Turn on thread page Beta

'designer babies' right or wrong? watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    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
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    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!
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    It's wrong.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Hitler wanted designer babies, Hitler is bad. Therefore, designer babies are bad.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    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'
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Catholics would get rid off the babies if they were Gay. Also, I think they won't get be against making cute boys.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    It's perfectly fine imo
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Welcome Squad
    As some people have said, to prevent life threatening diseases then it's acceptable. That's all.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (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......
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    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
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    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...
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (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

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Well excuse people for trying to be fashionable :rolleyes:
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    I think it's wrong, in all scenarios. Messing with genetics before birth is just as bit too much IMO.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    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?
 
 
 
Poll
Which accompaniment is best?
Useful resources

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

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