you seemed to miss a critical bit of note ... the Why. "

- Le Représentant de Komokom.

Ministre Régional de Substance.
L'Ordre de Vaillant États.
http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/komokom.jpg (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/24401/page=display_nation)
Aspirez a la legalite avec l'egalite

<--- Not a Moderator, just a Know It All.

Certainly I agree that people should not have "designer children," but as Komokom said, a UN proposal must have justification other than opinions. There isn't even an attempt at justification here. Give us reasons why we should ban this practice. I'm sure you can think of some.

Certainly I agree that people should not have "designer children," but as Komokom said, a UN proposal must have justification other than opinions. There isn't even an attempt at justification here. Give us reasons why we should ban this practice. I'm sure you can think of some.


Well for one, people who are "designer children" may be viewed as unnatural by the people who were conceived normally, and a situation my arise where there is a division between these two peoples, such as we have the "have's" and the "have-nots" today.

Also, if we start genetic engineering humans, and make one, simple mistake, there is no telling how much damage will be done to that person, who would have been completely normal if they had not been genetically engineered.

Before making your legislation, you should always realise that history proves that no law has ever stopped technical advances. People will use technical advances, be it inside or outside the laws you make.
If you try to ban something, you can be sure it will happen outside the law. What you should do is ensure that there is a broad discussion about ethics and 'hope for people to use common sense'. Also, you should realise that some choice are simply not for the government or the group, but for the individual. Free choice of the individual ends, when it harms the freedom of other individuals.
Apart from that, your proposal holds a contradiction. You want to ban all genetic engineering, yet you accept that there are circumstances that would allow it. Doesn't this mean that a discussion about genetic engineering is legitimit and doesn't this prove that the choice you make here is YOUR choice and therefore I think it's negotiable whether others should make this choice themselves. Why is it acceptable for parents to choose the childrens school and not influence their looks? Both are choice in inreversable processes! It's not as easy as it seems!
An individual may feel it's not 'right' to have designer children; So don't have any and let nature take it's course. But does that give you the right to limit other individuals in making THEIR choice about this?
Looks can be a major factor in how succesfull someone will be in life. Just like education can be a major factor in life. Why is it unethical to improve your looks? Why can we do this AFTER we are born and not before?

Before making your legislation, you should always realise that history proves that no law has ever stopped technical advances. People will use technical advances, be it inside or outside the laws you make.
Genetic engineering and foetus implantation aren't techniques you can carry out in a shady garage. Dozens of highly-trained people, specialist equipment and facilities are required.

Looks can be a major factor in how succesfull someone will be in life. Just like education can be a major factor in life. Why is it unethical to improve your looks? Why can we do this AFTER we are born and not before?
Well, for a start, this is an egalitarian argument. Setting aside the possibility of a state eugenics program, this will become available first to those who can afford it - which would hardwire inequality into society from birth. Any suggestion that advancement in your society is based on personal merit, rather than how rich your parents were, would become laughable.

It's a basic principle of ethical fairness that you don't cheat - that is, take an advantage you didn't earn. And this would represent a fundamental rejection of that.

While we concur that the proposal could be better laid out, and needs very careful and specific wording, we're in favour of the principle.

Well, while I much so do respect Rehochipe, I must disagree.

Also, while I would like to make a nice fat post, I am tired, and also have to compose a labratory report for college t'moz. So I'll make it brief.

I am un-happy we must see things as "egalitarian argument" and reflect on this negatively, while I accept the probability of your arguments coming true Rehochipe, I do not see how we should rule out the possibility of them not.

Also : Ultimately in my mind, we cannot, well, Albert said it best,

“A large part of history is replete with the struggle for human rights, an eternal struggle in which final victory can never be won. But to tire in that struggle would mean the ruin of society.”

- Albert Einstein.

Now, I admit this is not exactly of the same scale in a way, but, I am trying to say, even though the struggle against prejudice and equality in relation to society and by natural extension, technology in it, may too never be won, it is a struggle we cannot give up hope in winning.

Because that would mean ruin.

Personally, I am all for cosmetic genetic engineering, but my personal opinions aside on the matter,

I am might I say though, gravely concerned by the vague clause at the end relating to allowable circumstances for genetic engineering. It seems very much a rider clause in which to limit genetic engineering for specific circumstances, and I consider this a possible and graven miss-use of international law to restrict the rights of nations in relation to beneficial technology due to the moral opinions of a questionable demographic of this society.

- Le Représentant de Komokom.

Ministre Régional de Substance.
L'Ordre de Vaillant États.
http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/komokom.jpg (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/24401/page=display_nation)
Aspirez a la legalite avec l'egalite

<--- Not a Moderator, just a Know It All.

Apart from that, your proposal holds a contradiction. You want to ban all genetic engineering, yet you accept that there are circumstances that would allow it.


Well I would hope that you would view genetic engineering to prevent a child from having down syndrome a lot different from parents choosing to have a daughter with blonde hair, green eyes, fair skin, and 36C breasts.

I hear Bennetton International has already contracted for roomsful of these tykes.

Bennetton

*shudder*

Of course the problem with too much talk about this sort of thing leads to people assuming 'blonde hair, green eyes, fair skin, and 36C breasts.' is unnatural.

But I'm probably only saying that because I am one of those children (minus the green eyes, I have blue, and I my bra size varies between manufacturer)

I don't think a list of acceptable cases should be put down because it does not take into account the severity of a condition, new conditions that arise, and conditions that effect every sentient species in the NSUN.

Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Black New World
Do you know what ‘gay science’ is?

The most bountiful and esteemed gloriousness that is Bahgum was particularly drawn to the title of this proposal. However we would like to suggest that the title is taken as an excellent starting point for two further proposals. That is to ban children (in all public spaces) and ban designers (especially those that inflict themselves on prime time TV in reality shows-Bahgum has a place on the revolutionary wall for any such types which wise nations wish to send on a visit to our beautiful nation).

By Eck tha's Grand Lads n Lasses,
Bahgum

I second that! Especially the children bit *shudder*.

Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Shuddering New World
Do you know what ‘gay science’ is?

The idea is good, but it needs tinkering and a justification...

gay science? Carried out by particulary happy scientists with a sunny outlook on life?

gay science? Carried out by particulary happy scientists with a sunny outlook on life?
Gay Science is-

a) 'The Gay Science' a book by a German philosopher whose name my dyslexia dose not allow me to spell.

b) A spelling mistake. It was supposed to be 'gay since' because someone was asking either me or Komokon 'was gay since this [gay rights are legalised in the UN] meant so much to us' We even have t-shirts.

Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Black New World
Do you know what ‘gay science’ is?

if people want designer children, let them have desinger children. I don't see a problem with this. Their children, their choice :!:

Let the kids be designed by way of a new TV show:
"Gay eye for the straight couple".

if people want designer children, let them have desinger children. I don't see a problem with this. Their children, their choice :!:


While I'll agree it's their kids, it's not their life they are "designing".

Before a policy can be proven desireable, its author must first prove four seperate criterion true. First, it must be shown that some kind of significant harm exists in the status quo. Second, it must show that there is an inherent barrier that prevents these problems from being solved. Third, the policy must lead to distinct advantages that do not exist in the status quo. And fourth, the steps leading to these advantages must be logically sound.

If we apply this lens to the current proposal, what do we see?

Harms: Genetically engineered children
Inherent Barrier: None
Advantages: No genetically engineered children
Solvency: No labs = no babies.

You know, I don't even have to do the rhetorical heavy lifting to point out the problems here. It's not surprising that this plan doesn't solve any problems, because no problem exists in the first place. Why? Because genetic engineering, cloning, and all manner of things involving tweaking the blessed fabric of life are moral decisions, not legal decisions.

Should this proposal pass, Sophista will happily open its doors to anyone seeking such treatments for their unborn children. If the UN doesn't like that, you can launch a proposal to deal with it.

if people want designer children, let them have desinger children. I don't see a problem with this. Their children, their choice :!:


While I'll agree it's their kids, it's not their life they are "designing".

Actually I think they're just changing looks.

So how is it any different then paying for your child to have breast implants, or contact lenses, or hair dye?

Does how they look always effect who they are? I would say it's more down to upbringing.

When you bring up children you tell them what is 'right', what you find 'acceptable', and what they need to be a good person. Upbringing itself influences life, perhaps we should ban that.

Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Black New World
Do you know what ‘gay science’ is?

Hmmm.

Uh .. Did any-one also note that darn'd rider clause at the end which limited where genetic engineering is allowable, which is just plain sneeky'n'rude ?

- Le Représentant de Komokom.

Ministre Régional de Substance.
L'Ordre de Vaillant États.
http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/komokom.jpg (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/24401/page=display_nation)
Aspirez a la legalite avec l'egalite

<--- Not a Moderator, just a Know It All.

Well I would hope that you would view genetic engineering to prevent a child from having down syndrome a lot different from parents choosing to have a daughter with blonde hair, green eyes, fair skin, and 36C breasts.

What I'm trying to say is that it's always an arbitrary line you are drawing. What is a so called 'medical' reason and what isn't? Isn't it fair to say that looking good is also helpful in life? Denying that looks matter is like sticking your head in the sand for the real world.
I feel this is the parents own choice and I see no reason to deny them that choice. Of course I hope people will be sensible about it, but it's still their choice.

Genetic engineering and foetus implantation aren't techniques you can carry out in a shady garage. Dozens of highly-trained people, specialist equipment and facilities are required.

Well, for a start, this is an egalitarian argument. Setting aside the possibility of a state eugenics program, this will become available first to those who can afford it - which would hardwire inequality into society from birth. Any suggestion that advancement in your society is based on personal merit, rather than how rich your parents were, would become laughable.

It's a basic principle of ethical fairness that you don't cheat - that is, take an advantage you didn't earn. And this would represent a fundamental rejection of that.

Genetic engineering and foetus implantation aren't techniques you can carry out in a shady garage. Dozens of highly-trained people, specialist equipment and facilities are required.

Well, for a start, this is an egalitarian argument. Setting aside the possibility of a state eugenics program, this will become available first to those who can afford it - which would hardwire inequality into society from birth. Any suggestion that advancement in your society is based on personal merit, rather than how rich your parents were, would become laughable.

It's a basic principle of ethical fairness that you don't cheat - that is, take an advantage you didn't earn. And this would represent a fundamental rejection of that.

First quote: All the more reasons to make sure you can control it. Banning it won't stop it from happening. Wake up, the world is full of crime and they have a lot of resources!

second quote: Don't put your head in the sand, my friend: Most succesful people in the world are not simply succesful because they are good at what they do: they have the looks and got them with a lot of help in a lot of cases, they've had luck and they know the right people.

third quote: I'm afraid the world just is not all that pretty and it won't become any better by simply saying it should be.

I fully agree that people should exchange their views on matters like this, to be able to determine what they feel is or isnot ethical. But you can't deny peoples right to free choice.

While I'll agree it's their kids, it's not their life they are "designing".

The biggest influence in a humans life is probably... the parents. Parents always 'design' the life of their children!

I understand the need for trying to determine what is ethical and what is not, but it's difficult to determine what rights parents have when it comes to the influence they have on their children. This is tricky stuff you're getting into.
Is it the choice of parents to have children or not? I would say so.
Is it the choice of parents how to raise their children? I would say so too.
What about clothing the kids are made to wear, hairstyle, you name it. Can I color my kids hair with coloring shampoo?
Where do you draw the line?

It's my kid. Let me worry about his or her future.

Hmmm.

Uh .. Did any-one also note that darn'd rider clause at the end which limited where genetic engineering is allowable, which is just plain sneeky'n'rude ?

- Le Représentant de Komokom.

* Jumps up and down, then,

" Look up at quote, rinse, repeat " :wink:

- Le Représentant de Komokom.

Ministre Régional de Substance.
L'Ordre de Vaillant États.
http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/komokom.jpg (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/24401/page=display_nation)
Aspirez a la legalite avec l'egalite

<--- Not a Moderator, just a Know It All.

If a Komokom falls in the forest and no one comments on it, does it make a noise?

Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Black New World
Do you know what ‘gay science’ is?
Meet The Reps (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=132588)

Just to throw a big old monkey wrench (aka "spanner") into the debate:
"Medical reasons" sound impartial and scientific, don't they?
But in most jurisdictions which allow abortions for medical reasons, this is interpreted to include mental as well as physical health, and mental health is defined to include depression and mood disorders.
The unfortunate result is that most patients receive abortions for medical geounds on the basis that they will be depressed ("feel bad") if they don't.

Of course the mental health reason is very hard prove. It's like stress, some people genuinely have it and need to get help and some people use it as an excuse to get off work.

If I had a kid (a really big if ) I wouldn't want it to have the same mental issues as my family. I spend my life worrying about developing schizophrenia like some others in my family. I wouldn't want anyone else to.

Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Black New World
Do you know what ‘gay science’ is?
Meet The Reps (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=132588)

The Emperor finds this resolution an unacceptable attempt to disarm him of his army of designer super-babies.

I spend my life worrying about developing schizophrenia like some others in my family. I wouldn't want anyone else to.


Is schizophrenia genetic?

If a Komokom falls in the forest and no one comments on it, does it make a noise?

Yes, usually sounds like :

" OMG, You pushed me ! " :D

Is schizophrenia genetic ?

I think it is. Darn'd it, I should know this one.

- Le Représentant de Komokom.

Ministre Régional de Substance.
L'Ordre de Vaillant États.

http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/komokom.jpg (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/24401/page=display_nation)
Aspirez a la legalite avec l'egalite

<--- Not a Moderator, just a Know It All.

Clowns To The Left of Me ... Jokers To The Right, Here I am ...

Wikipedia says it is, partly:

Although no definite causes of schizophrenia have been identified, most researchers and clinicians currently believe that schizophrenia is primarily a disorder of the brain. It is thought that schizophrenia may result from a mixture of genetic disposition (genetic studies using various techniques have shown relatives of people with schizophrenia are more likely to show signs of schizophrenia themselves) and environmental stress (research suggests that stressful life events may precede a schizophrenic episode).

Clicky clicky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizophrenia)

Catholic Europe totally supports this ban. Designer children is a very dangerous concept indeed. We should leave these type of things to nature and nature alone. This materialistic value needs to be stopped and nature needs to be allowed to carry on.

Is schizophrenia genetic?
I have no idea but I was always brought up to believe it is so even if it isn't it still worried me

I think the tendency to develop it is genetic but I'm no health care professional.

Of course we also have a history of depression and paranoia so if they are genetic I'm doomed.

Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Black New World
Do you know what ‘gay science’ is?
Meet The Reps (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=132588)
OOC: yes I have taken this from my 'real life'.

Hmm, I ask for personal reasons as well. I had a quick look around and it appears that thesimple answer is: we don't know.

Well. That's reassuring.