'designer babies' right or wrong?

Watch this thread
chipskylark
Badges: 2
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#1
Report Thread starter 13 years ago
#1
for my philosophy and ethics project i have to do some research on the morals of medical ethics and such, and i chose to look at 'designer babies' (which is basically changing a babies genetics before it is born to remove any unwanted genes that may cause disease, however this could also be used to genetically change the child's appearance - so it has blue eyes for instance) i was just wandering what peoples views are on this and is it morally correct (im studying philosphy in religion so religious views would really help) thanks
0
reply
abc101
Badges: 17
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#2
Report 13 years ago
#2
Oo reminds me of virtue ethics...Aristotle comes flooding back...haha...

Well! My opinion is that, although it does have medical merits, for example ensuring embryos are female in the case of haemophilia running in the family, or removing a gene that would cause a life-threatening disease, it would be a slippery slope and could give rise to parents picking physical traits for their children and discarding embryos that didn't fit their idea of a perfect baby. Also, as I believe that life begins at conception, I have difficulties with the idea of meddling with embryos, and the fact that some would be discarded if they didn't fit the bill.

For Christianity's views, I would look at a site such as Bible Gateway - it will help you find lots of useful Bible references, for example, 'Before I formed you in the womb I knew you (Jeremiah 1:5) and 'All the days ordained for me were written in Your book before one of them came to be (Psalm 139).

Consider a Kantian approach (rationality, the Categorical Imperative, means to an end etc) and a Utilitarian one...generally, with anything, Kant says no, Utilitarianism says yes!
0
reply
I Have No Imagination
Badges: 14
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#3
Report 13 years ago
#3
It's wrong.
0
reply
Simplicity
Badges: 17
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#4
Report 13 years ago
#4
Hitler wanted designer babies, Hitler is bad. Therefore, designer babies are bad.
0
reply
Going_To_California
Badges: 12
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#5
Report 13 years ago
#5
I think it's fine to prevent a life threatening condition, but choosing features simply for vanity is wrong.
Catholics believe all life is sacred and would disapprove of destroying embryos that aren't considered 'perfect'
0
reply
PeterMcPete
Badges: 1
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#6
Report 13 years ago
#6
If people start making designer babies, eventually someone like Mugabe will make a master race of them with 10 arms and claws and they will get angry and take over the world. Interesting. Therefore they are right.
0
reply
Simplicity
Badges: 17
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#7
Report 13 years ago
#7
Catholics would get rid off the babies if they were Gay. Also, I think they won't get be against making cute boys.
0
reply
~C~
Badges: 0
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#8
Report 13 years ago
#8
It's perfectly fine imo
0
reply
Jadel_L
Badges: 1
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#9
Report 13 years ago
#9
It depends really.
If its done to eliminate any hereditary diseases then its fine. Same with cancer and all life threatening diseases really. But when it comes to choosing whether your baby is deaf for example (this has actually happened btw) then i think its wrong. It should only be considered if you know for sure the child won't be healthy.
0
reply
PinkMobilePhone
Badges: 22
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#10
Report 13 years ago
#10
As some people have said, to prevent life threatening diseases then it's acceptable. That's all.
0
reply
Poshtotty
Badges: 8
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#11
Report 13 years ago
#11
(Original post by chipskylark)
for my philosophy and ethics project i have to do some research on the morals of medical ethics and such, and i chose to look at 'designer babies' (which is basically changing a babies genetics before it is born to remove any unwanted genes that may cause disease, however this could also be used to genetically change the child's appearance - so it has blue eyes for instance) i was just wandering what peoples views are on this and is it morally correct (im studying philosphy in religion so religious views would really help) thanks
I think that it's totally unethical. Apart from the fact that designer babies would make the human race incredibly boring, it would also create a bigger divide in the world. The designer babies versus the non-designer babies.

I would compare it to when Hitler wanted to wipe out other races and just keep and reproduce blonde hair blue eyed babies.

If a baby isn't perfect, so what? There's more important things in the world.

And I truly hope that designer babies will never start being created on this Earth. I have a feeling that they will though......
0
reply
curryADD
Badges: 12
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#12
Report 13 years ago
#12
(Original post by Simplicity)
Catholics would get rid off the babies if they were Gay. Also, I think they won't get be against making cute boys.

hahaha.
0
reply
tom//
Badges: 17
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#13
Report 13 years ago
#13
for stopping things like cancer then yes, definitely right

but for things like appearance? im quite undecided, if they are prepared to pay for it then i dont really see whats wrong with it
0
reply
whitepearlbaby
Badges: 18
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#14
Report 13 years ago
#14
Well I like the idea as such but there are far too many risks... DNA is soooo delicate, I don't think it's easy to do it.

Also, thinking further, diseases (and nature catastrophes) are some of the most important things to keep our population on a normal level (although it's too big in my opinion anyway).

As weird as it sounds, but if everyone had the genes to live healthily until they're 100 years old then we might have to speak of overpopulation soon.
I know, there are other reasons for death as well...
0
reply
tom//
Badges: 17
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#15
Report 13 years ago
#15
(Original post by whitepearlbaby)
Well I like the idea as such but there are far too many risks... DNA is soooo delicate, I don't think it's easy to do it.

Also, thinking further, diseases (and nature catastrophes) are some of the most important things to keep our population on a normal level (although it's too big in my opinion anyway).

As weird as it sounds, but if everyone had the genes to live healthily until they're 100 years old then we might have to speak of overpopulation soon.
I know, there are other reasons for death as well...
thats actually quite a good point :beard: but we have natural disasters for population control

0
reply
Rambo424
Badges: 0
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#16
Report 13 years ago
#16
Well excuse people for trying to be fashionable :rolleyes:
0
reply
whitepearlbaby
Badges: 18
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#17
Report 13 years ago
#17
(Original post by tom//)
thats actually quite a good point :beard: but we have natural disasters for population control

You never know, maybe one day we'll control that too :ninja:

Frightening thought.
0
reply
nadiah
Badges: 12
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#18
Report 13 years ago
#18
I think it's wrong, in all scenarios. Messing with genetics before birth is just as bit too much IMO.
0
reply
Amy***
Badges: 7
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#19
Report 13 years ago
#19
The Vatican doesn't seem to have a coherent position on medical ethics i.e. hate the idea of science 'meddling' with life in the womb but feel because human life is so sacred they must keep people alive with the aid of science for as long as is physically possible.

I say the concept of 'designer' babies to remove serious diseases is not a problem. I fail to see why anybody could view that as 'wrong' if it will lead to an improved quality of life for the child and family. However I would definately disagree with choosing say the eye colour of your child.
0
reply
cadaeibfeceh
Badges: 17
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#20
Report 13 years ago
#20
Wrong, double wrong, triple wrong, quadruple wrong, quintuple wrong, sextuple wrong!

Very. Wrong.
Would you have been yourself if your parents wanted to choose how you were?
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
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

How did your AQA GCSE English Language Paper 1 go?

Loved the paper - Feeling positive (70)
19.18%
The paper was reasonable (135)
36.99%
Not feeling great about that exam... (108)
29.59%
It was TERRIBLE (52)
14.25%

Watched Threads

View All