Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    We are at the age where technology is fracturing our moral values. Is it morally right to tamper with the essence of creation: that being a fertilized egg? Is it right to play God?

    Well yes it is right to play God because it's for the good of our species. Those that say sit back and let nature determine what my baby will look like are lazy and ignorant with a total lack of what gene therapy actually is.

    If me and my future partner decide to have a child we should be allowed to determine what it will look like provided it's for the benefit of the child. We are after all, the child's creators. We want to see that child succeed with the best chances possible. So with the help of a geneticist, we can predetermine what traits (both physical and mental) it's likely to have. If we want a child with blond hair then a geneticist can modify our unborn baby's genes so it has blond hair as well as other traits such as physical stature/mental condition etc.

    This would revolutionize humanity and bring an end to disability altogether, which let's agree, has been a huge burden on us all. Not forgetting those with a low IQ. Yes they may be a nice person but they could be a nice 'intelligent'person. Someone who can be of benefit to out society by providing innovative contributions.

    Of course, if couples wanted to go down the natural route then they have every right to. Although they increase the risk of producing a child with some disability, whether minor or severe, that could be detrimental to their future success. I for one, wouldn't take the risk. Science has provided us with the tools to shape our life and now we can begin o shape potential life aesthetically and methodically. Society judges people on their aesthetic and intelligent value. If you choose a natural birth (which excludes fetal interference) you run the risk of producing a child with none of these two traits and therefore, the child will likely underachieve.

    I doubt this kind of technology will be available when I have children. If it did, then it'd be incredibly expensive. Although one day it's likely that it will exist and I hope most people will use it to enhance their children.

    What are our thoughts on this?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Student#123)
    We are at the age where technology is fracturing our moral values. Is it morally right to tamper with the essence of creation: that being a fertilized egg? Is it right to play God?

    Well yes it is right to play God because it's for the good of our species. Those that say sit back and let nature determine what my baby will look like are lazy and ignorant with a total lack of what gene therapy actually is.

    If me and my future partner decide to have a child we should be allowed to determine what it will look like provided it's for the benefit of the child. We are after all, the child's creators. We want to see that child succeed with the best chances possible. So with the help of a geneticist, we can predetermine what traits (both physical and mental) it's likely to have. If we want a child with blond hair then a geneticist can modify our unborn baby's genes so it has blond hair as well as other traits such as physical stature/mental condition etc.

    This would revolutionize humanity and bring an end to disability altogether, which let's agree, has been a huge burden on us all. Not forgetting those with a low IQ. Yes they may be a nice person but they could be a nice 'intelligent'person. Someone who can be of benefit to out society by providing innovative contributions.

    Of course, if couples wanted to go down the natural route then they have every right to. Although they increase the risk of producing a child with some disability, whether minor or severe, that could be detrimental to their future success. I for one, wouldn't take the risk. Science has provided us with the tools to shape our life and now we can begin o shape potential life aesthetically and methodically. Society judges people on their aesthetic and intelligent value. If you choose a natural birth (which excludes fetal interference) you run the risk of producing a child with none of these two traits and therefore, the child will likely underachieve.

    I doubt this kind of technology will be available when I have children. If it did, then it'd be incredibly expensive. Although one day it's likely that it will exist and I hope most people will use it to enhance their children.

    What are our thoughts on this?
    A lot of pretty ignorant thoughts. People "with a low IQ" can score low for three reasons imo: 1) they did not have quality schooling/parenting when they were raised. 2) they have a mental disorder (eg ADHD or a tumor) 3) They are right-brain dominant. These RBD people have great potential in music, arts, acting, and social-dominant skills. If you think the great solution to high school drop-outs is genetic engineering you have vast amounts of sand surrounding your head.

    Scientists are still tinkering around with PLANT genetic engineering. They literally remove some DNA and wait for the plant to grow and see the results of the modification. There is no way in hell that that would be allowed or legal to test out on humans.

    edit: that said, if there was the hypothetical situation where human genetic engineering could significantly or completely remove the chances of cancer or something, without any known side effects, and if that involved removing or altering a portion of their DNA to do so, without the potential to create deformed or impotent offspring, I still don't see legislation legalising it for at least several generations. There is too much risk of ****ing up a lot of people's lives.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    Is this a troll post?

    I can see so many people being offended by this post, simply because of the way you've phrased a few things..and I love it.
    I'm all for the genetic improvement of mankind, the only reservations I would have are how society would adapt and how far would the altering of the genes be allowed to go. First of all for this happen we would need a very in-depth understanding of the function of each gene and how changing one can affect another indirectly. Science is all about trial and error, I can see this go very wrong in the early stages; altering the genes of an organism can have serious consequences if things don't go as planned.

    For society I fear this would be disastrous; it would widen the gap between rich and poor and create a new social divide where your genetic make-up can be discriminated against. Gattaca anyone?
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    I agree OP.

    Whilst i think transforming looks is a waste of resources i certainly believe that when it comes to health and intelligence we should en-devour to improve our species.

    The primary danger is probably societal, for Spock once said (and i believe him correct - i think it was actually from a philosopher) "superior ability breeds superior ambition", these augments could well be arrogant.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sulphur)
    Is this a troll post?

    I can see so many people being offended by this post, simply because of the way you've phrased a few things..and I love it.
    I'm all for the genetic improvement of mankind, the only reservations I would have are how society would adapt and how far would the altering of the genes be allowed to go. First of all for this happen we would need a very in-depth understanding of the function of each gene and how changing one can affect another indirectly. Science is all about trial and error, I can see this go very wrong in the early stages; altering the genes of an organism can have serious consequences if things don't go as planned.

    For society I fear this would be disastrous; it would widen the gap between rich and poor and create a new social divide where your genetic make-up can be discriminated against. Gattaca anyone?
    love this, could hardly agree more.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    This is ****ed up.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Everybody is unique, you do not need to "design" them.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Sorry, but designing babies will not mean the end of disability forevermore...

    Tampering with unborn babies' genes could have disastrous effects which could result in disabilities.

    Also, I think there are some serious ethical issue here, like designing a human being which cannot consent. You may think youre doing something to please YOU, but what happens when that person finds out that theyre not natural per say, and is just computed like a machine.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Student#123)
    We are at the age where technology is fracturing our moral values. Is it morally right to tamper with the essence of creation: that being a fertilized egg? Is it right to play God?

    Well yes it is right to play God because it's for the good of our species. Those that say sit back and let nature determine what my baby will look like are lazy and ignorant with a total lack of what gene therapy actually is.

    If me and my future partner decide to have a child we should be allowed to determine what it will look like provided it's for the benefit of the child. We are after all, the child's creators. We want to see that child succeed with the best chances possible. So with the help of a geneticist, we can predetermine what traits (both physical and mental) it's likely to have. If we want a child with blond hair then a geneticist can modify our unborn baby's genes so it has blond hair as well as other traits such as physical stature/mental condition etc.

    This would revolutionize humanity and bring an end to disability altogether, which let's agree, has been a huge burden on us all. Not forgetting those with a low IQ. Yes they may be a nice person but they could be a nice 'intelligent'person. Someone who can be of benefit to out society by providing innovative contributions.

    Of course, if couples wanted to go down the natural route then they have every right to. Although they increase the risk of producing a child with some disability, whether minor or severe, that could be detrimental to their future success. I for one, wouldn't take the risk. Science has provided us with the tools to shape our life and now we can begin o shape potential life aesthetically and methodically. Society judges people on their aesthetic and intelligent value. If you choose a natural birth (which excludes fetal interference) you run the risk of producing a child with none of these two traits and therefore, the child will likely underachieve.

    I doubt this kind of technology will be available when I have children. If it did, then it'd be incredibly expensive. Although one day it's likely that it will exist and I hope most people will use it to enhance their children.

    What are our thoughts on this?

    Are you say you cannot achieving if you are not aesthetic?
    You saying they're are no past achievers who are ugly?


    I am agree to stop the child to being disability, mental retard, or homosexual. But i am not choosing colour of hair; this is frivolous. Is treat you children like accessory.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I agree with the general premise, but I think the OP could probably have been a little more sensible in how he worded things.

    Genetic manipulation will never get rid of disability. Many developmental defects which occur before birth occur after the egg has already been fertilised. After that there are all manners of trauma and disease which can lead to disability.

    I think humanity has a long way to go before we are scientifically and ethically reconciled with the practicalities of genetically modifying offspring. However I think a parent should do the best they can to give their children the best chance in life. So far parents do their best to change the nurture of the child, why not change the nature?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Assuming you are talking about this in an ideal sense - i.e. that we could perform all of these changes safely and easily - there are obvious potential problems.

    Spoiler:
    Show

    1. Rich people will genetically enhance themselves, will no longer breed with poor people, and humanity will split into a sub-race and master race. Genocide will inevitably occur, given a few hundred years.

    2. People are stupid, and will pick traits that do not benefit either their descendants or humanity in the long run. Society is a delicate balance, developed over 100,000 years of wars, plagues, famine, empires - disrupting that balance will lead to compltely unpredictable effects.

    3. I'm sure we could trust North Korea with this technology.


    I'm not remotely saying that we shouldn't seek to eradicate disability, nor that genetic enhancement is a bad thing. I think shaking up our evolutionary timeline could be fantastic, and if we survive as a race in some way that regulates the technology we could be living in a truly amazing and unrecognisable world.

    However, it is incredibly naive to think that it's a case of 'I'll have a tall blonde child and live happilty ever after'. If genetic modification ever becomes part of mainstream society I would bet my cat's life that it will not be a peaceful transition.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    Designer babies... pff

    It would severely depress if I found out that I'm nothing more than a consumer product. That no qualities are naturally, intrinsically mine - all my qualities are merely arbitrary choices of my parents. By choosing what qualities I will have, they effectively have more control over my development.

    Designer babies will just create a whole new class based society where the lower class are made up of normal people and the upper class genetically superior people. Anyone seen the movie Gattaca.
    • TSR Support Team
    • Very Important Poster
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    Very Important Poster
    Clearing and Applications Advisor
    (Original post by Mullah.S)
    I am agree to stop the child to being disability, mental retard, or homosexual.
    Why should it be ok to stop a child being gay?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shadowdweller)
    Why should it be ok to stop a child being gay?

    Why would it not be?

    i do not wanting to have child to be gay. If turning out gay i will accept, but if preventable before birth of course i will doing.
    • TSR Support Team
    • Very Important Poster
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    Very Important Poster
    Clearing and Applications Advisor
    (Original post by Mullah.S)
    Why would it not be?
    Because there is no advantage to be gained from it

    Besides which I disagree with the concept of a designer baby anyway
    • TSR Support Team
    • Very Important Poster
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    Very Important Poster
    Clearing and Applications Advisor
    (Original post by Mullah.S)
    Why would it not be?

    i do not wanting to have child to be gay. If turning out gay i will accept, but if preventable before birth of course i will doing. Go ask 86% of gay population and parent of gay population is saying they agree.
    Sorry, missed the edit when I quoted.

    I'm not going to bother to argue with your former point, but have you any basis for the latter?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Student#123)
    We are at the age where technology is fracturing our moral values. Is it morally right to tamper with the essence of creation: that being a fertilized egg? Is it right to play God?

    Well yes it is right to play God because it's for the good of our species. Those that say sit back and let nature determine what my baby will look like are lazy and ignorant with a total lack of what gene therapy actually is.

    If me and my future partner decide to have a child we should be allowed to determine what it will look like provided it's for the benefit of the child. We are after all, the child's creators. We want to see that child succeed with the best chances possible. So with the help of a geneticist, we can predetermine what traits (both physical and mental) it's likely to have. If we want a child with blond hair then a geneticist can modify our unborn baby's genes so it has blond hair as well as other traits such as physical stature/mental condition etc.

    This would revolutionize humanity and bring an end to disability altogether, which let's agree, has been a huge burden on us all. Not forgetting those with a low IQ. Yes they may be a nice person but they could be a nice 'intelligent'person. Someone who can be of benefit to out society by providing innovative contributions.

    Of course, if couples wanted to go down the natural route then they have every right to. Although they increase the risk of producing a child with some disability, whether minor or severe, that could be detrimental to their future success. I for one, wouldn't take the risk. Science has provided us with the tools to shape our life and now we can begin o shape potential life aesthetically and methodically. Society judges people on their aesthetic and intelligent value. If you choose a natural birth (which excludes fetal interference) you run the risk of producing a child with none of these two traits and therefore, the child will likely underachieve.

    I doubt this kind of technology will be available when I have children. If it did, then it'd be incredibly expensive. Although one day it's likely that it will exist and I hope most people will use it to enhance their children.

    What are our thoughts on this?
    This episode of Star Trek explains it better than I ever could
    http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/The_...iety_(episode)

    A 'perfect' society is undesirable.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shadowdweller)
    Because there is no advantage to be gained from it

    Besides which I disagree with the concept of a designer baby anyway
    I wanting my son or daughter to be able to having own (genetic) children with they own partner without using laboratory. This is why.

    this is sound very good advantage to me.

    If you disagree, you must be going to choose adopted child over natural child to have weight in you argument. (and by choose i mean you are fertile but still adopting instead). Are you doing this? there are people who doing this but only they can give this argument without doing hypocrite, and they are being very few people like this.
    • TSR Support Team
    • Very Important Poster
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    Very Important Poster
    Clearing and Applications Advisor
    (Original post by Mullah.S)
    I wanting my son or daughter to be able to having own (genetic) children with they own partner without using laboratory. This is why.

    If you disagree, you must be going to choose adopted child over natural child to have weight in you argument. (and by choose i mean you are fertile but still adopting instead). Are you doing this? there are people who doing this but only they can give this argument without doing hypocrite, and they are being very few people like this.
    I see your point there, I guess. I apologise for misinterpreting your original post and assuming different reasoning behind it

    But yes, if I have children I would most likely do so through adoption
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I only support genetic manipulation of embryos for medical reasons - i.e. wiping out genetic diseases.

    I am totally against manipulation for cosmetic purposes. That sets a dangerous precedent.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brussels sprouts
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.