Is Genetically Engineering Your Children Ethical?

[Cobert]

Oh thats another thing I forgot to mention, would some sicko engineer their kid to be really ugly?

Or like have a third arm or something?

[dezrtfish]

Three arms could be usefull, I sometimes wish I had a couple extra arms or eyes…

[Jennifer]

But when beauty is the norm, then being different will be an advantage so parents, attempting to give their progeny all the advantages, will want to change what they look like and thus, we will not become Children of the Corn or Der Master Race.  But rather, I suspect, we will remain much as we are today, but without the genetic diseases.  After all, you marry your spouse because you like his or her traits, thus, wouldn’t it make sense you want those traits in your child?

You cannot make your child look like Tom Cruise or Paris Hilton if you do not have those traits to select from.  I’m not talking about splicing someone else’s genes in, you are limited to only what genes you have to offer.

That means, unless a black man had an irish ancestor centuries ago and somehow managed to keep a single gene for red hair, he cannot offer red hair to his progeny.

[Pervavita]

you allow even tweaking and some one in 20 years will want to add in the gens from some one else to get even better results. when ever you give some, then some one takes more.

by also getting rid of desiese we could also get rid of cures for other things or even eliminate gens that we don’t know what they do.
who is to say that dislexia (sp) crossed with Audtisam (sp) don’t creat some benafit? both alone are undesireable trates but together they may be what gives us geniouses or some other desireable trait.
by eliminating trates you destroy the chance of things happening that you don’t know about.

[Imperious Leader]

You cannot make your child look like Tom Cruise or Paris Hilton if you do not have those traits to select from.

Ahh but thats the problem. Things will as an outcrop of this technology push all the weird ideas forward. Specific gene traits or new “models” of genetic makeup will become available like a new cake recipe. Women will want instead of cute “toy dogs” “toy children” like Gary Coleman so they teach it to say “what choo talking about Willis” and everybody can have a big old laugh at genetic freeks. It would be a sad commentary on the human condition. For every new technology their are 2 times more idiots thinking of corrupt ways to use the new technology without regard to any moral implications.

As i said before its a Pandora’s box. Lets first get all the hungry people fed and not worry about using our technology to produce more genitic monsters.  Heck i can see North Korea using this to make an army of 7 foot soldiers to fight south Korea. Think of how this would disrupt the NBA. The basket will have to to to 12 feet and ill have to alter my shot from the 3 point line because somebody allowed giants to be made. NO way forget it.

[Jennifer]

Why worry about feeding people at all?  We could easily splice in sequences from plants so that we are fed by being outside for half an hour at mealtimes.  Heck, we could engineer it so we don’t need sleep, and thus, effectively increase human productivity by 25-33% (lots of Americans get far less then 8 hours of sleep, that’s why I put the range in.)

I mean, if we want to take this to ridiculous levels.

Or, we could remain in the realm of actual probabilities.  People will select the genes from both parents they like the best.  “I would like her to have my wife’s nose.”  Or “I would like him to have my husband’s chin.”

As far as appearances go, it’d be the same as plastic surgery, only much safer (no surgery, no anesthetics, no recovery, etc) and more realistic (if Mommy does not have DDD cups, Susie cannot either.)

[Guest]

You know, I would rather genetically engineer SPOUSES than CHILDREN.  :-D

[cyan]

@Cmdr:

Why worry about feeding people at all?  We could easily splice in sequences from plants so that we are fed by being outside for half an hour at mealtimes.  Heck, we could engineer it so we don’t need sleep, and thus, effectively increase human productivity by 25-33% (lots of Americans get far less then 8 hours of sleep, that’s why I put the range in.)

I mean, if we want to take this to ridiculous levels.

Or, we could remain in the realm of actual probabilities.  People will select the genes from both parents they like the best.  “I would like her to have my wife’s nose.”  Or “I would like him to have my husband’s chin.”

As far as appearances go, it’d be the same as plastic surgery, only much safer (no surgery, no anesthetics, no recovery, etc) and more realistic (if Mommy does not have DDD cups, Susie cannot either.)

if traits were good to our survival then they would be naturally selected, and all this artificial selection would not be necessary. in effect we would be making our selves more susceptible to pandemic disease and that kind of stuff.  and about this artificial selection, those fetuses are babies, not dogs or corn. we should treat our species with dignity and not try to completely destroy it.

[Cobert]

I hear this talk about choosing a spouse because of their traits:  I dont think most people consciously choose a spouse (or enter any relationship with the opposite sex) because they think their kids would be nice.

[balungaloaf]

could parents engineer their kids to have either huge knockers or a huge wang.  talk about kids owing you something later on in life.  :-D

[Jennifer]

@Cobert:

I hear this talk about choosing a spouse because of their traits:  I dont think most people consciously choose a spouse (or enter any relationship with the opposite sex) because they think their kids would be nice.

I argue that the ONLY reason you chose your mate is because on some level you realize their traits when added to yours would produce viable progeny.

[Guest]

Nah…  I had NO intention of having children (and still have none).

I chose my spouse based on CURVES :-D

[Jennifer]

The problem with engineering your spouse is that you have to adjust all the cells of an adult body vs adjust the cells of a single celled human being.  There’s kind of a huge difference in the work load, you know?

I’m still hoping someone can come up with a valid reason that fixing birth defects and inherited diseases is unethical and failing that, that choosing which parent’s genes will be the eyes, which the hair, what gender the child is, etc is unethical.

It would be convenient to have something other then an antiquated notion of divine command theory to justify a stance that genetic engineering is unethical. :)

[cyan]

@Cmdr:

I’m still hoping someone can come up with a valid reason that fixing birth defects and inherited diseases is unethical and failing that, that choosing which parent’s genes will be the eyes, which the hair, what gender the child is, etc is unethical.

if blue eyes were such a good trait then there would be more blue eyed than brown people. its called natural selection. the good traits come out and the bad traits don’t get passed on. artificial selection will lead to the wrecking of our species. artificial selection makes people more prone to pandemic type stuff because everyone has similar genes. if your genes were so superior you would not need to hand select them and they would be just passed on. also any slight difference in people will be looked down upon at it will be like that movie Gatica.everyone would be the same and there would be no more revolutions or progress  because someone decided to think different than everyone else.

[Imperious Leader]

Thats not natural selection its the difference between Ants and Elephants. One is much more populated because it can live a life of low expectations, low goals, working with its hands and easily happy. The Latter is complex, thinking, dynamic, passionate in a life of promise. Its time on earth is not regulated to populating, but thriving.

Its the dynamic of the worker ants and the Elephants where the ants breed and do nothing else but feed, The Elephant thinks and have a full life accomplishing more and taking more from life. The ants do anything ,anywhere, with without trepidation or reason. They are savages by nature.

You want to be an Ant or an Elephant?
And who is it to say one is greater because they breed better?

[Guest]

Actually, only Queen ants breed…
The rest of them exist for her protection.
:wink:

[Ranor]

@cyan:

… if blue eyes were such a good trait then there would be more blue eyed than brown people. its called natural selection. …

I guess the human race in modern societys has already left the path of natural selection. Because the highly developed medicine sector allows for all kinds of severe genetic traits in one beeing and it will probably still be able to reproduce itself.

IMO there would have to be a huge amount of pressure from the outside (something like a big epidemic) to start this process again.

[Jennifer]

I’m not saying that blue eyes are superior to brown eyes.  What I’m saying is that parents who have traits for BOTH blue eyes and brown eyes, between them, should be allowed to choose which they want their children to have.  I see no harm in this whatsoever.  It’s not like I’m talking about having a bank of government approved genes for all children and you must select from that pool.

I’m just arguing that it is perfectly ethical for parents to chose from their own genes which their children will have and to have medical science correct any mutations or birth defects or genetic diseases passed along from parent to child.  What harm is there in correcting asthma or ADHD or anemia or AIDS before the child is born?  Deviated septum, no digits on your toes, etc also correctable.

Wouldn’t it provide more happiness to the parents and to the child to have a child without genetic defects, mental or physical disorders then to have a deaf child who was born without legs and with AIDS?

[cyan]

when is it okay to intervene in another’s life? If it meant that I would rather have 11 toes than to being genetically altered. I think only life threating diseases should be corrected. and maybe blindness and severe handicaps. but alot of famous people were genetically defeated  like einstein and lincon. imagined if they were messed with and made “normal”. what is normal anyway? its really just an arbitrary standard set by society.

[Imperious Leader]

If you offspring is gonna come out as a monster or Richard Simmons, then its probably a good idea to abort it before it grows. That would not be Euthanasia. But to tell a doctor "i want only a boy with blue eyes and good hair or what not then thats the road to disaster. That ugly Albert Einstein will never be born again.