NationStates Jolt Archive

This started in the "Pro-Life" thread, so, I thought I'd give it's own thread here. Even now, with the ability to select sperm and eggs, we are creating "designer babies." Is this even ethical, or morality correct? I mean what gives us falliable (and we are fallibale) humans the right to decide how a life should be made? I mean don't yall think this is a little ironic considering we went to war with a man who was trying to do the same thing in 1930's-40's? I am for once glad I was born handicapped. It made me the person that I am today, and I am happy I turned out the way I did. Personally I think if we played with the sancity of life too much that it's going to come back and bite us in the ass. It would be ironic if all of the "designer babies" were killed in the next ice age while all of the natural babies lived. So what do yall think, are designer babies ok, or are they ethically and morality wrong?

i say that it is unethical. consider this scenario:

a black woman feels that racism is evident throughout america. to make life easier on her offspring, she makes their skin white. after a few generations, racism would grow against blacks since blacks would seep even deeper into the minority, and it is easier to generalize with a smaller group of people.

end result: eventual end of the black population

even further into the future: babies that all look the same with no individual physical features

i say that it is unethical. consider this scenario:

a black woman feels that racism is evident throughout america. to make life easier on her offspring, she makes their skin white. after a few generations, racism would grow against blacks since blacks would make the minority, and it is easier to generalize with a smaller group of people.

end result: eventual end of the black population

even further into the future: babies that all look the same with no individual physical features

Which would make Hitler proud.

I feel that using genetic manipulation to eng hereditary diseases and genetically linked disorders is a noble goal. But the actual determination of what a baby will look like should be left firmly int he capable hands of whatever deity is currently in charge.

I feel that using genetic manipulation to eng hereditary diseases and genetically linked disorders is a noble goal. But the actual determination of what a baby will look like should be left firmly int he capable hands of whatever deity is currently in charge.

i agree

I feel that using genetic manipulation to eng hereditary diseases and genetically linked disorders is a noble goal. But the actual determination of what a baby will look like should be left firmly int he capable hands of whatever deity is currently in charge.

But, what if messing with the genetics of a baby, we invertely cause the immune system to weaken, would that be better?

But, what if messing with the genetics of a baby, we invertely cause the immune system to weaken, would that be better?

this is assuming that this wont happen

this is assuming that this wont happen

But we don't know, it may happen. I think by messing with the building blocks of life, we are spitting in the face of God, and when one spit get into his eye, he will blink.

But we don't know, it may happen. I think by messing with the building blocks of life, we are spitting in the face of God, and when one spit get into his eye, he will blink.

well then, im against it. i dont want the chance of a defect coming about as a result of humans

i say that it is unethical. consider this scenario:

a black woman feels that racism is evident throughout america. to make life easier on her offspring, she makes their skin white. after a few generations, racism would grow against blacks since blacks would seep even deeper into the minority, and it is easier to generalize with a smaller group of people.

end result: eventual end of the black population

even further into the future: babies that all look the same with no individual physical features
White people are mutants.

But think of it this way...regardless of whether or not these "designer babies" ever exist...the races will mix and merge anyways.

Think about it. Interracial marriage is commonplace (as it should be in today's society), after several generations (several hundred generations, probably), the overall population will be a blend of every former race.

Racism will become invalid at that point.

White people are mutants.

What about the pink ones?

what if people are allowed to select from the genes that it would be naturally possible for them to pass on, but not just throw in random ones? that way it would be like a best-case scenario baby. So like, if both parents had a reccesive gene for red hair, they would have a 1/4 chance of having a redheaded baby naturally. In my idea they could choose to have a redhead (or not), but in a case where one of the parents dosent have the gene, they would not have that chioce because its not naturally possible. Its more like really fast evolution that way and less like frankenstein.

what if people are allowed to select from the genes that it would be naturally possible for them to pass on, but not just throw in random ones? that way it would be like a best-case scenario baby. So like, if both parents had a reccesive gene for red hair, they would have a 1/4 chance of having a redheaded baby naturally. In my idea they could choose to have a redhead (or not), but in a case where one of the parents dosent have the gene, they would not have that chioce because its not naturally possible. Its more like really fast evolution that way and less like frankenstein.

Yea, or, we could just let things happen naturally. You know, when a man loves a woman...

But, what if messing with the genetics of a baby, we invertely cause the immune system to weaken, would that be better?

Do you have any kind of evidence to suggest that screening out hereditary defects will weaken the immune system or is this merely speculation?

White people are mutants.
All people are mutants.

I don't think we should play god. To actively select certain genes to pass on wouldn't be very ethical nor would it be right. Let's not tinker with nature anymore. We should fix what is natural, not play with it.

Selecting out genetic and hereditary disorders is a good thing. If you can save a potential child from living with something like cystic fibrosis, you should do it. If we can eventually breed some of these disorders out of the gene pool, it's for the betterment of the human race. Like, actually. Hard to say if you'd want to breed out sickle cell anaemia... the gene does have it's advantages when paired heterozygously... But then, you could just modify it so all children have one normal and one sickle cell gene, then they'd all be resistant to malaria!

As for cosmetic changes, I'd say that's a bit iffy (though the choosing from you and your spouse's gene pool is a good idea). However, even if it was allowed, I can't see why it would make Hitler proud. That's assuming that all people are for some reason going to want their kids to fit the whole Aryan standard thing, which really... they won't. Seriously. I mean, I suppose there'd probably be fads where alot of children born in one year have red hair and green eyes, but I honestly can't see how that could make Hitler proud.

I don't know, I used to think that "messing with genes and dna" was always wrong, but now that my kids actually have a genetic disease, I think I would probably modify my view to say that if you can fix a disease or defect then good, but then I worry about how defect would end up getting used as an excuse, like is being short a defect? what about being blonde?

I am still not sure. I will watch the thred and see what arguements make most sense.

I don't know, I used to think that "messing with genes and dna" was always wrong, but now that my kids actually have a genetic disease, I think I would probably modify my view to say that if you can fix a disease or defect then good, but then I worry about how defect would end up getting used as an excuse, like is being short a defect? what about being blonde?

I am still not sure. I will watch the thred and see what arguements make most sense.

You expect sense on NS General?:eek:

This started in the "Pro-Life" thread, so, I thought I'd give it's own thread here. Even now, with the ability to select sperm and eggs, we are creating "designer babies." Is this even ethical, or morality correct? I mean what gives us falliable (and we are fallibale) humans the right to decide how a life should be made? I mean don't yall think this is a little ironic considering we went to war with a man who was trying to do the same thing in 1930's-40's? I am for once glad I was born handicapped. It made me the person that I am today, and I am happy I turned out the way I did. Personally I think if we played with the sancity of life too much that it's going to come back and bite us in the ass. It would be ironic if all of the "designer babies" were killed in the next ice age while all of the natural babies lived. So what do yall think, are designer babies ok, or are they ethically and morality wrong?
Right now our technology and our understanding of human physiology are insufficient, and it would be irresponsible of us to attempt to modify human traits that we do not fully understand.

That said, we've been trying to make "designer" babies for centuries. It's called mate selection. We try to ensure that our offspring have particular traits that we have decided are favorable. We often produce offspring with a biological partner who passes on "unfavorable" traits, and we may be "handicapping" our offspring by doing so. If humans are permitted to select their own mates, and thus to influence the genetic outcome of their pairing, I see no particular ethical reason why they should not be permitted to more directly influence the genetics (once such technologies have been established).

However, there may be substantial practical considerations. For instance, what if only the wealthy are permitted to use these technologies? This could result in a very dramatic impact on the already-problematic class structures of many nations and cultures.

I don't think we should play god. To actively select certain genes to pass on wouldn't be very ethical nor would it be right. Let's not tinker with nature anymore. We should fix what is natural, not play with it.
Why not? Nature isn't perfect. If we can alter it to best suit our needs I don't see why we should hesitate. The only things we need to consider is can we do it safely and will it improve quality of life for people.

Having said that, I'm in favor of designer babies. I'd like my kids to be plaid and have glowing eyes.

I'm all for designer genetics. How are we ever going to improve otherwise? Civilization, as far as natural evolution goes, is a dead end. Genetic engineering and other forms of enhancement like cybernetics are the only way we'll ever become any more than ourselves. Why not make your kid smarter, stronger, more creative or adaptible, or whatever? Sure, that will lead to some unintended negative consequences on the side, but that's the price of progress. Change engenders conflict and more change, but in the end it also increases our standard of living and the things we're capable of accomplishing. Extropy is the only true, fundamental moral standard.

How is this "playing god" or "spitting in god's face"? If you believe that god created humans and endowed them with both the intelligence and capability to do this, and that god knew that we would do this, are we not following god's devine plan? If god created humans and then humans create designer babies (or any other "abomination of nature), god is responsible, one way or another. Similarly, god cannot get pissed at us, since it is perfect in all ways. Anger is a form of evil, and it also implies a lack of control over the situation and a lack of foresight.

Of course, all this is assuming the existance of the traditional Abrahamic god.

I've actually had people tell me that their God created humans and endowed them with reasoning, questioning minds as a test to see if their faith could overcome their natural tendency towards curiosity and logic, and weed out the ones who weren't blindly faithful enough. I left the room almost immediately. Sheep smell funny.

Im against it just bacause it could really screw over those of us who are already here. like in that movie, Gattaca.

Im against it just bacause it could really screw over those of us who are already here. like in that movie, Gattaca.
Depends on how much regulation ends up being involved in the process, and the general trends of society as a whole. But I do agree that as genetic modification technology becomes better and more prevalent, intense scrutiny from both government and individuals is a must. Also, as someone else warned, this technology ought to be equally accessible to anyone on Earth, or we'd end up with increasingly insurmountable gaps between income levels.

(Coughs)
I myself aaaaammm
Dyslexic Dyspraxic Epileptic A.S Positive and several other weird and wonderful faults.

Dyslexia made me go "...im not fuckin dull" and got down to SERIOOOUS revision so now im quite clever really.

Dyspraxia made me prefer computers and now im quite adept at them.

Epilepsy, slightly harder to defend this one. It helped me in fights tho :p

A.S Positive. Again forced me to become overwhelmingly aggresively nice to people.... although it made me very introvert and if it werent for forums id have killed someone by now.

In conclusion designer babies are only good for shit like Cancer and Heart disease.

PS einstein was A.S positive so No to that.

How is this "playing god" or "spitting in god's face"? If you believe that god created humans and endowed them with both the intelligence and capability to do this, and that god knew that we would do this, are we not following god's devine plan? If god created humans and then humans create designer babies (or any other "abomination of nature), god is responsible, one way or another. Similarly, god cannot get pissed at us, since it is perfect in all ways. Anger is a form of evil, and it also implies a lack of control over the situation and a lack of foresight.

Of course, all this is assuming the existance of the traditional Abrahamic god.

Because, God is the creator of life here on Earth. In the creation story, Adam and Eve got kicked out of the Garden of Eden for eating from the tree of knowledge. However, there was another tree. The Tree of Life. I think that if we start using genetic engineering for designer babies, then we will be eating from the Tree of Life, and then well, we'll be screwed.

Because, God is the creator of life here on Earth. In the creation story, Adam and Eve got kicked out of the Garden of Eden for eating from the tree of knowledge. However, there was another tree. The Tree of Life. I think that if we start using genetic engineering for designer babies, then we will be eating from the Tree of Life, and then well, we'll be screwed.

I say we should play God just to get back at him for kicking us out of Eden! He won't be so cocky when a geneticly engineered race of Schwarzenegger-like super humans come and smack him in his great big bearded smug puss!

Because, God is the creator of life here on Earth. In the creation story, Adam and Eve got kicked out of the Garden of Eden for eating from the tree of knowledge. However, there was another tree. The Tree of Life. I think that if we start using genetic engineering for designer babies, then we will be eating from the Tree of Life, and then well, we'll be screwed.

But fortunately, Western civilization doesn't hold with regulating life and the economy based on religious beliefs that don't relate to observ(ed/able) reality and which every doesn't share.

But we're toying with the sanctity of human life everyday by trying to -not die-. Maybe it's God's plan for me to get an infection, but that doesn't change the fact that I'm going to take antibiotics to get better. Maybe my son is "fated" to get spina bifida, but I will most certanly get an abortion and immeadiately have another child (that would have not even been born if that first son had come to term) that wouldn't have the disease.

We know what's good and bad as a group of people, we make these descisions everyday. I couldn't live with myself if I stood by and gave birth to a disabled son when I knew I could have done something.

Because, God is the creator of life here on Earth. In the creation story, Adam and Eve got kicked out of the Garden of Eden for eating from the tree of knowledge. However, there was another tree. The Tree of Life. I think that if we start using genetic engineering for designer babies, then we will be eating from the Tree of Life, and then well, we'll be screwed.

...but we create life on earth all the time, as do all other species. If god gave us the ability to procreate as well as the ability to pick and choose genes, how is the latter considered going against god's will?

Give god some credit; he created Adam and Eve knowing fully well that they would eat that apple. We're already starting to eat from the Tree of Life. What's god gonna do about it? How can he punish us for doing what he is responsible for?

But fortunately, Western civilization doesn't hold with regulating life and the economy based on religious beliefs that don't relate to observ(ed/able) reality and which every doesn't share.

LOL

Yes, I know our current administration and Congressional party would like nothing better than to make the US a fundamentalist Christian theocracy, but I'm speaking in fundamentals and generalities.

I see no problem with it, if it is used responsibly.

Of course, some things must be outlawed - it would be unethical to add some sort of trait that would make life miserable for the child, for example. It would certainly be wrong to add the genes for cystic fibrosis, as I think we would all agree.

The natural extension of that argument, then, is that it is unethical to create a child with some sort of defect once we have the option of removing it. I think in the future, the debate will center on whether or not it is ethical to create a child without the benefit of genetic modifications; I can see it eventually being considered "wrong" to create a child knowing that he/she may have some sort of horrible disease when that disease could have been prevented.

I know that I, personally, wish I hadn't been born with the genes for myopia. If my parentts had known about it ahead of time and had possessed the capability to change it, I would fault them for not doing so.