This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

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

Scroll to see replies

I remember a case in the news a while ago when a pro life group took a couple to court to prevent them from designing a baby to save their ill son who was 4 and so cute. I was really outraged by it. A pro life group essentially condemned this little boy who they didn't even know to death. Oh the irony. The point is I didn't think it was their right to decide. But I guess someone has to. I always thought technology would be our downfall and am pretty much resigned to the fact that eventually anything will go. I personnally wouldn't have a child to save another. Wrong reason, but then again I can't think of any reasons for having children which aren't selfish. I think its gonna muck up human evolution though. People are actually supposed to die and I don't know why we are trying to prolong the lives of ill people who are supposed to die ( from an evolutionary point of view ) so that genetic defects aren't passed on. Hmm, think i've kinda strayed from my original point. Designer babies are bad but people are gonna do it and it isn't anyone elses place to judge cause I'm sure not many people know what its like a to let your child die for a moral principle when there is technology that could save them.

Reply 21

Unregistered

Get off your high horse. You dislike critisism because you are bigoted. Simple as that. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, and everyone should be able to air theirs, whether or not they conflict with yours. I'd like to know how you have any appreciation of a 'flawless socitety' despite never having experienced one.

With all due respect (which is very little indeed), how could this ever be a perfect world with you in it?

Reply 22

Mr White

Do not patronise me - you are ignorant and have no right to do so.

Reply 23

reasonable man

"Only unenlightened people and idiots would not agree."

"What I have said is simple to understand, yet none of you seem to..."

"People of dispositions like your's will never be able to appreciate the perfection of a flawless society...you should keep your anti-intellectual comments to yourself"

"Those of a lower mind should keep themselves to a lower volume"

"Do not patronise me - you are ignorant..."

You'd know.

Reply 24

Rob

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?

I agree with what your saying here, it would be a better world if *everybody* was perfect.

Thats where the problem is, that genetic fiddling costs money, and unless the government was to offer it to *everbody* it would be unfair on the people that did not recieve it. At present it looks unfeasable for it to be offered to everyone anytime in the near future.

The only way I can see IMO to stop there becoming some kind of "Super race" for the rich, is to somewhat completely cap genetic fiddling.

As for having a baby to help another ... it would depend on the situation I guess, the situation at present, the scientists are mearly "Selecting" the egg that has the correct "stuff" in it.

Natural Selection? maybe?

Rob

Reply 25

barbiegrl

i agree that the power to priduce a baby than can save another is an amazing thin however its not that that really bothers me its what it could lead to i mean yes this couple wanted another baby anyway but if i became common pratice how would we know that other people wouldnt value the baby ... also this is the first real case of genetic engineering in humans and its what that leads to that could be worrying i mean do people believe that cloning a human being is right ?

Reply 26

Bigcnee

Originally posted by Mr White
'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.

You are really arrogant aren't you? I have met many people like you who think they are really intelligent. Trust me, the really intelligent ones don't put themselves on a pedestal. No wonder you are so unpopular on these boards.

Reply 27

texan trucker

If they were plannin to have another baby.. why not pick the perfect one... why shudn't he be created to save anothers life.. he will be an angel... his saviour!!!

Reply 28

Bigcnee

Originally posted by texan trucker
If they were plannin to have another baby.. why not pick the perfect one... why shudn't he be created to save anothers life.. he will be an angel... his saviour!!!

This is an excuse that many couples use;

"Oh.. we were planning to have another baby anyway".

In itself the creation of a human being for the purpose of saving another, is not morally or socially correct.

Reply 29

Unregistered

i do not really agree with it to be honest....i mean designing a baby especially to save another!!!come on!!a bit unfair and selfish if u ask me....why alter nature!!!!!not only that but what if it does not work? its raising the childs hope of a normal life and then dashing both the dreams of the child and the parents....

i agree that if it does work the benifits outweigh the cons but i still dont think that it makes it right because of the effect it may have psycologically on the donor child later on in its life!!!

Reply 30

Unregistered

All it takes is some crackpot like Mr White to come to power, and the world could be faced with an Orwellian 'Room 101' type situation where people who aren't perfect are destroyed, and those in power are all genetically superior. The 'government' would tyranise the normal people - destroying those who do not meet their standards. It sounds stupid, but read 'Brave New World' and you'll see that it is within the realms of possibility, even now!

Anyone who agrees with Mr White's insane ideals is just being misled by his obvious skill with words.

Reply 31

Bigcnee

Originally posted by Unregistered

Anyone who agrees with Mr White's insane ideals is just being misled by his obvious skill with words.

He's not skilled, but pompous. There is a difference.

Reply 32

Unregistered

I know people like him. Look at the way he writes, he's trying to insult us now, but I'd wager that he is exceptionally gifted at convincing people to do things his way. That may be the reason he's pompous, actually. He seems articualte and very good at making a point, its people like him that have always been the ones to fear (Hitler, Stalin, Titu, Castro, etc.) They're subtle and appeal to what people want (for example, in times of unemployment, they convince people that they can provide jobs if elected).

Keep an eye on this one, and for God's sake make sure he doesn't know who you are!

Reply 33

Bigcnee

Originally posted by Unregistered
I know people like him. Look at the way he writes, he's trying to insult us now, but I'd wager that he is exceptionally gifted at convincing people to do things his way. That may be the reason he's pompous, actually. He seems articualte and very good at making a point, its people like him that have always been the ones to fear (Hitler, Stalin, Titu, Castro, etc.) They're subtle and appeal to what people want (for example, in times of unemployment, they convince people that they can provide jobs if elected).

Keep an eye on this one, and for God's sake make sure he doesn't know who you are!

The good ones are the ones that can articulate, and are patient. Mr White seems to have a very short fuse. Except his anger is released in the form of a ridiculous condescending attitude. This does him no favours and makes him look like an arrogant prick, who thinks his ideas are more advanced/newer than they are.

Reply 34

lou p lou

I think that having a child to prevent the death of another is brilliant gift and that child will be saving it's brother/sister- those of you who are concerned that the new born baby is simply a means to an end are missing the point somewhat- parents could end up loving the child more (if possible) because of the pain he/she has prevented.

Reply 35

Unregistered

we are who/where we are through natural selection....the course chosen by the blind watchmaker. our intelligence, strengths and weakness have be wittled down to the level that we currently display. its only natural for the weaker in the race to become 'extinct' through the course of natural selection. it s only now that the creation of nature begins to play with nature. that doesnt mean that it is wrong. it means that eveloution has caused the start of its downfall....had we not evovled into...lets be honest....to be something quite amazing we would not be changing the course of evolution. so let the blind watchmaker be blind n let each individual think is right in their situation.....

hope that makes sense

rob

Reply 36

Mr White

Blind Watchmaker? Do you live in some sort of deluded fantasy world? Does the word 'reality' have any part in your life at all? I swear, why do the lowest forms of life always end up posting rubbish on this forum? Perhaps you are using 'blind watchmaker' as a synomyn for God. In any case, applying methods like these to try and seem unique makes you look like a simpleton, which is fitting.

Reply 37

Unregistered

lowest forms of life -get ure head out ure own ****ing arse. have you never heard the term 'the blind watchmaker'.i dont know who u r or how old u are....do you read?????Richard Dawkins....heard of him....lowest form of life is he.....dont think he is. READ HIS BOOK 'THE BLIND WATCHMAKER'

not such a low life after all...u really seem to be a ****!
no i dont mean god either. im aethiest(spelling?) which is why i feel i have a strong interest ion science and the like to explain things others use God to explain

Reply 38

Mr White

I know full well where the term originated, fool. Why you quote it, however, remains a mystery to me. Perhaps it's because you want to seem more intelligent than you actually are. I can see that you are the type of person who does not have a life beyond his computer, and compensates for his failings in the real world by using obscure references and other idiotic means to seem smart through the internet. You try to make yourself feel accepted, unlike in outside world, by wanting to impress people you don't know in places like this. It's pathetic, and I don't even know why I bother to insult people like you.

P.S. If you do believe in a 'Blind Watchmaker', then you believe in a creator, and therefore are NOT an atheist.

Reply 39

Unregistered

i think that had u met me you would not say such things. it takes a shallow person to judge others on their opions. My academic achievements suggest a somewhat different story to the one that u believe....i dont spend my life on a computer. ..i stumbled across this forum looking for intelligent/nice people to discuss a levels with...and look what i found..... U! are you really goin to be part of that superior race u discussed. surely someone of high intelligence would not judge a perosn on what they have posted on a forum. maybe they would.. u tell us.... ure the intelligent one....then again maybe we dont care.

oh and the point about me being an aethiest. at any point have i said that there was a 'creator'......NO!!!!i believe that natural selection has brought us to where we are.... and that science can be used to explain this. oh...who are u to tell me what i am/ am not...esp weh u believe that i am trying to be something that im not.
granted i may have used 'the blind watchmaker' in a somewhat loose manner but hey i thought u of all people would be intelligent enough to understand what i was saying.

anyone else on this forum think that this guy is a fool? oh why do bother to insult any1 on a forum...these are opinions we are discussing.