Ethics of designing a baby to save the life of another.

Watch
This discussion is closed.
Tednol
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 16 years ago
#1
Just wondering what people think about whether it is morally acceptable to design one baby so that it is genetically able to save the life of another child? Quite relevent if you've read a paper recently.

I myself see no problem with it. To those people who think it is immoral, I would like to see them be the ones who have to look in the eyes a terminally ill young child and explain why despite the technology existing to save their lives, society will instead stand back and watch them suffer and eventually die. Could you do it? Because I for one couldn't.

And to those people who think it is unnatural, and humans should not play God, I ask you this. Humans have evolved, completely naturally over the course of x million years into highly intelligent beings capable of understanding our surroundings. We reached this level of understanding naturally, it would only be unnatural not to use these netually acquired skills.

Love to know what people think!

Anyway back to A levels...

Ed

PS I'd love to hear the arguments of those people opposed to it, not to have a go at you but so people can have a reasoned informed debate.
0
Unregistered
Badges:
#2
Report 16 years ago
#2
I don't think that anyone can say whther it is "right" or "wrong" in general. Easch situation is different, so it's impossible to give sweeping statements.
You're damn right (in my opinion) that it would be strange for humans as a species to achieve our level of intelligence and not use it, but with our self-awareness comes the duty to do what is morally "right". (Whatever the hell that means )
0
acevans
Badges: 0
#3
Report 16 years ago
#3
i agree, it cant be right or wrong, its based on opinions, and everyone has different opinions. Basically im saying there is not right or wrong, theres just socially acceptable and unsociable.
0
Tednol
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#4
Report Thread starter 16 years ago
#4
Hmm I'm pretty disappointed by these poll results. Very interesting though.
0
Unregistered
Badges:
#5
Report 16 years ago
#5
Why are you disappointed?
0
Unregistered
Badges:
#6
Report 16 years ago
#6
I myself see no problem with it. To those people who think it is immoral, I would like to see them be the ones who have to look in the eyes a terminally ill young child and explain why despite the technology existing to save their lives, society will instead stand back and watch them suffer and eventually die. Could you do it? Because I for one couldn't.

And to those people who think it is unnatural, and humans should not play God, I ask you this. Humans have evolved, completely naturally over the course of x million years into highly intelligent beings capable of understanding our surroundings. We reached this level of understanding naturally, it would only be unnatural not to use these netually acquired skills.
Err what kind of a poll are you trying to make? A biased one that expresses your opinion only? Congratulations on making it feel that way. Next time maybe add both sides of the story and if you make a poll you also need tobe able to accept the results and not be dissappointed by them.

What does it even mean to "save one child with another child" That the other child sacrifices itself to give its heart to the baby that does have a real family? That the baby is grown with too many organs so that it has them in excess and can give away any that it doesnt need?

"debate" away...
0
Unregistered
Badges:
#7
Report 16 years ago
#7
Maybe at the next elections we should have one party's banners agrue only the good things that its done for England/Germany/whoever and then the other major party shows only the bad things that its done eg. start a war/increase taxes etc.

Ooo let me see who wins!

Dan
0
Mr White
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#8
Report 16 years ago
#8
Humans need to be designed to be genetically perfect, ie. imperfect aspects of society need to be expelled. Individuals should only be allowed to procreate if they can pass on superior genetic material

I fail to see why anyone would object to genetic engineering. If all babies were pre-designed to be intelligent / dexterous / strong, then humankind would only benefit.

If every newborn was designed to be perfect, then would humankind not be better than it was before? Only unenlightened people and idiots would not agree.
0
Unregistered
Badges:
#9
Report 16 years ago
#9
I fail to see why anyone would object to genetic engineering. If all babies were pre-designed to be intelligent / dexterous / strong, then humankind would only benefit.
Have you ever seen the movie "Blade Runner", Mr. White :P?

Dan
0
Unregistered
Badges:
#10
Report 16 years ago
#10
Plus if every person was intelligent who would get the manual labour jobs/the jobs that actually reward those who have worked for their grades?

I can understand your points if you only mean you would help those with eg. S-Haemoglobin to get normal Haemoglobin again and therefore improve their life quality, but i dont see your reasoning to be very judgemental if you think that every person should be equal on the intelligence level etc.

Dan
0
Forders
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#11
Report 16 years ago
#11
If every newborn was designed to be perfect, then would humankind not be better than it was before? Only unenlightened people and idiots would not agree.

I dont know whether youre saying something just to be controversial, which does not help debates, but no the above statement is incorrect. Human intracompetition would be on a higher level but would be the same for everyone. Therefore, relatively, people would not appear to be benefitting.

Also creating a species of superhumans would make people adapt to and accept a culture where if you are dissatisfied you change the conditions which would have severe social implications as well as breeding jealousy, vanity and dissatisfaction which make people more unhappy, not less.

And happiness is the whole point about living and about being concious of life.

dont u sometimes wish u lived in the middle ages when problems were more about survival and less about moral debate? wouldnt life be so much simpler?

xxx
0
Tednol
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#12
Report Thread starter 16 years ago
#12
Originally posted by Unregistered
Err what kind of a poll are you trying to make? A biased one that expresses your opinion only? Congratulations on making it feel that way. Next time maybe add both sides of the story and if you make a poll you also need tobe able to accept the results and not be dissappointed by them.

What does it even mean to "save one child with another child" That the other child sacrifices itself to give its heart to the baby that does have a real family? That the baby is grown with too many organs so that it has them in excess and can give away any that it doesnt need?

"debate" away...
Sorry to have offended you so much. I at no point claimed to have given a fair unbiased account, I did nothing of the sort. I just wanted to be slightly contraversial and start a debate. A debate with myself wouldn't have been much fun. I'm more than able to be disappointed by results for christs sake, who are you to tell me what I can and can't think anyway? Accepting them, and being disappointed are two very different things.

On a different matter, can you unregistered people please register? It's very easy to have a go at someone and then disappear into nothingness. Cowardly perhaps.

All the best.

Ed
0
Aiyh-Sa
Badges: 0
#13
Report 16 years ago
#13
I personally think there's nothing wrong with genetic engineering, but what I do have a problem with is how genetically engineered individuals may be treated by those who were created and born naturally. Mankind has a habit of discriminating those who are different, and the question is will people be willing to tolerate unnaturally created humans? As for creating a child to save a life, I myself have no problem with it, as long as everyone remembers that the child is a living human being, and is not there just because it was needed to save its brother. As long as he/she is given a normal life and not put in some lab somewhere, I'm fine with it. But if, in the near future, genetically engineered individuals are discriminated, I will do whatever I can to help them and defend them.
0
Eru Iluvatar
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#14
Report 16 years ago
#14
For the sake of saving a life i sort of agree, as long as it isn't at the expense of another.
0
Unregistered
Badges:
#15
Report 16 years ago
#15
Originally posted by Mr White
Humans need to be designed to be genetically perfect, ie. imperfect aspects of society need to be expelled. Individuals should only be allowed to procreate if they can pass on superior genetic material

I fail to see why anyone would object to genetic engineering. If all babies were pre-designed to be intelligent / dexterous / strong, then humankind would only benefit.

If every newborn was designed to be perfect, then would humankind not be better than it was before? Only unenlightened people and idiots would not agree.
Unfortunately it's not quite as simple as that. Yes, this ideal of everyone being equal would be more fair than our world today. However, as Dan has already pointed out, society depends upon the natural variation and ultimately inequality. Without this, society would become instable and eventually completely defunct. It seems like what you are describing is ethnic cleansing - something that was attempted in Nazi Germany and more recently in Kosovo.

I welcome with open arms the advances in genetic engineering for medical purposes. The eradication of cystic fibrosis and Huntington's chorea can only be a good thing. The real issue is how far should we take this technology? Genetic engineering will allow us to have babies free from genetic diseases, but what is a disease and what is simply variation in our species?
0
Mr White
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#16
Report 16 years ago
#16
I was not describing 'ethnic cleansing' because I was not aiming my opinions at any social, racial or religous groups. If I were, then I would be predjudiced, and that is wrong. So very wrong.
0
Bigcnee
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#17
Report 16 years ago
#17
Originally posted by Mr White
I was not describing 'ethnic cleansing' because I was not aiming my opinions at any social, racial or religous groups. If I were, then I would be predjudiced, and that is wrong. So very wrong.
Your post implied that those who are imperfect, would not be of benefit to society.

I seriously can't think you would have this opinion; you are just trying to be controversial. When (or if) you have children, they will not be perfect mentally or physically, but they would still benefit society, and you would love them just as much.

What is wrong with letting nature take its course.

I also think there is too much tolerance for parental demands. Children should not be created for helping another child, it is ethically, and socially wrong. To be quite honest we don't know what we're dealing with. Scientists love to massage their ego's, and see how far they can push the boundaries. It is about time someone set them.
0
Mr White
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#18
Report 16 years ago
#18
What I have said is simple to understand, yet none of you seem to. It's simple - if every human in the world now had an IQ of 160 and was physically superior, then would humankind not be stronger as a race? Or would the world not be a better place to live?
0
Unregistered
Badges:
#19
Report 16 years ago
#19
Originally posted by Mr White
What I have said is simple to understand, yet none of you seem to. It's simple - if every human in the world now had an IQ of 160 and was physically superior, then would humankind not be stronger as a race? Or would the world not be a better place to live?
No, it wouldn't. People would be very arrogant, and there would be no people to do the more fundemental jobs. Your "plan" would not work as it is not natural.
0
Mr White
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#20
Report 16 years ago
#20
'It is not natural' - What rubbish is this? Automobiles are not natural yet I am sure that you use those. Houses are not natural yet you live in one. You criticize my ideas because you simply do not understand them. People of dispositions like your's will never be able to appreciate the perfection of a flawless society, and you should keep your anti-intellectual comments to yourself.

Those of a lower mind should keep themselves to a lower volume.
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

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.

Personalise

What factors affect your mental health the most right now? (select all that apply)

Lack of purpose or routine (160)
15.55%
Uncertainty around my education (167)
16.23%
Uncertainty around my future career prospects (98)
9.52%
Isolating with family (71)
6.9%
Lack of support system (eg. Teachers, counsellors) (38)
3.69%
Lack of exercise/ability to be outside (90)
8.75%
Loneliness (102)
9.91%
Financial worries (46)
4.47%
Concern about myself or my loved ones getting ill (94)
9.14%
Exposure to negative news/social media (73)
7.09%
Lack of real life entertainment (eg. cinema, gigs, restaurants) (90)
8.75%

Watched Threads

View All