Ask Your Question today
Trait selection and enhancement in embryos raises some moral issues involving both individuals and society. What are your thoughts on Creating a Designer Baby?
This is a controversial topic, please be tolerant of others' comments.
| Yes, people should be able to do this. | 19 | |
| Yes, I want to do this with my child. | 6 | |
| No, this is beyond wrong. | 31 | |
| Other...(Comment) | 11 |
I think the concept of designer babies is bordering on Eugenics. It could be useful in eliminating genetic disorders, diseases and or deformities. Nonetheless, it possesses the potential to "play God" which can be a dangerous thing.
I personally believe that our advances in genetics SHOULD and will HAVE to be used to at least reduce and eventually eliminate the occurrence of spontaneous and inherited genetic disorders.
I like variety, so I am against 'designer babies' to achieve certain looks. The world would be rather monotone if everyone looked perfect.
One thing worth considering would be the genetic dependence of personality and the implication that negative personality traits could be largely removed.
Furthermore genetic engineering will be able to provide longer lifespans and other advantages in the future. Depending on the methods found, it might be possible to alter already grown humans though, so that genetic manipulation of the embryo might not be necessary.
I ticked "Yes, people should be able to do this" simply because there were no restrictions on the extend...
You might want to consider changing the categories (if possible) to:
1. PRO 'Designer Babies'
2. PRO removing Genetic Disorders (obligatory)
3. PRO removing Genetic Disorders (voluntary)
4. N I'm not sure.
5. No, it's unethical.
6. THOU SHALT NOT **** WITH GOD!
Well I think this would be very helpful in eliminating traits which create aids, asthma, cancer, psychical deformities such as cerebral palsy, missing limbs, legs that don't work but are developed, blindness, hearing loss, hair loss, and hair discoloration genes for people who gray too early. It could even be used to cure mental problems before they rise like autism, retardation and other such issues. This like aids, asthma, you usually get from your parents. Not that its your fault your parents have it.
It would have to be globally monitored and severely restricted - similar to what happens with nuclear weaponry.
Genetic modification has huge potential to do wonderful and catastrophic things.
I'd make a definite distinction between using new science to eliminate or reduce genetic disease and creating designer babies. I'm against stopping scientific progress just because we fear it could be used for something that makes us uncomfortable, even though I think we should be cautious about how the technology is used once it's here. If governments had any sense they'd pass laws to dictate what is and what isn't ethical now instead of waiting 'til we have problems (alas, they don't have any sense and will always let the next lot of suits deal with it instead of doing what needs to be done).
If we use this technology to create designer babies, we actually lose an advantage as a species. Genetic diversity is necessary for a species to survive in the long term, and reducing genetic diversity leads to a species which is less able to combat disease and naturally occurring climate change. It isn't just that most people find the idea of billions of near-identical, "perfect" designer humans uncomfortable, it could actually damage our species.
Lots of designer babies might also lead to de facto discrimination against people who's parents wanted to have a "natural baby" rather than a "designer baby" because they would be on average physically weaker and less intelligent than designer babies.
We have to be careful that we don't start thinking of people who will have been designer babies as somehow different from other people, which is a sentiment I detect in a lot of people who talk about designer babies. They wouldn't be robots - they'd have the same feelings and thoughts and humanity as non-designer people, they would just be physically stronger and better at fighting disease and more intelligent and more similar to their parent's perception of attractiveness. It could be a good thing for the progress of humanity to have a higher average intelligence and physical strength. What I'm getting at is, it isn't anywhere near as black-and-white as "it's wrong".
While I am generally optimistic in my hopes for the human race, I think that this would open up far too many avenues for discrimination that we don't need.
I am all for the elimination of genetic disorders. However, I believe that "designer babies" would actually hold humanity back. Why should the human race learn to be tolerant of others' differences and appreciative of the wild and beautiful diversity that is the human species when we can just pick and choose what we deem to be suitable and acceptable? Why should we learn to accept each other when we can assimilate each other?
I think we really need to evolve to the point where we can learn to accept each other, regardless of our differences, before we even CONSIDER using our technological advances to design the next generation.
Obviously genetic disorders are a negative that can be removed by genetic engineering, but I think I could go further without any moral qualms. Natural variation is of course essential and attempting to predict the outcome of changing parts of the genome is a tricky task.
If it was at all possible to manipulate genetics in the same way that you can create a different looking character in video games, then there are certainly advantages to manipulation of certain genes. If we could systematically make the population of the Earth overall more intelligent, more efficient at using energy, and more capable of other tasks, then that seems like a positive result. We could artificially modify the genome of children to make them more disease resistant, have longer lives, and replace cells quicker so as to give them greater stamina and a longer healthy life.
I see no problems with 'playing god' as the way I see it, human minds aren't all that different from an exceptionally complicated AI. We have no issues modifying code and do so willingly to serve our ends so why is the introduction of biological materials suddenly a moral area?
I think I may be turning into a mad scientist. I just need a lab coat and a lair off in the mountains somewhere.
I'm all for it if it could eliminate genetic defects and ugliness. Why play dice and have an unhappy child that wishes it were never born?
I think its rather creepy. It reminds me of what scientists have been doing to our food and of the book,"Brave New World"(A world that I would never want to live in). I realize that it could be used to eliminate disorders/defects but it would destroy the very thing that makes us humans unique. What if the field of medicine was ruined because conditions wouldn't be discovered and new forms of therapy/medicine wouldn't be created. Humans need to stop trying to be superior beings who feel that they have a right to mess with the natural balance of this world.
It depends. If people will do it just because they want a blond baby with green eyes and a small nose, no. If they are trying to get rid of genetic problems and diseases, then I think it is OK.
I guess this would help with the nurture vs nature debate. But why are we doing this social experiment?
It's pretty strange but getting rid of genetic defects can't be a bad thing. It's the choosing the colour of the eyes and stuff like that which is too far. It isn't a necessary thing.