Designer babies

Right, so I saw in the news a bit on a clinic in Los Angeles that would let you choose, among other things, the eye colour, complexion and hair colour of your child.

I think that this is an interesting ethical issue, especially if we end up being able to choose, say, intelligence.

What are your views on the subject?

Here is a link to an article on the subject:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...nic-that-offers-eye-skin-and-hair-colour.html

This is a pretty neat little experiment.

I wouldn't agree with changing the sex of the baby because of the out comes that may happen. The future generations of the world could be over populated with more males than females or vise versa. Kinda a wide thought but it is a possiblility.

Also with changing the skin/hair/eye color of the child would be fine with me. But if the parent decided for some reason to give the child blue eyes, brown skin, and pure white hair that could result in the child getting picked on in the future. Society discriminates whoever that is different. There will be no changing that no matter how many generations we go through. Plus it would be kinda of wierd to see a black baby with green eyes in the mix of a family that is white. This could result in the family getting a bad name.

But on the plus side this could have people who are closed minded become more open with views of others. Overall if the procedure bans the act of switching the sex of the child then it's a go with me.


If scientists are able to change the intellegence then they should. It can help the future generations because if they are intellegent then more things are to be discovered through their minds. In the future there could be a cure for cancer/AiDs/HiV/etc. if these children get an intellegence boost.

amazing. not only is this totally interesting in terms of science, it is something I would like to use when I'm older and have a favily.

oops, I pulled an Eor.

Jam Stunna said:

I suppose that choosing hair/eye color is innocuous enough, but this is one of those lines that I wish wasn't crossed. It's only a matter of time until people start designing NBA players, mega-geniuses and the like.

But as a personal comment, I don't see why this appeals to anyone. Part of the joy and wonder of pregnancy/parenthood is seeing how your child turns out in the end, and that gets lost when you've chosen everything.

Click to expand...

You do realize that not everything is determined by a persons genes. You couldn't engineer your child to become a super-genius. You would have to raise the child.

The same goes for physical strenght/prowess. You could definitly give a child a leg up by altering his genes, but he would still need to train himself physically to reach the potential of his body.

I would appreciate the use of this technology to help cure genetic diseases before a person is even born, but something just doesn't feel write about altering a persons physical appearance like this. To each their own though.

I don't agree with these "Designer Babies" thing at all. This is just one step away from cloning. If any illegal organization were to get a hold of this information, then what’s to say that they don’t enhance thought power, strength and remove emotions to start breeding super soldiers? Farfetched, yes, but it is possible.

I mean we’re messing with human life while we still don’t fully comprehend what human life is. There are too many negative repercussions that could (and eventually will) happen if we allow this to be publicly distributed too soon.

IMO

We discussed it a bit in Science class today. I'm all for it. Then again, I am a guy who supports genetic engineering, cloning, gene manipulation, etc...

Hey, if parents feel guilty afterwards that's their fault. Some people (including myself) would love to have a kid that is free of defects and looks how I want it to look. Does that mean I'll do it when that time comes? Not necessarily, however I completely understand if someone were to feel offended by the simple thought of it.

Jam Stunna said:

I suppose that choosing hair/eye color is innocuous enough, but this is one of those lines that I wish wasn't crossed. It's only a matter of time until people start designing NBA players, mega-geniuses and the like.

But as a personal comment, I don't see why this appeals to anyone. Part of the joy and wonder of pregnancy/parenthood is seeing how your child turns out in the end, and that gets lost when you've chosen everything.

Click to expand...

Exactly what I was going to say, lol.


I think that if all kids can be engineered to be "Super-Babies" in any way the parent wants, then there's nothing special about the kids that would be considered "geniuses" or become great basketball players in the future, because anyone could grow up to be like that if this were used.

Maybe something like hair color or eye color, but not skin color, that's just weird, because biological parents could have children of a different skin color. I can't think of a way to really prove that this is wrong, it's just a personal thing.

To me this is just stupid, it lets kids that are born "special" in or society regularly seem normal, which to me is just unfair.

I think that the problem will come if the procedure is expensive. It'll end up with the rich having genetically engineered super-babies with perfect looks, and those that can't afford it will have possibly-diseased, normal babies that can't compete. This'll slowly widen the gap between the rich and the poor and start having extreme societal implications.

I don't have a problem, though, if everyone has access to the technology. If everyone has the potential to become the next Einstein or Arnold Schwarzenegger, or whoever, it seems a lot more fair to me. That'll just mean that the standard of intelligence will be raised, and those that are considered intelligent will be utter geniuses by our current standards. This is assuming the correct environment for growth and learning.

One thing I am most worried about is how things will blow over in the future. All the points given so far are short term (30-40 years) but I don’t think the idea of “superbabies” will not work out well in the long run. Yes, one could alter a child’s intelligence but that also means that they could alter one’s emotions. Responsibilities, pleasure, comprehension, culture, love could all be altered as well. And pretty much if we’re changing genes, then the concept of passing on one’s DNA and the idea Darwinism is thrown straight out the window. There’s pretty much no reason to reproduce if all you need is a strand of DNA from each parent.

If we try to jump the gun and start altering babies without knowing the full extent of our consequences, then the worst will probably happen. I think that the concept is OK to an extent. (Like say increasing the IQ of a child with Down’s syndrome so they can grow up to be a functioning adult) But until we can find some solid information on how human genes actually work, I think we should put off the designer babies for now.

It's not magic. Things like culture, love and comprehension are affected by nurture, not nature. And you misunderstand the nature of the procedure. Essentially, all the baby-making goes on and then early in the baby's time in the womb they mess around with it.

And, you know, just because something's using Darwinism doesn't mean it's right. If I made a country and stopped everyone but complete idiots from having babies, I'd end up with a dumb society selected by evolution. Certainly doesn't make it right.

Aorist said:

It's not magic. Things like culture, love and comprehension are affected by nurture, not nature.

Click to expand...

Agreed, so many people here assume that a persons entire personality is affected only by a persons DNA.

So removing or altering one’s emotions and thought patterns don’t begin in the brain? Sometimes, personality cannot be changed through nurture. I’m sure almost every parent had a “blue print” of what they wanted their child to be like, but it almost never happened.


I never said that a person’s entire personality was based on one’s DNA. In order to learn, one needs the ability to absorb and process what is being exposed to them. If that gene is taken away, then we have comprehensive control over the baby. In fact, that’s the reason why I think designer babies are bad.

firemario149 said:

So removing or altering one’s emotions and thought patterns don’t begin in the brain? Sometimes, personality cannot be changed through nurture. I’m sure almost every parent had a “blue print” of what they wanted their child to be like, but it almost never happened.

Click to expand...

Nurture does not mean exactly what the parents want the child to become. It is often that a parent tries to force a child to play a certain instrument or sport early on in the child's life, and the child ends up disliking whatever activity he was being forced into

What a child is going to like to do when he grows up is not decided by the DNA.

firemario149 said:

I never said that a person’s entire personality was based on one’s DNA. In order to learn, one needs the ability to absorb and process what is being exposed to them. If that gene is taken away, then we have comprehensive control over the baby.

Click to expand...

We could definitely give a child a comprehensive boost by altering it's genes, but that's only step one. You have to raise the child in a way that exercises that intelligence. Your child could have an IQ of 200, but that won't mean anything if he thinks "learning is boring". Nurture plays a huge role in the personality of a child.

You can't change a childs genes to make him think learning is fun.

Jam Stunna said:

I suppose that choosing hair/eye color is innocuous enough, but this is one of those lines that I wish wasn't crossed. It's only a matter of time until people start designing NBA players, mega-geniuses and the like.

But as a personal comment, I don't see why this appeals to anyone. Part of the joy and wonder of pregnancy/parenthood is seeing how your child turns out in the end, and that gets lost when you've chosen everything.

Click to expand...

What if you had a genetic disorder that gets passed on with in your family? Wouldn't you want your child to live a normal and happy life as he/she may possibly have? I see the genetic alteration more then just physical apperance. This could possibly have it so that cancer wouldn't be passed on to your child at birth.

But designing children to fit specific goals (Such as a NBA player) is just selfish. I don't think that it would be right to use someone elses life for self benifit. So this aspect of the opperation should be illegal in my opinion.

my bad, I made a mistake and thought this was the debate hall

Narukari said:

What a child is going to like to do when he grows up is not decided by the DNA. You can't change a childs genes to make him think learning is fun.

Click to expand...

True, but it does have an influence. If a parent liked something or was talented at it, then the child might possibly like it or is talented at it as well. And although you can add or remove genes that affect thought. Not exactly how the "designer baby" is told, but by doing so, it will encourage deeper research.

Also, Darwism is the concept of nature selection. If you choose only a certain group of people to make babies, then that's not natural selection. But, I think we're getting off topic a bit.

Choosing who lives to pass on genes and who dies is natural selection at its core. Here is a simple explanation on the topic (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_25). There is really no difference between a malevolent dictator and the birds.

However, I concede that changing the genes however you want them will indeed mean that who the parent actually is makes no difference, and thus is separate from the concept of natural selection almost entirely.

I still maintain that this doesn't have any bearing on whether or not designer babies is a good idea. Just because something is different from what is natural does not make it any better or worse. And it is my opinion that in this case it is better.