Year 12s: what will be the first way you research your future options? >>

Should "designer babies" be created?

mattclark

Do you think it would be right for scientists to create designer babies in the future if its possible?

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1

Brofessor

Original post by mattclark

Do you think it would be right for scientists to create designer babies in the future if its possible?

No. Making children smarter and more attractive just encourages paedophilia, which is morally wrong. If you think designer babies are a good idea, you're basically a closet pedo.

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 2

PlanetEuropa

Why do you post boring topics, where you know what the general consensus will be ?

............ I bet your a right laugh, out on the piss.

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 3

F.I

No. Never. Its just morally wrong.

Reply 4

Steevee

I think it's perfectly fine.

There are no sound reasons not to, other than vauge moral objections.

Making, smarter, healthier babies can only be a good thing.

Reply 5

Host_Sama

I agree with this as it will help get rid of all the trash making society a better and more productive place.

Reply 6

sandys1000

No, not those designed for certain looks. If you mean babies that have been 'designed' to avoid certain debilitating diseases - then I'd be more open to it.

Reply 7

x-friends

No. I think it's awful. You shouldn't be able to do that.

Reply 8

Remarqable M

No. NEver. It would lead to end of humanity.

Reply 9

Joluk

If the technology becomes available, there's really no way that governments will be able to stop it. There will always be some corrupt country somewhere which will allow you to buy 'designer' babies. Once some people have them, more will follow.

Reply 10

x-friends

Original post by PerigeeApogee

Another irrefutable argument!

Clearly well versed in the art of persuasive debate.

No scientist, no person, should ever have the right to create in that sense. It's not up to them.

Reply 11

F.I

Original post by PerigeeApogee

What an astounding argument, you've completely won me over with your vague sense of unease! :O

Haha

Grow some. Obviously there is more to my point.
I think designer babies purely for aesthetic reasons is wrong because it will definitely create a homogeneous society (e.g. everyone will be smart, everyone will be beautiful, etc.). However for medical reasons, e.g. if parents are likely to give birth to a child with cystic fibrosis, then they should be allowed to alter that specific gene so that their child wont have the condition.
I dont see why parents would want designer babies, their baby after all is not a piece of clothing or an item to be chosen to their preference.

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 12

wasabitofanidiot89

Many people would agree but I'm not sure whether a future Parliament would pass or amend the legislation. Morally - depends whether the person's religious or not I guess.

Reply 13

Brofessor

Original post by PerigeeApogee

No reason why they shouldn't.

Parents already attempt to mould the characteristics of their children in the way that they bring them up.

We try to make our children physically fit by taking them to dance classes, teaching them to play sports and getting them on teams, etc. We try to make our children intelligent by teaching them how to read, giving them books, making them watch educational stuff on TV, etc. We try to instil them with values and principles which we think are right, etc.

Why shouldn't we also be allowed to give them a genetic component to their upbringing as well as an environmental one? It's the same thing being done in a different way.

And for people who say that i'll lead to a homogenity among the species as people choose the same characteristics for their children... don't be daft. If that were the case then we'd already have done that naturally through sexual selection. If EVERYBODY had the same idea what what 'intelligent' meant or what 'beauty' meant, then we'd already have homogeneity in the species as everybody went after the same qualities. But we don't... we are inherently varied in what we think counts as beauty, fitness, intelligence, etc, and that variety would show in how we choose to 'design' our children's genetics.

I would come up with a watertight argument carefully crafted to oppose and belittle your point, but that requires more time and effort than I'm willing to put in. Instead, I'm going to call you a homophobic racist nazi paedophile and leave it at that. Good day to you sir.

Reply 14

adam_zed

Yes. I dont see why I should be denied the chance to have a child whose skin is made up of a new Armani Jacket.

Reply 15

SaboXD

Original post by PerigeeApogee

Another irrefutable argument!

Clearly well versed in the art of persuasive debate.

Creating designer babies in order to stop hereditary debilitating disorders is by all means a positive use of the science. After all, it stops the need for life long treatment and care for the individual and allows that person to live a healthy independent life; both financially and ethically viable. However, it's when biomechanics is abused and used as an instrument not to develop medicinal treatment, but as a tool for consumers to change children into commodities where, without a doubt, its use becomes morally trembling.
We must allow technology to advance in order to gain the most we can from science but ethical limits should by all means be set if the the consequences are to always be positive.

Am I better versed in the art of persuasive debate?
Enough to grab your attention?

Reply 16

miike1234

I'm going to get a person on a horse playing polo on the forehead of my baby.

Reply 17

SaboXD

Original post by PerigeeApogee

No, not really. All you've done is add more words... the argument is essentially the same - "don't let people choose their children's traits BECAUSE IT'LL LEAD TO BAD THINGS".

You've provided to evidence to suggest that the negative consequences you speak of would occur - that's just your hunch.

My negative consequence is simple and doesn't need much elaboration.
In allowing parents to decide the characteristics of their children, you allow for science that should be used for medical treatment to be branched open into a market.
Regardless of your beliefs or background, I'm sure you can see what's morally wrong here.

It's also quite funny how you've automatically seemed to put yourself on a pedestal as the giver of great wisdom. I think it's best you jump down before you slip up and contradict yourself...
Actually, you already have.
Your initial argument has a fundamental flaw. When you figure it out, feel free to put that little pedestal of yours away.

Reply 18

Hagler

Original post by miike1234

I'm going to get a person on a horse playing polo on the forehead of my baby.

And call him Ralph?

Reply 19

mattclark

Original post by Brofessor

No. Making children smarter and more attractive just encourages paedophilia, which is morally wrong. If you think designer babies are a good idea, you're basically a closet pedo.

No i am not a pedo, I am actually doing a project at 6th form in which i want to find out first hand views from people who this topic may impact on in the future. Thanks for your input though