• Should designer babies be banned?
    13 replies, posted
For those who don't know: Designer babies are those that have had certain genes/characteristics removed prior to birth. Basically you check a box to remove gene x y and z that then gives them blonde hair etc... It can also be used to stop genetic illnesses (HIV, Heart Disease etc.) ------- Personally, I think it is a good thing, it can allow us to make sure that our children won't be affected by a long line of illness that has run through the family however I think that the cosmetic reasons are both immoral and degrading on mother nature's hand. So, what do you think? ----- This came about after a debating competition where the motion was: THW ban designer babies. It is a current issue that is interesting to me and I wondered what you thought. [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Low-content OP" - Megafan))[/highlight]
It sounds fine when done for health purposes, but not for aesthetic purposes. ...Wasn't this part of the moral of Gattaca?
That's right; curing childhood illnesses with pre-conception tinkering or gene therapy is ok, though making aesthetic alterations and/or adding "superhuman attributes" to your child ain't kosher. At that stage of development, that is; when a person is old enough to make important decisions for themselves, like say if they were over 18 or were proven to possess responsibility, they should be able to alter their genetic code if they so wish, as well as if they have the money to pay for the gene therapy and acclimatizing coma (in theory it'd give the altered genes time to fully assert themselves and make the correct alterations to the individual) following the procedure. Also, if gene therapy becomes a prominent feature of the near future, wherein people spend a lot of money to alter their biology, that'd be an interesting step on the path of "H+". Even if it didn't reach that level, it'd still make for an interesting topic for contemporary sci-fi. In regards to it being "degrading to Mother Nature", however, I strongly disagree; we are sentient beings, and we are capable of controlling our own destiny with the power of sapient intellect, rather than instincts and lower-tier intellect found in most animals. Our intellects allow us to intelligently alter our surroundings and lives; we can create fire, build mechanisms, develop medicines, etc, in an effort to survive and thrive. We have the power and know-how to utilise technology to reach the ends we desire, and there is no cosmic force that prevents us from using certain tools.; only our own mortal moralities and opinions. We sought to fly through the air, so we invented airplanes and hot air balloons; we desired to prevent deaths at the hands of diseases, so we created medicines; we wished to stay out of the cold winds, so we built houses to live in; and if we want to change ourselves on a fundamental level for personal reasons, then we shall use gene therapy to alter our genetics and advanced prosthetics to replace the parts of us that we wish to improve. Speaking of which, are there any areas in the body that aren't entirely necessary, and have potential as "augment real-estate"? One would think the appendix would be of such little worth that one could replace it with some sort of biomechanical augment and not be too worse off, but I heard that it can act as a sort of "safe-haven" for friendly bacteria if bad things happen.
Could be very good for preventing illness. As for cosmetic purposes: Many ugly looking features can be unhealthy, you would like to cross out an inherited acne.
if it's for medical conditions i dont see the problem. however, fashion babies? mm i think that could have serious societal ramifications
Fully support disease prevention. Don't support aesthetic mods, pre-birth gender assignment or any of that shit. If children were born with preconceived aesthetics based on what adults considered attractive built into their very DNA than you'd find that humanity would become even more unhinged with reality than it already is as notions of what makes someone attractive change with the speed of opinion and those that were originally attractive are left in the dust. Basically it would be bad, for the kids, for the parents for society and everyone involved. Making permanent choices based on a floating, highly variable, arbitrary societal opinion = bad idea.
Stamping out disease is a definate good thing, it will help the child in living a long and happy life. however, what can be used can be abused - there are already so many terrible parents making terrible choices for their kids (naming them things like "110011" or "Rainbow Dash" for example) so far these things can be reversed i'd imagine a lot of attention desperate parents would tailor their kids to look like celebrities, stripping them of their own identity, and i'm sure as technology progresses, the parents would have greater choices in how to alter their child - i don't know how a blue-skinned kid would live through primary school. Children aren't toys, some people choose to treat them as such. not to mention, we all know about the massive inequality in gender there is in certain countries - for example in china where boys are favored, and it's not entirely unknown for babies to be aborted for being the wrong gender, this will only make it worse.
I see no problem with what people do with their own bodies. (A baby is technically part of the mother's body so get at me pro-lifers.. etc etc. Women's choice.. etc.. freedom.. etc)
[QUOTE=Corewarp3;38683298]I see no problem with what people do with their own bodies. (A baby is technically part of the mother's body so get at me pro-lifers.. etc etc. Women's choice.. etc.. freedom.. etc)[/QUOTE] argument is invalid because that decision directly affects the life of another human being later on down the line try again
Why wouldn't you want your child to have every advantage possible?
[QUOTE=teh pirate;38683468]argument is invalid because that decision directly affects the life of another human being later on down the line try again[/QUOTE] You might see a "down the line". But that's not how I see it. I see it as it is, RIGHT NOW. Right now the mother is one with the INCREDIBLE burden and as such gets to decide what ever the fuck she wants to do with the baby. If you want to think that a baby growing inside a mother's womb is an individual. A person. Then fine. But it's not.
[QUOTE=Corewarp3;38683518]You might see a "down the line". But that's not how I see it. I see it as it is, RIGHT NOW. Right now the mother is one with the INCREDIBLE burden and as such gets to decide what ever the fuck she wants to do with the baby. If you want to think that a baby growing inside a mother's womb is an individual. A person. Then fine. But it's not.[/QUOTE] Indeed, right on target. I think it's a bit of double standard that we justify abortion because the fetus isn't a person, yet there are people who oppose genetic modification of the fetus. Now of course, there are plenty of other issues than just simply morality, and to be honest, morality is a pretty meh factor to care about compared to others. Genetic diversity, anyone? If/when the whole "designer babies" thing kicks off, if certain genetic modifications become very popular, then we start to run into the point where we have problems equivalent to inbreeding.
[QUOTE=certified;38683664]Indeed, right on target. I think it's a bit of double standard that we justify abortion because the fetus isn't a person, yet there are people who oppose genetic modification of the fetus. Now of course, there are plenty of other issues than just simply morality, and to be honest, morality is a pretty meh factor to care about compared to others. Genetic diversity, anyone? If/when the whole "designer babies" thing kicks off, if certain genetic modifications become very popular, then we start to run into the point where we have problems equivalent to inbreeding.[/QUOTE] This guy has raised the only legitimate issue with "designer babies". Although I'm sure if it does kick off, people will be given more information about who/what their off spring can do. Kind of a shitty situation to be in as an individual. "Oh noes I can't make babies with that purdy girl because our genes are too similiar.. fuck you mom and dad!" Would not be good. I have no idea how likely such a thing is anyway but my point is. If you're looking at moral stuff, you best check yourself.
[QUOTE=Corewarp3;38684010]This guy has raised the only legitimate issue with "designer babies". Although I'm sure if it does kick off, people will be given more information about who/what their off spring can do. Kind of a shitty situation to be in as an individual. "Oh noes I can't make babies with that purdy girl because our genes are too similiar.. fuck you mom and dad!" Would not be good. I have no idea how likely such a thing is anyway but my point is. If you're looking at moral stuff, you best check yourself.[/QUOTE] I'm going to assume that is a picture of you in your avatar.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.