This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Deisgner Babies- your stance

Reply 100

3

XenaGlamRocker

what is imperfect about a baby? they are innocent and beautiful. even the ones that have a face that "only a mother could love" are still beautiful to their parents.

If something is perfect, it will remain perfect for eternity. Very very few babies ever grow up into "perfect" adolescents. therefore, babies were not perfect by simple logic.

Reply 101

suneilr

3

PQ

if you say so

still not a place I think we should aspire to or use as a justification for eugenics :biggrin:

Well if we could use genetics to improve society I don't really see anything wrong with that. Surely that's what everyone aims for to improve society until we can get as close as possible to perfection as we can.

Reply 102

NDGAARONDI

16

Designer babies are practically legal in this country anyway. My stance is that ideally I'd let nature take its course, but we might as well have designer babies within reason (such as selecting out certain diseases) to save people using abortion as an excuse to neglect their duties of potential parentship and neglect of the already-born.

Reply 103

PQ

Clearing and Applications Advisor, Universities Forum Helper

21

suneilr

Well if we could use genetics to improve society I don't really see anything wrong with that. Surely that's what everyone aims for to improve society until we can get as close as possible to perfection as we can.

so you're a fan of the eugenics movement?

Reply 104

suneilr

3

PQ

so you're a fan of the eugenics movement?

Well not so much the killing everyone who doesn't meet standards but more of a genetic enhancement programme. I find that most programmes that require the death of significant proportions of society tend not to go down too well.

Reply 105

man_in_black

XenaGlamRocker

if gm babies aren't "better", then what is your point?

"Better" as applied to humans has connotations of righteousness and moral upstanding and this is what I wanted to avoid implying.

XenaGlamRocker

why have them at all?

"We simply think that they have more opportunites in life and it's good to give people more opportunites." Isn't that clear enough?

Reply 106

Sephiroth

18

PQ

If we all become the same then no matter how brilliant we are we would all approach problems in the same way - so it doesn't take long before you reach stagnation and a stop to scientific progress.

Would it even be possible to make babies the same like that through modification? I figured the majority of a person's intelligence and the way they approach problems etc. comes after they are born, through a good education.

Anyway, I have mixed views on "designer babies". People already get bullied enough in school for being ugly, for being gay, for being over-weight etc. If parents had the choice to change these attributes before birth then it would only make a bigger divide between what people perceive as good and bad. If people were being modified for beautiful looks then kids would grow up thinking that if someone is ugly then there's something wrong with them. People are already too superficial as it is. But as someone who got a lot of stick for not being good looking throughout school I think I would have been living a much better life right now had I been given good looks at birth. Ironically enough I have become better looking as I grew out of my teens, but that was after destroying my confidence and setting me back years.

As for disabilities, I'm quite sure where I stand on this. People shouldn't be forced to be born with a serious disability if it can be prevented. I'd bet almost every kid who has to spend their life in a wheel chair, blind, deaf or with a serious illness wishes that they didn't have that disability. It should be okay to prevent these were possible, afterall science is already trying to cure such things in people after birth so why not prevent them from occuring in the first place?

Reply 107

NeverMindThat

1

XenaGlamRocker

but again i say it's unnatural.
every parent thinks their child is the most beautiful child in the world anyway! so why meddle around with their genetics!

seriously - ask any mother which child they think is the most gorgeous, the most clever, the most wonderful...they will all say their own.

i know that my daughter damn well is the most beautiful clever wonderful amazing child in the entire world! i couldn't possibly have made her any more fantastic than she already is! she's perfect - how do you improve on perfection?

see what i mean? any parent who loves their child would say the same thing.

as far as i'm concerned, the only people who would want to change their baby to make them "better" are too selfish to be good parents in the first place.

With your huge life experience I am sure you are qualified to judge exactly how everyone should treat children.

Reply 108

ChemistBoy

16

suneilr

Well if we could use genetics to improve society I don't really see anything wrong with that. Surely that's what everyone aims for to improve society until we can get as close as possible to perfection as we can.

Can you predict the future? Can you predict which genetic make-up will serve the human race the best against future diseases? Hybrid vigour is a well-established concept in genetics and one that doesn't fit too well with aspirations of the perfect social order.

Reply 109

ChemistBoy

16

NeverMindThat

How can someone so hopelessly irresponsible as to have two children before she has even finished her education possibly have anything to say on this?

Why, exactly, is it irresponsible for a 23 year-old married woman to have a child?

Reply 110

PinkMobilePhone

Chat Forum Helper, Life & Style Forum Helper

22

NeverMindThat

How can someone so hopelessly irresponsible as to have two children before she has even finished her education possibly have anything to say on this?

It's irresponsible why exactly? It's my life, not yours. I can finish my education even with children - I am managing just fine at the moment.
I could even opt NOT to finish it. I could become a stay-at-home mum, or I could work. Shock shock horror I actually do have options for my life!
My husband is working and provides for his family (he did lose his job for a period of time but that was beyond his control and could have happened to anybody, it was not something we could have foreseen happening).
We have been happily married for almost 2 years now, we've been together for 5 and a half.
We own our own house outright - yes that's right, not even a mortgage. Granted it's a small house but that's no big deal.

Exactly why are you calling me irresponsible?

ChemistBoy

Why, exactly, is it irresponsible for a 23 year-old married woman to have a child?

thank you

Reply 111

man_in_black

ChemistBoy

Hybrid vigour is a well-established concept in genetics and one that doesn't fit too well with aspirations of the perfect social order.

Can you explain why? If the reason is simply because genetic diversity is responsible for cases of hybrid vigour then I don't see why that should stop us 'designing' babies... Can't you just design babies with the optimum level of heterozygosity in the first place? I've only just read about heterosis so sorry if I'm wrong about this.

Reply 112

ChemistBoy

16

man_in_black

Can you explain why? If the reason is simply because genetic diversity is responsible for cases of hybrid vigour then I don't see why that should stop us 'designing' babies... Can't you just design babies with the optimum level of heterozygosity in the first place? I've only just read about heterosis so sorry if I'm wrong about this.

Well I'll just pull the usual example of sickle cell anaemia and malaria up. Basically one of the key motivations behind designing a baby (even before we get onto the eugenics crap) is to remove debilatating genetic diseases, the problem is that these diseases may be the key to survival in the future. Whilst in the malaria case we are generally well protected by technology here in the west, we can already see that technology is not freely available (many 3rd world citizens die of the disease) and that reliance on it to protect us in the future is incredibly unwise.

Reply 113

bronsonbear

1

suneilr

If something is perfect, it will remain perfect for eternity. Very very few babies ever grow up into "perfect" adolescents. therefore, babies were not perfect by simple logic.

thats a very strange definition of perfect

Reply 114

bronsonbear

1

NeverMindThat

How can someone so hopelessly irresponsible as to have two children before she has even finished her education possibly have anything to say on this?

thats out of order :mad:

how can someone who's never had children possibly have anything to say on this?

Reply 115

PinkMobilePhone

Chat Forum Helper, Life & Style Forum Helper

22

bronsonbear

thats out of order :mad:

how can someone who's never had children possibly have anything to say on this?

thank you to you also.

I agree it is rather out of order. He still hasn't justified why he said it to me. *shrugs*

Reply 116

suneilr

3

bronsonbear

thats a very strange definition of perfect

Well if something is perfect, then it has no flaws, either present or future.

Reply 117

bronsonbear

1

suneilr

Well if something is perfect, then it has no flaws, either present or future.

i wouldn't say so. 'perfect' as used in our cultural language, and as used to describe babies, means at it is at that moment, it's exactly how you would want it, e.g. a artists masterpiece, your mum's choclate chip cookies, your coursework.
This standard of perfection can be corrupted, someone could rip up the masterpeice, or sprinkle baking soda on the cookies, or burn your coursework. 'Perfect' in this context is limited to the time it was pronounced, hence 'they're just as perfect now as they were 20 years ago.'

Reply 118

man_in_black

bronsonbear

i wouldn't say so. 'perfect' as used in our cultural language, and as used to describe babies, means at it is at that moment, it's exactly how you would want it, e.g. a artists masterpiece, your mum's choclate chip cookies, your coursework.
This standard of perfection can be corrupted, someone could rip up the masterpeice, or sprinkle baking soda on the cookies, or burn your coursework. 'Perfect' in this context is limited to the time it was pronounced, hence 'they're just as perfect now as they were 20 years ago.'

Why nitpick over the definition of 'perfect' when it doesn't matter? You both agree that as people grow their faults become realized.

I thought it might be interesting to mention James Watson (codiscover of the structure of DNA) who's been known for holding what are seen as controversial views about genetic enhancement. I was reading his book last night in which he says he wonders if there would be the same tabboo surrounding genetic enhancement if the eugenics movement hadn't happened. Other points raised were the "naturalistic fallacy" of assuming the way nature intended is best, yet we steer clear of this fallacy in everyday life when taking antibiotics, centrally heating our homes, etc. He also argued that it's profoundly immoral not to screen embryos for genetic diseases.

Reply 119

NeverMindThat

1

PQ

so you're a fan of the eugenics movement?

The study of Eugenics gets a ridiculously bad rap because of all the negative connotations caused by Nazism and ethnic cleansing. Its actually a very interesting field of science (but feel free to tell my I am wrong and different race people are identical in every way but appearance....).

Deisgner Babies- your stance

Related discussions

Articles for you

How The Student Room is moderated