NationStates Jolt Archive

I was writing up an essay on this topic and wanted to know what everyone thinks about 'designer babies': The process of screening and artificially selecting one embryo that is in some way superior to others.

This process is generally used to screen for genetic diseases and select an embryo that is 'clean' while disposing of the diseased ones and any in excess, or to find an embryo with a tissue match with an existing sibling with a condition, so cells can be donated to the sibling to improve their health. It can also be (theoretically) used to select babies with certain genes for hair and eye color and other aesthetic traits, which is illegal, as well as selecting gender, which is also illegal in the UK (Not sure about elsewhere.)

My stance is that designer babies for the aesthetic purposes (for example wanting a baby who looks like Britney Spears) is immoral as it creates a group of 'super humans' who may overshadow others, as well as narrowing the genepool which may impact humanity in the future. Selecting a child's gender is also immoral (unless there is history of a gender-linked genetic disease in the family, in which case it is justified) because this is likely to skew the male/female ratio, which is now fairly equal, and could have serious consequences.

Otherwise though, I'm fairly pro-artificial selection, my main reason: Our technology has allowed humans to overcome evolution: People with faulty genes who would previously have died by the process of natural selection are now kept alive by sophisticated technology and advanced medical research, and can survive to breed and so their genes remain in the human genepool, making humanity overall genetically weaker. However because we can no longer rely on evolution and natural selection we must use artificial selection to remove these faulty genes. If we can screen embryos for faulty genes then it will not only improve the quality of life for the baby and family but could also stop the spread of a gene so the condition does not exist in the future.

I am also for the selection of a matching embryo in order to save, or at least help, a sibling. Some people say that this is immoral as it is not the right reason to decide to have a baby and the child will be unloved. I believe though, in most cases at least,that it is not unethical to create a child to help its sibling as you are not only bringing a life into the world but saving another, and for this the new baby will be loved even more for saving its sibling.

Edit: Wow, my longest post yet, but please read and give your opinions.

I'm in favor up to a point. If it decreases the number of diseases and improves brain function and physical fitness that's fine by me. If it's used for sex selection then it's a problem. In parts of India the ratio of boys to girls is so uneven due to sex selection via abortion that many of the men can't find girlfriends or wives.

Ah, an interesting topic.

On the one hand it's apalling, to have so many embryos and just discard those that don't fit a genetic profile you find appealing, it's something lesser animals do.

On the other hand it's just an extension of our in-bred desire to improve our species. Shown typically by the care we take in choosing a mate.

Mostly just appalling. Not to mention it's not very scientific, genetic knowledge isn't nearly completely enough to provide answers as to what kind of physical traits a child would have yet. Screening for genetic diseases however is something completely different.

At first, it will be called something like 'genetic immunization' and be used to prevent passing along susceptibility to cancer and heart desease, then it will be used to prevent physical and mental defects/ conditions like cerebral palsey, etc. Whether or not it continues along that path, Religious groups will fight it every step of the way.

I more or less agree with the OP. It can be used to get rid of traits that simply aren't good, but have no other way of being removed (other than infanticide or something, which simply isn't an option). On the other hand, it can be used to reinforce the upper class (the rich could use it to create superintelligent children that we could never hope to compete with, solidifying class lines).

I'm in favor up to a point. If it decreases the number of diseases and improves brain function and physical fitness that's fine by me. If it's used for sex selection then it's a problem. In parts of India the ratio of boys to girls is so uneven due to sex selection via abortion that many of the men can't find girlfriends or wives.
You probably didn't intend it this way, but I find your last sentence sickening. It gives the impression that the real problem is that men can't get themselves a woman. Fuck that. The problem is that women are so hideously devalued in that culture that women are being compelled to abort female babies. The problem isn't that men can't get wives and girlfriends, it's that the male-dominated culture has created a situation in which female life is not valued, period. Women are not of value aside from their ability to produce (male) children. That's the real problem, not the poor poor men who can't find themselves a baby-making machine.

Your phrasing further reinforces the idea that women are only important insofar as they satisfy male needs/demands. It implies that sex selection will be a problem simply because men won't get enough pussy. How about simply saying that it is horrifying how much people hate females? How about being disgusted by the fact that femaleness is being regarded as a birth defect in some cultures? How about asserting that female babies are to be valued and cherished, regardless of whether or not they end up dating/marrying males?

Personally, I'm a fan of this sort of thing. Natural selection takes millenia, and might not prove the least bit beneficial in humanity anymore because of our techological development.

I see no reason not to use genetic engineering to eliminate genetic diseases. I don't even have a problem with selection for superficial characteristics like appearance. What I do have a problem with is the avalibility of this technology being unevenly distributed. Everyone must have the same level of access to options for their progeny, or all you'll get is an aristocracy of superhumans.

Otherwise though, I'm fairly pro-artificial selection, my main reason: Our technology has allowed humans to overcome evolution: People with faulty genes who would previously have died by the process of natural selection are now kept alive by sophisticated technology and advanced medical research, and can survive to breed and so their genes remain in the human genepool, making humanity overall genetically weaker. However because we can no longer rely on evolution and natural selection we must use artificial selection to remove these faulty genes. If we can screen embryos for faulty genes then it will not only improve the quality of life for the baby and family but could also stop the spread of a gene so the condition does not exist in the future.

This shows a gross misunderstanding of evolutionary theory. No, our technology does not in any way allow us to "overcome evolution." Evolution will occur to the human species no matter what. We can change the criterion for selection, and our technology is giving us new ways of accomplishing this, but this will not give us the power to overcome evolution.

What you have described is simply the change in selective pressures due to the advent of modern technologies. This does not in any way constitute a stopping or reversal of human evolution, nor will it ever do so.

Personally, I'm a fan of this sort of thing. Natural selection takes millenia, and might not prove the least bit beneficial in humanity anymore because of our techological development.

I see no reason not to use genetic engineering to eliminate genetic diseases. I don't even have a problem with selection for superficial characteristics like appearance. What I do have a problem with is the avalibility of this technology being unevenly distributed. Everyone must have the same level of access to options for their progeny, or all you'll get is an aristocracy of superhumans.

I agree. I'm in favor of this sort of thing, but only if it's available to everyone. However, doing it to change the sex of a child should be out of the question.

You probably didn't intend it this way, but I find your last sentence sickening. It gives the impression that the real problem is that men can't get themselves a woman. Fuck that. The problem is that women are so hideously devalued in that culture that women are being compelled to abort female babies. The problem isn't that men can't get wives and girlfriends, it's that the male-dominated culture has created a situation in which female life is not valued, period. Women are not of value aside from their ability to produce (male) children. That's the real problem, not the poor poor men who can't find themselves a baby-making machine.

Your phrasing further reinforces the idea that women are only important insofar as they satisfy male needs/demands. It implies that sex selection will be a problem simply because men won't get enough pussy. How about simply saying that it is horrifying how much people hate females? How about being disgusted by the fact that femaleness is being regarded as a birth defect in some cultures? How about asserting that female babies are to be valued and cherished, regardless of whether or not they end up dating/marrying males?


You were a lot more verbose, but you said exactly what he said. It's a problem in India because female infants are aborted.

You probably didn't intend it this way, but I find your last sentence sickening. It gives the impression that the real problem is that men can't get themselves a woman. Fuck that.
Whoa Nelly! I think you're projecting. In parts of India the ratio of boys to girls is so uneven due to sex selection via abortion that many of the men can't find girlfriends or wives.
He is pointing out an effect of sex selection via abortion, not saying the inability to find wives is the 'real' problem.

You probably didn't intend it this way, but I find your last sentence sickening. It gives the impression that the real problem is that men can't get themselves a woman. Fuck that. The problem is that women are so hideously devalued in that culture that women are being compelled to abort female babies. The problem isn't that men can't get wives and girlfriends, it's that the male-dominated culture has created a situation in which female life is not valued, period. Women are not of value aside from their ability to produce (male) children. That's the real problem, not the poor poor men who can't find themselves a baby-making machine.

Your phrasing further reinforces the idea that women are only important insofar as they satisfy male needs/demands. It implies that sex selection will be a problem simply because men won't get enough pussy. How about simply saying that it is horrifying how much people hate females? How about being disgusted by the fact that femaleness is being regarded as a birth defect in some cultures? How about asserting that female babies are to be valued and cherished, regardless of whether or not they end up dating/marrying males?

It does stink that women are devalued, but non-existent women (those aborted) won't suffer, the remaining men will. That's why I phrased it the way I did.

I'm okay with it as long as we won't have only rich people end up having their babies genetically modified, and poor people screwed even more. Honestly, if the purpose of science is to improve the human race, then this will do it. But if it's just another capitalist exploit that will make the rich even smarter and more powerful, and the poor people even more screwed, then it shouldn't be here. But the only thing I don't like about this is with mass media, our image of beauty is so conformed that we would end up with half the world looking the same way. If we can only inject individuality back into society again, and let everybody who wish to have their children genetically modified, then it's perfectly fine.

Whoa Nelly! I think you're projecting.

"Projecting"? So you think that I believe that the real problem is that men can't get women?


He is pointing out an effect of sex selection via abortion, not saying the inability to find wives is the 'real' problem.
I just pointed out what he said. He didn't say, "The sex ratio is being dramatically thrown out of whack, resulting in an increase in the sex disparity and a further loss for females in India." He said that the sex ratio is fucked up and that makes life tough for the menfolk.

I know DC, and I know the comment was not INTENDED to be offensive, which is why I started my post by stating as much. However, the phrasing still is a problem, in my opinion.

I hear this issue discussed all the time, and it is ALWAYS brought up in terms of how men can't get themselves enough women. It's never brought up in terms of how women are forced to get abortions they don't want because they are carrying a hateful female baby. It's never mentioned how these same women are then persecuted by their communities for having gotten an abortion, despite the fact that they weren't the ones who wanted to get the abortion in the first place. And nobody seems to want to bring it up simply in terms of how shitty it is that female babies are being aborted for failing to be male. They feel the need to couch this within the "problem" of male satisfaction.

Sorry, but men's inability to get wives in India is not a "problem" worth discussing. Sex selection in abortion procedures is NOT a problem because of the impact on the dating market. It is pathetic to even bring up such a trivial consideration in light of the real problems that this trend reflects.

Umm...
Im against it for obvious reasons
(is A.S positive, Dyspraxic, Dyslexic, Epileptic ect.)

Einstein would have been wiped if this had been aroudn then

ANd in my personal case my physical disabilities made me!


A.S Positive---> Actually defines my personality

Dyspraxia---> Caused my aptitude with typing and computing

Dyslexic---> made me extra careful and now, at least in the writing sense, it is unnoticable, it made me study more.

Epilepsy---> Errm... i get to take pills :D Purple ones :D




Ect ect.
Im against it, this is the only subject im conservative on i am against abortion and genetic enhancement.

ALTHOUGH i am for masturbation and stemcell research because those wouldnt have EVER been babies anyway


Life expectancy sperm-->24 hours

I think that it's alright to screen for life threatening or severly crippling diseases. Checking for gender, hair/eye colour, intelligence etc., is just impractical; usaually several embryos need to be made to ensure there's a chance that enough don't have a disease, so for a very specific child with all the features mentioned possibly 100s of embryos would be needed (checking all of them would take bloody ages too). It would also shrink the gene pool of the people who do it.
As to the people who think it's worse to kill a few embryos that can feel nothing than to let someone go through life in pain - :mad:

I'm all for it. For millenia we've been subject to the sling and arrows of uncertain nature, now it's payback time. As long as we keep a reserve of various genes to avoind reducing the pool too much.

I think that it's alright to screen for life threatening or severly crippling diseases. Checking for gender, hair/eye colour, intelligence etc., is just impractical; usaually several embryos need to be made to ensure there's a chance that enough don't have a disease, so for a very specific child with all the features mentioned possibly 100s of embryos would be needed (checking all of them would take bloody ages too). It would also shrink the gene pool of the people who do it.
As to the people who think it's worse to kill a few embryos that can feel nothing than to let someone go through life in pain - :mad:



Hello :D
Im one of those people by the way and im one of the people that "Go through life in pain" Too :D
So screw you buddy! im on both sides of the fence so my opinion is wort more ;)

Umm...
Im against it for obvious reasons
(is A.S positive, Dyspraxic, Dyslexic, Epileptic ect.)

Einstein would have been wiped if this had been aroudn then

On the contrary, an Einstein would have been selected that didn't have the negative traits. Or maybe just a few of them to make him a bit colourful.

And he would have had laser shootin eyes.

"Projecting"? So you think that I believe that the real problem is that men can't get women?
No, what you are projecting is your interpretation of what he said, as though his intent was to say that the real problem is men not getting women.

I just pointed out what he said. He didn't say, "The sex ratio is being dramatically thrown out of whack, resulting in an increase in the sex disparity and a further loss for females in India." He said that the sex ratio is fucked up and that makes life tough for the menfolk. So because he pointed out that this also affects men, it's bad?
I know DC, and I know the comment was not INTENDED to be offensive, which is why I started my post by stating as much. However, the phrasing still is a problem, in my opinion.

I hear this issue discussed all the time, and it is ALWAYS brought up in terms of how men can't get themselves enough women. It's never brought up in terms of how women are forced to get abortions they don't want because they are carrying a hateful female baby. It's never mentioned how these same women are then persecuted by their communities for having gotten an abortion, despite the fact that they weren't the ones who wanted to get the abortion in the first place. And nobody seems to want to bring it up simply in terms of how shitty it is that female babies are being aborted for failing to be male. They feel the need to couch this within the "problem" of male satisfaction.

Sorry, but men's inability to get wives is not a problem in India. Sex selection in abortion procedures is NOT a problem because of the impact on the dating market. It is pathetic to even bring up such a trivial consideration in light of the real problems that this trend reflects.You've brought up good points, and I agree with the gist of your argument about the topic (not your argument in terms of the interpretation of the original post). However, it is YOUR opinion that one of the effects of selective abortions is trivial. For others, it is far from trivial that the sex ratio is out of whack. No, it isn't the most important effect, by far...or the only effect. But it IS an effect, and why would you ignore it? If a bunch of ignorant people can be made to understand that THIS IS BAD BECAUSE YOUR SONS WON'T FIND WIVES OTHERWISE, then hallelujah if that stops even one baby girl from being aborted in favour of male offspring. Hopefully you can also convince them of the inherent value of human life regardless of sex...but if not, then perhaps appealing to their selfishness will save lives.

As for this argument that it is 'never brought up in terms of'...well, if you are only referring to this very small thread, then ok...but unless you've been living under a rock, then you must have had plenty exposure to the self-same arguments you are highlighting. No one mentioning it before you on the first page of this thread does not consitute a global lack of censure.

On the contrary, an Einstein would have been selected that didn't have the negative traits. Or maybe just a few of them to make him a bit colourful.

And he would have had laser shootin eyes.
No your wrong actually

It would have been an einstein without A.S
And as such he would have never taken an obsessive intrest in physics, at best he may have been just another physicsits

It does stink that women are devalued, but non-existent women (those aborted) won't suffer, the remaining men will. That's why I phrased it the way I did.
Oh, well gee, I guess that's fine then...except for, you know, the women having these abortions against their wishes. And all the remaining women in India, who get to live in a culture that becomes even more paranoid about controlling their bodies. And all the remaining girls who get to grow up knowing that their mother is regarded as a failure for having had them, and that they themselves are failures for not being boys.

The ONLY reason sex selection would ever be a problem is if the prevailing culture regards one gender as worth less than the other, and parents allow themselves to buy into that kind of crap. Period.

That's what all this discussion boils down to: what will people choose to do if this technology is available? If all people would make good choices, this debate wouldn't exist. Our worry is that people would be jackasses, and would decide that a gay baby, or a girl baby, or a brown baby, or a short baby, or any "imperfect" baby would not be good enough for them.

The root problem is not with the technology at all, it is with the forces that result in specific populations being devalued. The sex-selection we see in India has been practiced for centuries, and has is found in plenty of other cultures...infanticide for female babies is nothing new. The technology is just another way to go about this.

If you want to address the issue of "designer babies" then you waste your time talking about the technology. Humans are designed to try to create "designer babies," and many of our mate-selection criterion reflect this. You aren't going to do away with our desire to "improve" our young, nor are you going to be able to stop new technologies from coming into the picture. All you can do is address the reasons why we define certain traits as better than others.

Why is male viewed as better than female, so much so that female babies are killed? Why is blonde hair seen as preferable to brown, enough so that some people would be willing to abort a non-blonde baby? Why is homosexuality hated so much that people would rather have no child than a gay child? That's the issue, not the tech.

Hello :D
Im one of those people by the way and im one of the people that "Go through life in pain" Too :D
So screw you buddy! im on both sides of the fence so my opinion is wort more ;)

I'm talking about things like harlequins syndrome, not epilepsy and dyslexia (no offence intended)

It does stink that women are devalued, but non-existent women (those aborted) won't suffer, the remaining men will. That's why I phrased it the way I did.
Um.

My support of you just dried up.

I hat a reply to your earlier post, but the connection here is crap and it got lost, so I'll just deal with this post.

I just pointed out what he said. He didn't say, "The sex ratio is being dramatically thrown out of whack, resulting in an increase in the sex disparity and a further loss for females in India." He said that the sex ratio is fucked up and that makes life tough for the menfolk.

And you think that it won't become an issue?

He was talking about the aftereffects of this kind of selection, and you're talking about the underlying root cause.

I know DC, and I know the comment was not INTENDED to be offensive, which is why I started my post by stating as much. However, the phrasing still is a problem, in my opinion.

As I said in my nonexistent post, the fact that you put that "I know that's not what you meant" there is completely negated by how incredibly hostile you were throughout your entire post.

I hear this issue discussed all the time, and it is ALWAYS brought up in terms of how men can't get themselves enough women.

Because maybe that's the only real effect. What you're talking about is causes. Big difference.

It's never brought up in terms of how women are forced to get abortions they don't want because they are carrying a hateful female baby.

Are they always forced? This is a culture, here. Are you saying that it's only men who devalue women, and that the women of that culture don't devalue their own gender? I think you need to take a hard look at what you're saying. (I know you won't ;) )

It's never mentioned how these same women are then persecuted by their communities for having gotten an abortion, despite the fact that they weren't the ones who wanted to get the abortion in the first place.

It would be hypocracy to do this, but I don't know where you're getting this from.

And nobody seems to want to bring it up simply in terms of how shitty it is that female babies are being aborted for failing to be male. They feel the need to couch this within the "problem" of male satisfaction.

If women don't exist (because they were aborted), then male satisfaction really is the only problem that's left.

Sorry, but men's inability to get wives in India is not a "problem" worth discussing.

So it isn't worth it to try to reassert normal gender rations by putting the debate in terms the sexists can understand. Okay, we'll all silently condone gender selection based abortions over there. If we're lucky, either the lack of women will teach them to value the female gender, or they'll take it to such an extreme that their entire culture will die out.

Sex selection in abortion procedures is NOT a problem because of the impact on the dating market. It is pathetic to even bring up such a trivial consideration in light of the real problems that this trend reflects.
I think you've been far too hostile toward people who have been generally on your side. Just because we don't condemn men with every third word doesn't mean we aren't concerned about sexist additudes.

Oh, well gee, I guess that's fine then...except for, you know, the women having these abortions against their wishes. And all the remaining women in India, who get to live in a culture that becomes even more paranoid about controlling their bodies. And all the remaining girls who get to grow up knowing that their mother is regarded as a failure for having had them, and that they themselves are failures for not being boys.

The ONLY reason sex selection would ever be a problem is if the prevailing culture regards one gender as worth less than the other. Period.

That's what all this discussion boils down to: what will people choose to do if this technology is available? If all people would make good choices, this debate wouldn't exist. Our worry is that people would be jackasses, and would decide that a gay baby, or a girl baby, or a brown baby, or a short baby, or any "imperfect" baby would not be good enough for them.

The root problem is not with the technology at all, it is with the forces that result in specific populations being devalued. The sex-selection we see in India has been practiced for centuries, and has is found in plenty of other cultures...infanticide for female babies is nothing new. The technology is just another way to go about this.

If you want to address the issue of "designer babies" then you waste your time talking about the technology. Humans are designed to try to create "designer babies," and many of our mate-selection criterion reflect this. You aren't going to do away with our desire to "improve" our young, nor are you going to be able to stop new technologies from coming into the picture. All you can do is address the reasons why we define certain traits as better than others.

Why is male viewed as better than female, so much so that female babies are killed? Why is blonde hair seen as preferable to brown, enough so that some people would be willing to abort a non-blonde baby? Why is homosexuality hated so much that people would rather have no child than a gay child? That's the issue, not the tech.

Good point. Also let's not forget that guys without wives are more prone to frequent prostitutes and in cultures where women are deprived of education and work opportunities many will be forced into prostitution to support themselves and their families. I'm in favor of prostitution when it's a free choice, not when it's the only choice. Also, it may not be politically correct, but I think that guys who don't have any chance at consentual sex or a relationship with a woman are more likely to rape.

I'm talking about things like harlequins syndrome, not epilepsy and dyslexia (no offence intended)

Yuh i know.
But the point is i would be killed off because A.S is considered a really bad mental disability.
And epilepsy can be VERY VERY harmful and hurtful.

Like causing coma's ect

I think such manipulation is potentially very dangerous. We might, for example, cure AIDS only to have people dropping like flies from malaria. We could create a race of blond haired, blue eyed people who die from skin cancer when we get global warming/ozone depletion.

Um.

My support of you just dried up.
Sorry. I wasn't thinking about the issue in depth. Just about the consequences of guys with no prospects for consentual sex or marriage wandering around looking for someplace to stick their dick. That's bound to cause problems.

You probably didn't intend it this way, but I find your last sentence sickening. It gives the impression that the real problem is that men can't get themselves a woman. Fuck that. The problem is that women are so hideously devalued in that culture that women are being compelled to abort female babies. The problem isn't that men can't get wives and girlfriends, it's that the male-dominated culture has created a situation in which female life is not valued, period. Women are not of value aside from their ability to produce (male) children. That's the real problem, not the poor poor men who can't find themselves a baby-making machine.

Your phrasing further reinforces the idea that women are only important insofar as they satisfy male needs/demands. It implies that sex selection will be a problem simply because men won't get enough pussy. How about simply saying that it is horrifying how much people hate females? How about being disgusted by the fact that femaleness is being regarded as a birth defect in some cultures? How about asserting that female babies are to be valued and cherished, regardless of whether or not they end up dating/marrying males?
i dont have a problem with your analysis. its right on point and is the reason why this imbalance exists in india (and china where there are some western towns with and 80/20 imbalance) they have devalued women and girls to the point where they have sown the seeds of disaster in their own societies.

its not just a matter of "men not getting enough pussy". the problem will be that there will come to be a huge reservoir of unmarried/unmarriable men at the bottom of society. men who have no chance at one of the most basic of human desires--their own families. men with nothing to lose.

it is horrrifying that a society should be so antifemale that they would abort female fetuses, kill female babies, feed their girls last, not pay for girls to go to school, leave women with no chance to better their lives. they are so unwilling to bear the "burden" of female children that they are planting a population time bomb that is set to go off pretty damned soon.

how are their precious sons going to give them grandsons when there are no women for them to marry? and what will the desperate men at the bottom do when they realize that they are paying the price for this societal shame?

Sorry. I wasn't thinking about the issue in depth. Just about the consequences of guys with no prospects for consentual sex or marriage wandering around looking for someplace to stick their dick. That's bound to cause problems.
Well, I imagine you're now thinking about the issue beyond men's dicks:eek:

and what will the desperate men at the bottom do when they realize that they are paying the price for this societal shame?

They'll start wars with neighboring countries to kidnap their women. And they still won't value them as anything other than baby-machines. :(

Well, I imagine you're now thinking about the issue beyond men's dicks:eek:
Yeah, Bottle pointed out some things I was ignoring.

Yuh i know.
But the point is i would be killed off because A.S is considered a really bad mental disability.
And epilepsy can be VERY VERY harmful and hurtful.

Like causing coma's ect

I think this is why there should be better accuracy before (usually) non life-threatening diseases are checked for in embryos to determine how risky the case is. Maybe I should have been more specific but I'm sorry if I've caused any offence.

No your wrong actually

It would have been an einstein without A.S
And as such he would have never taken an obsessive intrest in physics, at best he may have been just another physicsits
FYI: Not all geniuses have A.S. and not all people with A.S. are geniuses.

Yuh i know.
But the point is i would be killed off because A.S is considered a really bad mental disability.
Yeah, well, your spermatozoid killed off all its brothers. Tough luck, I guess.
Think of it as never having lived instead.

I am also for the selection of a matching embryo in order to save, or at least help, a sibling. Some people say that this is immoral as it is not the right reason to decide to have a baby and the child will be unloved. I believe though, in most cases at least,that it is not unethical to create a child to help its sibling as you are not only bringing a life into the world but saving another, and for this the new baby will be loved even more for saving its sibling.

If we weren't putting such limits on embryonic stem cell research, we might be able to figure out how to do this without actually having to create a whole new human being. Until therapeutic cloning is perfected, we could possibly choose a matching embryo, get stem cells, and grow those cells needed by the already born child.

Sorry, but men's inability to get wives in India is not a "problem" worth discussing. Sex selection in abortion procedures is NOT a problem because of the impact on the dating market. It is pathetic to even bring up such a trivial consideration in light of the real problems that this trend reflects.

It isn't a problem worth discussing, but, strange as it may seem, it could be the catalyst for a strong women's rights movement in India (and other countries where this type of selection has been in practice). These societies have essentially caused a gender ratio that is not sustainable, which means that the "value" of women in the society will likely increase - meaning that they can demand the rights that they should have had all along.

They'll start wars with neighboring countries to kidnap their women. And they still won't value them as anything other than baby-machines. :(
yeah, or neighboring villages mabye

logically, this whole thing should be good for the status of women. instead of having to pay a dowry to get rid of the burdensome girl, a family should end up being able to demand a brideprice for the boon of getting a wife for your precious son (so he can give you grandsons). better educated, more healthy, more accomplished girls would bring a bigger brideprice.

too bad people arent logical

the more likely outcome is a huge increase in childbrides as men reach down into the younger generation to claim what they can get while they can get it. an 8 year old bride both takes the burden off the parents early and ensures the man the wife he cant obtain in the pool of women his own age.

FYI: Not all geniuses have A.S. and not all people with A.S. are geniuses.

A.S. - Angelman's syndrome is a mentally handicapping condition

EDIT: A.S. can sometimes be for Asperger's syndrome

Yuh i know.
But the point is i would be killed off because A.S is considered a really bad mental disability.
And epilepsy can be VERY VERY harmful and hurtful.

Like causing coma's ect
are those genetic diseases?

yeah, or neighboring villages mabye

logically, this whole thing should be good for the status of women. instead of having to pay a dowry to get rid of the burdensome girl, a family should end up being able to demand a brideprice for the boon of getting a wife for your precious son (so he can give you grandsons). better educated, more healthy, more accomplished girls would bring a bigger brideprice.

too bad people arent logical

the more likely outcome is a huge increase in childbrides as men reach down into the younger generation to claim what they can get while they can get it. an 8 year old bride both takes the burden off the parents early and ensures the man the wife he cant obtain in the pool of women his own age.

Believe it or not, there is evidence that the increase in women's rights as a result of this treatment is already occurring in China. I don't know how long it will take to become significant changes (or if it will), but it seems that women are already gaining better status there.

I was writing up an essay on this topic and wanted to know what everyone thinks about 'designer babies': The process of screening and artificially selecting one embryo that is in some way superior to others.

This process is generally used to screen for genetic diseases and select an embryo that is 'clean' while disposing of the diseased ones and any in excess, or to find an embryo with a tissue match with an existing sibling with a condition, so cells can be donated to the sibling to improve their health. It can also be (theoretically) used to select babies with certain genes for hair and eye color and other aesthetic traits, which is illegal, as well as selecting gender, which is also illegal in the UK (Not sure about elsewhere.)

My stance is that designer babies for the aesthetic purposes (for example wanting a baby who looks like Britney Spears) is immoral as it creates a group of 'super humans' who may overshadow others, as well as narrowing the genepool which may impact humanity in the future. Selecting a child's gender is also immoral (unless there is history of a gender-linked genetic disease in the family, in which case it is justified) because this is likely to skew the male/female ratio, which is now fairly equal, and could have serious consequences.

Otherwise though, I'm fairly pro-artificial selection, my main reason: Our technology has allowed humans to overcome evolution: People with faulty genes who would previously have died by the process of natural selection are now kept alive by sophisticated technology and advanced medical research, and can survive to breed and so their genes remain in the human genepool, making humanity overall genetically weaker. However because we can no longer rely on evolution and natural selection we must use artificial selection to remove these faulty genes. If we can screen embryos for faulty genes then it will not only improve the quality of life for the baby and family but could also stop the spread of a gene so the condition does not exist in the future.

I am also for the selection of a matching embryo in order to save, or at least help, a sibling. Some people say that this is immoral as it is not the right reason to decide to have a baby and the child will be unloved. I believe though, in most cases at least,that it is not unethical to create a child to help its sibling as you are not only bringing a life into the world but saving another, and for this the new baby will be loved even more for saving its sibling.

Edit: Wow, my longest post yet, but please read and give your opinions.
I think it's ridiculuous that the government has any say in this. People who are going to have children are the only ones who must decide what their kids will be like. Any impact on society is irrelevant. You may argue that "superhumans" will be created, but how is that different from what we have now? Rich people pamper their kids, send them to the best schools, give them all kinds of advantages in life that most other people don't have...

And no, I'm not a commie.

Umm...
Im against it for obvious reasons
(is A.S positive, Dyspraxic, Dyslexic, Epileptic ect.)

Einstein would have been wiped if this had been aroudn then

ANd in my personal case my physical disabilities made me!


A.S Positive---> Actually defines my personality

Dyspraxia---> Caused my aptitude with typing and computing

Dyslexic---> made me extra careful and now, at least in the writing sense, it is unnoticable, it made me study more.

Epilepsy---> Errm... i get to take pills :D Purple ones :D

:eek: You have just opened my eyes to another side of this issue! I would have been deleted myself:

ADD ---> The basis of my personality, but society is trying to get rid of it...

Poor fine motor control in digits=hard to write ---> Caused my aptitude with typing and computing

REALLY weird memory ---> Remembering books off by heart is cool, forgetting a name twenty times isn't

Tendancy to Depression ---> Er... gives me something to write poems about! :p

EDIT: A.S. can sometimes be Asperger's syndrome
I believe that's the A.S. Europa Alpha refers to, since some people speculate that Einstein exhibited a very mild form of autism, although that has not been substantiated.

Additionally, I don't believe that conditions such as ADD, Asperger's, etc can be attributed totally to genetic disorders, or maybe even partially. Plus they're being heavily overdiagnosed. Later fetus development and environmental conditions may also influence these conditions. As such, babies who present a tendency towards these conditions shouldn't be screened out.

Also, laser shooting eyes are such an obvious advantage that I'm not going to bother arguing that point.

I think it's ridiculuous that the government has any say in this. People who are going to have children are the only ones who must decide what their kids will be like. Any impact on society is irrelevant. You may argue that "superhumans" will be created, but how is that different from what we have now? Rich people pamper their kids, send them to the best schools, give them all kinds of advantages in life that most other people don't have...

And no, I'm not a commie.

Genetic engineering would be a far greater advantage than going to an expensive school. A sufficient capacity to learn would have a child excel in any school. If it's possible that that trait could be genetically screened you may find that those able to afford it will give rise to a generation of super geniuses, and the children of others will be well below average by comparrisson.

Believe it or not, there is evidence that the increase in women's rights as a result of this treatment is already occurring in China. I don't know how long it will take to become significant changes (or if it will), but it seems that women are already gaining better status there.
one of the (very few) benefits of the communist revolution in china has been the improvement of womens status.

even in the countryside

since all girls are required to be educated, they have a huge leg up on improving their own lives.

the 1-child rule has been eased up so that couples no longer have a huge incentive to abandon their girl babies. it still happens but its not as "necessary" as it used to be.

Genetic engineering would be a far greater advantage than going to an expensive school. A sufficient capacity to learn would have a child excel in any school. If it's possible that that trait could be genetically screened you may find that those able to afford it will give rise to a generation of super geniuses, and the children of others will be well below average by comparrisson.
yeah

too bad people arent logical

instead of choosing embryos that will grow into socially inept supergeniuses its much more likely that we would get a huge increase in very tall blond athletes.

no one would keep the kids with the fat gene, the short gene or the nappy hair gene.

yeah

too bad people arent logical

instead of choosing embryos that will grow into socially inept supergeniuses its much more likely that we would get a huge increase in very tall blond athletes.

no one would keep the kids with the fat gene, the short gene or the nappy hair gene.

Or the near-sighted gene! :eek: *adjusts glasses*

yeah

too bad people arent logical

instead of choosing embryos that will grow into socially inept supergeniuses its much more likely that we would get a huge increase in very tall blond athletes.

no one would keep the kids with the fat gene, the short gene or the nappy hair gene.

That's probably a lot more likely. All of a sudden every girl would have a 'J.Lo ass' and the guys would look like the love child of several different male superstars. And celebrities would probably just clone themselves. If they do it at the right time they can just stay in the same age bracket in the eyes of the public.
Guy 1:'So how old is Britney?'
Guy pi:'She's like 25 isn't she?'
Guy 2:'No there's a new one now, she's 18 again'

Umm...
Im against it for obvious reasons
(is A.S positive, Dyspraxic, Dyslexic, Epileptic ect.)

Einstein would have been wiped if this had been aroudn then

ANd in my personal case my physical disabilities made me!


A.S Positive---> Actually defines my personality

Dyspraxia---> Caused my aptitude with typing and computing

Dyslexic---> made me extra careful and now, at least in the writing sense, it is unnoticable, it made me study more.

Epilepsy---> Errm... i get to take pills :D Purple ones :D




Ect ect.
Im against it, this is the only subject im conservative on i am against abortion and genetic enhancement.

ALTHOUGH i am for masturbation and stemcell research because those wouldnt have EVER been babies anyway


Life expectancy sperm-->24 hours

Actually I've been diagnosed with various things myself, including autism, tourettes, OCD, ADHD, DAMP(Forget what this one stands for), as well as a hand-eye coordination disorder.

Though the only ones I think I have (The doctors couldn't agree) are the Obsessive Compulsive disorder and the hand-eye coordination problem, all though I did have difficulty socialising at school this was most likely due to my indifference to others and that my parents kept pulling me out to see those doctors all the time, and putting me on meds that made me totally out of it.

I'm not saying what you have are severe problems, but perhaps for the more serious disabilities such as cystic fibrosis, Down's syndrome, and other severe disabilities in which a child will be in intense pain/a vegetative state for their entire life the elimination of these disorders is a good thing.

That's probably a lot more likely. All of a sudden every girl would have a 'J.Lo ass' and the guys would look like the love child of several different male superstars. And celebrities would probably just clone themselves. If they do it at the right time they can just stay in the same age bracket in the eyes of the public.
Guy 1:'So how old is Britney?'
Guy pi:'She's like 25 isn't she?'
Guy 2:'No there's a new one now, she's 18 again'
now theres a short scifi story plot if i ever saw one!

and if everyone's girlfriend was a clone of brittney, would they all have the same whitetrash tendencies?

Actually I've been diagnosed with various things myself, including autism, tourettes, OCD, ADHD, DAMP(Forget what this one stands for), as well as a hand-eye coordination disorder.

I think DAMP stands for Deficits in Attention Motor-control and Perception, that would certainly go with the other things you've listed.

Genetic engineering would be a far greater advantage than going to an expensive school. A sufficient capacity to learn would have a child excel in any school. If it's possible that that trait could be genetically screened you may find that those able to afford it will give rise to a generation of super geniuses, and the children of others will be well below average by comparrisson.
Right, but if that child doesn't have enough to eat and isn't motivated, it doesn't matter how good their genes are. They just won't make it.

Actually, come to think of it, what would be so bad about having a bunch of supergeniuses? Science and the arts would advance greatly, and with any luck

What is so bad about having superior children?
Should we start crippling any children born better than average?
How about we stunt everyone’s growth down to that of the lowest ability? That way everybody is equal.

As far as pointing out famous people who have problems and claiming that we would be missing out on so much – why not conjecture that Steven Hawking would have been able to make an even greater contribution had he the body of an Olympic athlete? Or how about if we had a bunch of Nobel laureates instead of Downs syndrome kids?

Making conjectures like these are worthless. Individuals are not important – what is important is society. If we started selecting those more likely to be better than average, society would improve as the average intelligence of its members is boosted.

As far as the comments that we would just have a bunch of Brittney Spears look-alikes running around, choosing for higher intelligence would mean that sort of thing would stop in a single generation.

There is no harm in electing to have the best child you could have. It should be encouraged as much as possible. But then again I am greatly in favor of positive eugenics programs – giving great incentives for the best of society to breed as much as possible. While those of poor genetic stock should be discouraged from passing on their problems – the world is no so underpopulated that we need to have a population with debilitating genetic diseases. Huntington’s disease is one in particular we could do without. So if you have any horrible genetic problems – DON’T BREED! If you must have a child, adopt. There are tons of healthy kids out there in need of parents.

Why do people seem to think that stupidity and incompetence makes one more worthy of living than someone healthy? It isn’t ‘noble’ to be retarded, you're just retarded.

In my opinion, genetic therapies are like dynamite. It's a double edged sword capable of making life a lot easier and bringing about a lot of destruction at the same time.

^
^

Sounds logical but two flaws come to mind:

1. If all of society were selected by their genes, the result would be a shrinking gene pool as everyone goes for similar alleles. This would basically have the same affect as inbreeding and make the population more vulnerable to changes in the environment (diseases inroduced, changing climate etc).

2.The individuals labelled "unfit to reproduce", cannot be unanimously decided; some people won't want certain 'races', some might want to eleminate personalities that are more likely to be criminals etc. It seems a lot like what the Nazis did by killing mentally retarded people.

I must say I agree with your entire stance. Yeah, it's definitely time to screen for things like Tay-Sachs, Huntingtons, etc...I just don't want it to turn into Gattaca.

What is so bad about having superior children?
Should we start crippling any children born better than average?
How about we stunt everyone’s growth down to that of the lowest ability? That way everybody is equal.

As far as pointing out famous people who have problems and claiming that we would be missing out on so much – why not conjecture that Steven Hawking would have been able to make an even greater contribution had he the body of an Olympic athlete? Or how about if we had a bunch of Nobel laureates instead of Downs syndrome kids?

Making conjectures like these are worthless. Individuals are not important – what is important is society. If we started selecting those more likely to be better than average, society would improve as the average intelligence of its members is boosted.

As far as the comments that we would just have a bunch of Brittney Spears look-alikes running around, choosing for higher intelligence would mean that sort of thing would stop in a single generation.

There is no harm in electing to have the best child you could have. It should be encouraged as much as possible. But then again I am greatly in favor of positive eugenics programs – giving great incentives for the best of society to breed as much as possible. While those of poor genetic stock should be discouraged from passing on their problems – the world is no so underpopulated that we need to have a population with debilitating genetic diseases. Huntington’s disease is one in particular we could do without. So if you have any horrible genetic problems – DON’T BREED! If you must have a child, adopt. There are tons of healthy kids out there in need of parents.

Why do people seem to think that stupidity and incompetence makes one more worthy of living than someone healthy? It isn’t ‘noble’ to be retarded, you're just retarded.

I can see some sence in what you are saying. However there are somethings in our society that are looked upon negetively (such as ADD) that have some extrordinary benifits as well as problems. Roughly 50% of entrepeneurs have ADD, because the traits make you damn good at that sort of thing, just to have an example. If that gene gets killed off, then we lose a great proportion of the people in this world who are impulsive and 'go for it' enough to have been marked though history, such as Thomas Edison, the great inventor. I can't speak for any other genetic 'disorders', but since I have researched this one greatly, I can state for certain that for society as a whole, we would be a whole lot worse off.

(If you want to check my sources, a vast amount is in the book "Attention Deficit Disorder: A Different Perception")

And celebrities would probably just clone themselves. If they do it at the right time they can just stay in the same age bracket in the eyes of the public.
But what if the clon doesn't want to be a crap belching slut?

Roughly 50% of entrepeneurs have ADD, because the traits make you damn good at that sort of thing, just to have an example.
Oh, please! Many people exhibit traits of ADD without having ADD. I could be diagnosed with ADD easily. It can only be said that it's ADD when it's imparing, and even so it has to go on for a long time before it can truly be classified as ADD. One of the reasons why there are so many cases of ADD in the USA is because anyone who has an unruly child just puts it down to ADD and don't follow the proper procedure to make a real diagnosis.

An entrepreneur with untreated ADD would not be a good entrepreneur, no two ways about it. And the positive traits that supposedly accompany ADD, like creativity, energy, and thoroughness are not exclusive of ADD.

Finally, although a strong genetic component is suspected in ADD, this would only indicate a susceptibility, not certainty, so there's no need to filter the gene. Perhaps some expressions of it, but not the gene.

Oh, please! Many people exhibit traits of ADD without having ADD. I could be diagnosed with ADD easily. It can only be said that it's ADD when it's imparing, and even so it has to go on for a long time before it can truly be classified as ADD. One of the reasons why there are so many cases of ADD in the USA is because anyone who has an unruly child just puts it down to ADD and don't follow the proper procedure to make a real diagnosis.

An entrepreneur with untreated ADD would not be a good entrepreneur, no two ways about it. And the positive traits that supposedly accompany ADD, like creativity, energy, and thoroughness are not exclusive of ADD.

Finally, although a strong genetic component is suspected in ADD, this would only indicate a susceptibility, not certainty, so there's no need to filter the gene. Perhaps some expressions of it, but not the gene.

Well the test wether someone has ADD is wholey based on people's traits. There are about three different widely accepted tests, but they all are based upon the actions you make. That is the medical definition of ADD. Now often it is not diagnosed by medical practitioners because they don't feel that there can be a 'disorder' if you are managing to cope. Just to go back to my earlier example, Thomas Edison had untreated ADD, and he certainly managed to do something with his life. Many people have untreated ADD, hell, I have untreated ADD and I don't need some quack stuffing Ritalin down my throat to make me function.

Just a note with the entrepreneur thing however, it is more rare that someone who has ADD is successful as an entrepreneur, because often they try to keep the buisness running after they have built it, something which their brain is not adapted to do. Those who build, sell, and build again flourish.

Oh, and you're thinking of ADHD, the favorite disorder of those whose parents have not had the patience to teach their children to keep still. ADD doesn't work with that, because it requires the child/adult to be thinking differently, while their natural actions might be the same. ADD is theoretically underdiagnosed, as it is often either misdiagnosed as ADHD, or simply ignored and the student is assumed 'lazy'.

On the genetic issue, even if it was just the potential for ADD that was stopped, then wouldn't the condition die out anyway? Not sure on this, I don't know too much about the science behind it.

Well the test wether someone has ADD is wholey based on people's traits. There are about three different widely accepted tests, but they all are based upon the actions you make. That is the medical definition of ADD. Now often it is not diagnosed by medical practitioners because they don't feel that there can be a 'disorder' if you are managing to cope. Just to go back to my earlier example, Thomas Edison had untreated ADD, and he certainly managed to do something with his life. Many people have untreated ADD, hell, I have untreated ADD and I don't need some quack stuffing Ritalin down my throat to make me function.
See? That's the problem, even dead people are being diagnosed with ADD over a couple of traits that they may have exhibited. Of course ADD is about traits, but it's not one or two that you exhibit from time to time or in special circumstances or as a ritual. It's a set of them, that you exhibit most or all of the time and in such a extreme that they become a real obstacle.

If you present one or two of them, say unable to focus on boring stuff, but it's not so terrible that you can overcome it easily with discipline, patience or fear of the boss, or you can concentrate in stuff that's interesting, or doesn't require treatment, then by definition it's not a disorder and therefore not ADD or ADHD.

On the genetic issue, even if it was just the potential for ADD that was stopped, then wouldn't the condition die out anyway? Not sure on this, I don't know too much about the science behind it.
Depends on how strongly environmental factors affect the outcome. It may be possible to avoid the environmental factors that provoke ADD without modifying the genes, or perhaps alter the expression of the genes to make ADD more manageable. The causes of ADD are not certain, and its physiology is still not totally understood, and until that happens it will be very difficult to say one way or the other.

If you present one or two of them, say unable to focus on boring stuff, but it's not so terrible that you can overcome it easily with discipline, patience or fear of the boss, or you can concentrate in stuff that's interesting, or doesn't require treatment, then by definition it's not a disorder and therefore not ADD or ADHD.

I agree with most of what you are saying, but this is where we have our problem, I don't believe it is a disorder anyway. It has problems yes, but it also has gifts. Wether is is diagnosed seems to be based on the life the person has found themselves in, and wether their querks are a benefit or a hinderance.

But perhaps we should agree to disagree, or take this discussion elsewhere ;)

I truly don't know. It doesn't seem horrible to me to try to ensure that one's child doesn't have any truly awful diseases, it does seem horrible to me to try to ensure that one's child isn't gay, and in between lies a whole spectrum of things. Where does one draw the line?

So if you have any horrible genetic problems – DON’T BREED!

An ex-boyfriend's mother once told me that my genes weren't good enough to be passed on. That was one of the most hurtful things anyone has ever said to me, and I seriously doubt I'll ever forget it. No one, not her, not you, not the Pope, not the Surgeon General, NO ONE is qualified to decide whether I am fit to reproduce but me. Okay?

Differentiating between removing a defect and selecting for a superior quality in the context of self-directed evolution is a false dichotomy. Natural selection operates as much by the positive selection of good traits as by the negative selection of bad ones. I see no problem in parents selecting for intelligence, strength, etc., and equally as little in introducing new good traits, though that doesn't fall under the type of designer baby you're talking about - creating and adding new traits requires germline engineering, not simple selection-from-multiple-embryos.

If it can be used to help rid us forever of genetically transmitted diseases, fine, and then it's a very good thing. If it is just being used just so that Jo Ellen Soccer Mom from Kenosha, Wisconsin can select her perfect little child from a catalog, then hell no. We'd eventually end up with no biological diversity, just about everybody would look the same, and then ultimately we'd start seeing the same kind of backwoods style genetic aberrations that you used to see in backwoods Kentucky. If you don't believe that, see how quickly Americans move to cash in on the Next Big Status Symbol like Air Jordans, Hummers, and iPods just so they can be the first one on their block to have one. Face it, most people are flat out stupid. Give Soccer Mom a choice and we'd a whole neighborhood of model #163-D's. All we'd have is perfect little children and no diversity at first, and then a whole boatload of problems later on.

And then, there is the religious angle to the issue that I won't even go into, because you know what just about any Christian worth the air he or she breathes would say to that.

Hmm. For the purposes of cutting out genetic abnormalities in foetuses, in my opinion, 'designer babies' are justified. For a couple paying an absolute fortune to have a child, spending every penny they have to conceive a child, then to hear that your baby has a genetic condition which will kill them before their fifth birthday is more than devastating. To screen the embryos before implantation will save them this pain and anguish. I also agree with genetically engineering a child to be a genetic match for a sibling, who requires stem cells from the baby's cord blood in order to survive. As long as the family is financially stable enough to support the extra child and give him/her all the same benefits and love any other naturally conceived child would have. Both of these scenarios result in saving someones life, and therefore I consider it justified.

However, I don't agree with being able to choose a child's eye colour, hair colour and gender, because this will end up creating another 'class' of people, who consider themselves better than everyone else because of their 'superior' genes. That child ends up being more of a status symbol than a child to be loved, crooked teeth and pimply complexion and all. So what if my kids aren't the most attractive people out there, all that matters is that they're loved, they're stable, good, honest people, and they know that beauty is only skin deep, and how to find the inner beauty of everyone around them.

An ex-boyfriend's mother once told me that my genes weren't good enough to be passed on. That was one of the most hurtful things anyone has ever said to me, and I seriously doubt I'll ever forget it. No one, not her, not you, not the Pope, not the Surgeon General, NO ONE is qualified to decide whether I am fit to reproduce but me. Okay?

Man, that was rough! Obviously, she thought that your genes weren't good enough for HER family. I had a grandmother like that - hated my mother because she was a farmers daughter, not good enough for the grandson of the Mayor, and when I was born, I wasn't good enough because I was a girl. She never showed any interest in my or my sister ever.

When you're good and ready, have kids, and prove to that bitch that, not only are your genes good enough to be passed on, but they're too good to produce offspring for her lousy family. Be glad in the fact that, with an attitude like that, either she'll be cold in the ground before her first grandchild is born, or she'll never, ever see the ones she's got.