Designer Babies
Consider the video, Designer Babies, you recently watched in class and then post a thoughtful reflection. You may limit your comments to your own ideas or you may expand upon those offered by your classmates; either way, you’ll need to cite evidence from at least one source to support your opinion. You may not cite a source that has been previously used in a classmate’s post; however, you may make reference to a classmate’s source even though you’ll still need to cite an additional source (a journal article, podcast, video on YouTube, etc). When citing a source, make sure you provide the URL. This assignment is worth ten points and is due by 11:59pm on Monday, October 19, 2009.
Rubric:
Zero points = no comments
Five points = comments but no source cited and/or more than two misspellings
Six points = comments but source cited is not unique (the source was used by a classmate in an earlier post)
Eight points = comments and unique source cited but awkward sentence(s) and/or one or two misspelling(s)
Ten points = comments, unique source cited, correct grammar, and no misspelling(s)
Topics to consider for discussion:
-
What are your thoughts about the people and situations you saw in the video? Is there a particular statement or issue that caused you to think differently? Did you object to any thing in the video?
-
Where do you draw the line in creating “designer babies”? Why?
-
Have you read Brave New World by Aldous Huxley? If so, discuss the concept of “designer babies” within the context of Brave New World.
83 responses so far
Create a free edublog to get your own comment avatar (and more!)
I completely understand why a parent would want to use genetic engineering to cure a disease that would otherwise be lifelong and painful for their child. Any parent wants what’s best for their child, and I would say that that happens to fall under “what’s best.” That being said, I’m not sure that it is worth the risk at this point in time. Right now, genetic engineering is still fairly new, so when trying to cure a disease only works about 50 percent of the time. Oh well, it didn’t work, no big deal, right? Wrong, there is also about a five percent chance of causing serious genetic mutations that are incurable. (Bohlin http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/humgeneng.html) Perhaps in a few years, the risk would be less and it would make a bit more sense. What I don’t understand right now is using genetic engineering to make your baby taller or more athletic or anything like that. I don’t think that I’d ever be okay with that. It just seems so impersonal to be able to “choose” your baby. It’s not a store. Part of being a parent, in my opinion, is taking what you get and loving it no matter what. Even if it is your fourth boy in a row or whatever. That lady annoyed me. She was a terrible mother. If everyone was like her, then every scientist should just stop their research on genetic engineering right now and just drop it.
I would just like to say. WHAT?! The idea that you can “build your own baby” the same way you would build a bear at Build-A-Bear Workshop is absolutely unbelievable. What a waste of money! I guess I am just not the type of person who would pay money to have a smarter kid. Intelligence – though somewhat dependent on genetics – can be and is impacted by environmental factors such as school, extra-curricular activities, and even the age a child is taught to read. That’s why someone invented Baby Einstein. I personally find it ethical to correct or check embryos for genetic diseases because the “selected” embryo is not genetically engineered to have an advatage over anyone else, just to be free of a genetic disorder.
When society begins to pay money to have a smarter, taller, prettier, funnier and friendlier kid, most definitely a distinct underclass and upperclass will form. It is definitely not fair for children to be penalized based on whether their parents designed them to be ‘better.” Also, parents don’t know whether the child they are enhancing wants to be enhanced. Besides this,false expectations are put upon this genetically enhanced child. As Dr. Caplan, Ph.D, Director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania said, parents will be frustrated when their athleitcally enhanced child doesn’t make the NFL, and then parents will be upset that they “invested money and didn’t get what they wanted” (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/03/03/earlyshow/health/main4840346.shtml). When a parent pays money to have a child with a higher IQ, and that child does not get a 2400 on the SATs, you know that parent is going to be upset over all that money he or she “wasted” on genetically changing the child. I think that there is a fine, fine line between what is ethical concerning genetic engineering, and based on the fact that “designer babies” are even a point of discussion, I think this line has already been crossed. We need to turn around.
Firstly I think that Genetic Engineering at this level is completely unethical. For me, the factor that separates medicine and helping someone to stay alive and choosing or enhancing your baby is the factor of greed. At the very core of this dilemma is simply the greed and selfishness of parents. When someone decides to give a person medicine or put them into an emergency surgery, the reasoning is not for personal gain! They are trying their best to help that person. When a parent decides that they want to have a daughter or make their kid smarter, it’s not about the kid at all. It’s all about the parents and what they want (http://www.bionetonline.org/English/content/db_cont1.htm). Now, one could make the argument that some parents who undergo genetic engineering do so in order to ensure the absence of any genetic disorders. This would certainly qualify as being unselfish, yet I am still hesitant to support genetic engineering of this type.
When Mrs. Annee explained in class that the majority of the embryos that are fertilized are destroyed after not being used, I was appalled. Coming from a Catholic perspective and the belief that life starts at the moment an embryo is fertilized, any person who would intentionally kill 15 people in order to get one or two “optimal” children is absolutely madness. Because at the present moment this is the only way to genetically engineer an embryo, I am strongly opposed to any form of genetic engineering, even that which may help a potentially sick child. We have crossed into an entire plethora of power. With this power comes great responsibility, and at the present moment we are not being one bit responsible with that power.
I found designer babies to be unnatural. I fully understand wanting to look at the genes of the embryo to reduce the risk of diseases or to make sure that child doesn’t get certain diseases. But the fact that some parents want to make their kids smarter or taller is just ridiculous. What if parents decided that they want their kid to be eight feet tall to become a basket ball superstar, and then the child is eight feet tall, but doesn’t want to be a basketball player? It causes tension The parents are picking a path for their child before it is even born. It would be annoying to go through life with a plan already set out for you by your parents. This causes the standards to be set so high for the kid. It’s especially hard if the kid doesn’t meet those standards. If the kid doesn’t turn on the way that the parents paid for and expected, there is bound to be some disappointment.
In a Wall Street Journal article (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123439771603075099.html), a good point is brought up about how these designer babies can cause new discriminations. The people who will have designer babies are more likely to be the rich because they have the money to do so. If being tall is a popular gene that all the rich people choose for their kids, being short will then become a sign of poverty and the poor. The designer babies will feel superior to the babies who were not genetically enhanced.
I don’t believe that parents should pick the genes of their child, unless it is to help with diseases. These parents should let nature takes its course and not try to interfere with it. I understand why people would want to pick certain genes for their child, but soon the child becomes more of a product than an acutal human being. Humans are imperfect and trying to make your baby perfect will only come back to haunt you. Parents want what is best for their child and the best thing is to let the kid live out his or her own life without being genetically enhanced.
I tend to take a different approach on the issue of genetically engineering embryos. Although I think that it is unethical and playing with nature, on the issue of legalities or not, I think it is fine.
If a parent wants to spend that much money on giving their kids the best genes, then let them do it. No, it is not ethical, and not fair, but that doesn’t mean it should be illegal. Yes, it is unfair that the higher class can afford it and lower classes can’t, essentially making the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. But what is the difference between my parents being able to buy me expensive genes and my parents being able to buy me an expensive education? I view it as giving your kids the best tools to succeed, even at that young of an age. I bet if you asked a poor mother if she would genetically enhance her unborn son for free, she would take the opportunity. It is natural for humans to want to get ahead.
Now, those are my views on the legality of this process. But, overall I think it is very unethical and not natural. “Altering the germline is something that the vast majority of scientists deem unethical…” (http://online.sfsu.edu/~rone/GEessays/gebabies.html) Even scientists believe that it is unethical. It is not natural for us to alter the genes of embryos. In a sense, your child will not be as authentic. He/she would be your creation, not God’s creation. But this opinion may be different than somebody else’s, so you can’t illegalize it on this basis.
Do I have a problem with genetic engineering? No. Would I choose to do it for my children? No.
Just like my article (http://hplusbiopolitics.wordpress.com/2009/04/11/designer-babies-satisfaction-guaranteee/) states, I don’t think that the idea of designer babies is a bad one, but rather what is not right with the process is that there is not a guarantee that your baby will turn out like you designed it to. The example in the article I found is a little harsh, with the parents trying to alter the child’s personality and interests, however I do think that if you want a certain gendered baby or certain genes to be excluded from child’s gene pool, as not to pass on disease, it is definitely alright.
Whether parents chose exactly what they want you to do when you are born, before you are born, or as you are growing up, they will get the choice as to what your interests will be. Most children who grow up playing soccer become good at soccer and love itby the time they hit high school. This is a good example of how your parents will determine what you will eventually become involved with. The way your parents raise you in the end can sometimes be more effective than the actual genes you inherit, by the means of interests and hobbies, which is why whether or not you are designed genetically, it does not really make a difference in most situations where your parents are trying to alter your interests.
While I do not believe designing babies is not a bad thing at all, I think it is shallow. Your child show grow up and determine things for themselves in their lives and by manipulating their personality, it changes who they are. Changing the look of how your baby will look is fine, but what is the purpose? Your child will look like you whether born they are desgined or not, but if you want your child to have certain physical features, that is rather shallow. Your child will grow up and look how your passed on genes allow your child to look, and genetically designing it is not always effective. I think designing babies is a good idea, however it has some things about it that I personally do not agree with.
This statement by Richard Hayes, executive director of The Center for Genetics and Society, basically sums up exactly what I feel: “We support the use of that to allow couples at risk to have healthy children. But for non-medical, cosmetic purposes, we believe this would undermine humanity and create a techno-eugenic rat race.” (http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/10/30/designer.babies/). I could potentially even support gender selection, but only if before the process begins, the parents are required to sign a contract stating they wouldn’t be disappointed if the child ended up being the opposite gender than the one they wanted. I was horrified when the woman in the video said she couldn’t bear to look at her newborn son only because he was a boy.
I draw the line at health and gender selection. Parents should love their children no matter their height, hair or eye color, intelligence level, athletic or musical ability, etc. Choosing these traits could also lead to discrimination, based on either the traits themselves or the fact that genetic engineering costs a lot, creating a rich, genetically modified upper class and a poor, non-modified lower class. Further, some of these characteristics are influenced not only by genes but by the child’s environment, so there is no guarantee the child will end up exactly as the parents wish them to.
“The same genetic testing, called pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD), has been used to test for inherited disorders such as cystic fibrosis and Huntington’s disease, life-shortening diseases known to be certainly acquired by those carrying a single gene. What’s new in this case is that the gene tested for, called BRCA1, does not inevitably lead to cancer in someone who carries it and if the cancers do develop they are potentially treatable. ” http://www.livescience.com/culture/090111-designer-babies.html.
I think that in preventing cancers or life threating diseases is a different matter. I, however, do not believe in God so I don’t believe that the designer babies has an affect on the genes you inherit from your parents. I don’t believe in someones purpose in life is to have cancer. I think that this program should only be carried out from children inheriting disease or bad genes such as obesity, high blood pressure etc.
I think being able to choose traits for your child is beyond wrong. Parents should love their child for whoever they are and whatever they look like, it’s suppose to be unconditional love. If this became popular then the wealthy class would have more benefits then it already has and the lower class would continue to grow and become more out of work and poor. Talent and skills that naturals work for would be unappreciated and common. I hope that our country has a greater respect for human kind and the free will we have. I would like to hear the childs point of view in designer babies.
Designer babies was a very interesting film to watch. I learned a lot about how quickly the science is moving. I believe that genetic engineering can be a good or bad thing. I think it is amazing that couples can choose to have babies that will not have a genetic disease, however, I think it goes against nature. I think that instead of spending hundreds and thousands of dollars on making a child, they should adopt. There are many babies up for adoption that need loving parents. Their own babies are being altered anyway so I do not see how an adopted baby would be much more different. I realize the adoption process is difficult, but so is the genetic engineering process. Obviously, since I disagree even with altering the diseased genes, I am 100% against altering a baby’s genes for smarts, beauty, or anything else. I believe that if we begin this, we will continue until the whole human race is eventually completely changed. I do not think the genetically engineered babies will be able to fit in, they will basically be robots of the society. It will also make a greater gap between the wealthy and the poor. (http://www.brighthub.com/science/genetics/articles/22210.aspx) is the source I read from that lists pros and cons of genetic engineering. I can see how people would be attracted to the idea for multiple reasons, but my opinion is that it is a bad idea. I was also bothered in the film when it said that with one card, parents can know their child intimately even before he or she is born. I believe that is not the way God intended for us to live. I think science is beginning to overstep its boundaries in this instance.
The movie we watched on designing babies brought to light many new issues that could come about sooner than we think. Eugenics in its purest form is simply creating the best possible genetic outcome between two people. This issue is a complicated one and is difficult to discuss because it operates on so many different levels. To start, I don’t think eugenics is bad. Why wouldn’t a person want the best outcome of a child? No disease, athletic, smart…the ideal person. But if everyone was doing it, would we lose some of our identity as a race? The movie said a perfectly modified baby compared to a normal human would be like comparing humans now to monkeys. The gap is so large it is difficult to imagine a creature that much smarter than ourselves. If only half of the people on earth were perfectly modified, the other half would be similar to monkeys today, and probably treated as such. I feel that complete modification of our race would be have to be slow and inclusive. If the opportunities were limited, a huge gap would emerge and I think ultimately create larger problems than disease and such. Also a person is only meant to use so much of their brain. People today only use around 10 percent of their available brain.(http://human.freescience.org/htmx/brain.php) We have no idea what would happen if a person was given use to all 100%. Einstein could use around 15% of him brain, but he also couldn’t put on his own socks correctly. At what point would that become impractical? It would be hard to tell but a race of things so smart they forget how to eat wouldn’t last so long anyway. That eugenics is hard to discuss because its not really here yet, but the kind we encounter today should be used to the maximum possible effect. Eugenics today is mainly used to eradicate disease. This should be used as much as possible and with consent of course. The blue ribbon campaign is all about educating people about the pros of eugenics. (http://www.eugenics.net/) Preventing disease is good, and this type of eugenics is being met with hostility just as blood transfusions were in the twenties. In another 80 years this will probably be as common as blood transfusions. If it’s going to help us why not take advantage of it? Its there for us to use (stopping disease) so lets make the best of it
I found Designer Babies to be very interesting. It raised many issues, and I think it is nearly impossible to see any of them as black or white. There are some components of altering your baby that I approve of and some that I don’t approve of. It makes sense to me that if you know your baby is going to be born with severe health issues, you should be able to fix that. No parent wants to know ahead of time that their child will have cancer and not be able to do anything about it. Similar to what Mrs. Annee prompted us with in class, if someone has a heart attack, I find it acceptable to call 911 and get them help. If someone has cancer, I find it acceptable to get the appropriate treatment. I think it’s ok for health problems to be adjusted while the baby is still in the womb; I think of it as another advance in healthcare. However, that is where I draw the line. I do not think it is ok for parents to genetically alter their baby’s looks, abilities, or sex. Several European countries, including Britain, have already banned the process of gender selection (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/4885836/Designer-baby-row-over-clinic-that-offers-eye-skin-and-hair-colour.html). I think it comes down to what I find ok after birth. I think it’s great that we know how to treat medical conditions and diseases, so I also think that it’s ok to “treat” a babies health before it is born. I do not approve of cosmetic surgery for purely cosmetic purposes, so I also do not support changing the way your baby will look. It just seems wrong that a parent would want to and be able to change something so superficial as hair color or height. I also don’t think it’s ok when parents pressure their children into a certain profession, whether it’s being a doctor or playing professional baseball. The end result seems to be that the child does not get to do what he or she wants and is unhappy. Therefore, I do not support changing things like height or intelligence that will only support parents who want to force a certain path on their children.
In society, there is already a huge gap between the rich and the poor. Last year in social justice we read “The Working Poor” and learned about the great struggles that the poor have in finding jobs because they simply don’t have the means to get a good education. Genetically altering babies to be smarter would only make this an even bigger problem. Only the well-off would be able to pay for this genetic alteration, creating an even bigger divide between the rich and the poor. These babies would go on to be incredibly intelligent and successful, while the poor would continue on the daily struggle to get by. It seems unethical and unjust to go beyond genetically altering babies for health reasons.
The movie Designer Babies was interesting and eye opening. Science technology is moving very fast and parents having the choice to pick certain characteristics for their child is something a generation before would never have thought was possible. I think that parents being able to prevent passing on disseases and life altering genes for their child is okay but when it becomes about looks and making the child a “super human” science has gone too far. Preventing disseases and other hereditary genes is a good thing because the child will not have to indure a life with problems that didn’t necessarily have to exist. “In fact, if gene therapy lives up to its promise, parents may someday be able to go beyond weeding out undesirable traits and start actually inserting the genes they want–perhaps even genes that have been crafted in a lab. Before the new millennium is many years old, parents may be going to fertility clinics and picking from a list of options the way car buyers order air conditioning and chrome-alloy wheels.” (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,989987,00.html) This is clearly going too far with science and we shouldn’t be buying characteristics for our children, they will come out the way they are suppose to and parents should love them unconditionally regardless. Science needs to slow down on designing babies and let nature take its course.
I found the Designer Babies video to be very interesting and controversial. It seemed like there were pros and cons to every aspect of the debate as to whether it is ok for people to decide the gender of their children or genetically enhance their children. The article “Designer Babies and Consuming Children: Humanity=Artifact, Stock-Smith Debate” stated “Does that fact that we can do something ever imply that we should do it?” (http://www.lifenews.com/bio2978.html) Even though we have the beginning stages of the technology that can be used to alter our offspring, does that make it ok? I would say no due to many factors. 1) If only the rich are able to genetically enhance their offspring and make them the smartest, most attractive people in the world (due to their high income and ability to afford the procedure), these children will have every single advantage over those who were unable to afford the process. This could eventually even lead to a separation of the world’s population, as one group would be far more superior and advanced than the other. 2) It is an incredibly selfish idea on behalf of the parents. This whole concept is based on the pride of the parents to achieve the “perfect” child in their image. 3) This notion completely disregards the individuality of children. Even though the children would be a “better” version of themselves, it would still leave them with the knowledge that at first, they weren’t good enough.
I do not really take “playing God” into consideration for this situation, as I see this as a situation where people are trying to decide if they should either implement the new scientific developments or not. The only case where I see the process of genetically altering embryos to be acceptable is when it is done for health reasons, such as making sure that a child will not suffer from hemophilia. The ability that scientists and doctors have to prevent a child from a terrible disease is incredible, and I see this as a necessary procedure, as it is not being done to create perfection, but only to assure that a child can live a normal life.
I thought that video was very interesting. ALthough i did not agree with everything in the movie. The part that i did not agree with was the part when a person can pick if they want their kid to be smart or be a superstar. I think that the couple should just be happy that they can have a baby. If the kid is genetically engineered then they might be a child of their parents, but not he way that god intended. This is because they are not created by nature. They were created in a testtube. Although i do disagree with that part of the video. I do sumwhat agree with screening the child for the genetic disorder because it would decrease the disorder from becoming a major problem for the rest of the world. But when the parents get to pick the genes of the child, that becomes something different. They are not screening for illnesses. THey are just screening the genes so that they can have the kid that they want to have. I feel that if a kid were to be genetically engineered, then the parents would expect them to something that they might not be. If the child was created by a nobel prize sperm bank, then the parents would expect a lot out of them because they knew where and who the sperm came from. That child would be pressured in to doing things that they might not normally do. All in all, i think that on some occasions it is ok to screen for genes that could potentially be very harmful, but when it comes to the point where the parents are hand selecting the child, that is where the line is crossed. http://singularityhub.com/2009/02/25/designer-babies-like-it-or-not-here-they-come/ is a website that tells all about the designer babies and all about the parents that are choosing to have designer babies. I feel that the areticle talks about the pros and cons. I feel that in some ways it is saying that we have taken this a little to far and when we can pick our children. One line that stands out to me is that designer babies are coming and we can not stop them. It is ultimately the families choice. I feel that this video was interesting, but in the end, i do not agree with genetically picking your children.
The film was interesting to say the least. I knew about choosing babies for their genes for awhile. It has been the topic of many movies and articles. How scientists have discovered more and more genes is fascinating. For instance, I found it amusing how mice have genes for being either monogamous or polygamous. This behavior among these mammals is peculiar considering that they don’t really have a conscience for those kind of things. However, I don’t like the idea of polygamy being a part of genetics. If a girl cheats on me, I don’t want people telling me, “It’s not her fault, it’s just the genes she has.”
I agree that genetic engineering should be used for preventing diseases, but with just picking how the person looks or their intelligence level, I think this is degrading.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89655637 is a website that has an NPR broadcast about designer babies. A topic that was brought up was that parents with genetically engineered children would have unreasonable expectations for their children. They would spend so much money so that they could have the next Michael Phelps or Albert Einstein as one of their children, but nothing that they did would be good enough for the parents. Of course, most parents probably won’t be like this, but their are always parents who are never satisfied with their kid’s actions. Another important point the broadcast brought up is that genetic engineering would only be available to parents that are wealthy. This would increase the gap between the rich and the poor and could possibly give more power to the rich politically and economically, even more than they do now.
In closing I admit that genetic engineering is a fascinating topic. Although it can be dangerous too. Yes it could improve the health of little kids, but what if one engineered human became proud? So proud, in fact, that they wanted to get rid of all the unengineered humans. A genocide would happen. Not based on race, religion, or political beliefs. Rather people would be killed because maybe their parents didn’t have the money to improve them genetically. Or maybe they would be killed because their parents didn’t care about making their children genetically perfect and would still love them through their imperfections.
I found the video Designer Babies very interesting and it brought up many thought provoking topics. One idea that the video mentioned that I did not agree with was the idea of choosing what gender or traits a child should have. I think that it is amazing that families can make sure that their children will be healthy and happy, but I think that a line is crossed when people start choosing gender or certain characteristics simply because they want a child that has certain abilities. Genetic engineering should be used sparingly and only in cases where it will help the child have a healthier and happier life. When the technology is used in more trivial situations it seems like people are trying to influence things that they should not.
In an article from Time magazine the issue of designing babies is addressed. The article states, “It’s the ultimate shopping experience: designing your baby…In a society used to cosmetic surgery and psychopharmacology, this is not a big step.”(http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,989987,00.html) . I thought that this quote brought up a major reason why designing babies seems wrong when it is not necessary. Babies become a shopping experience and, furthermore, people would not even bat an eye because we live in a world where almost anything can be changed by science. I think that designing babies is a slippery slope and people need to take a step back and look at what this technology could change, both good and bad.
I believe that the idea of “designer babies” is unethical and wrong. I believe it completely goes against God because we are messing with his creation. I’m a firm believer in everything happens for a reason and the woman on the show kept trying and trying to have a baby girl. Maybe, she was never supposed to have a girl. She wanted a girl so badly that she almost rejected her son that was born instead. I felt strong anger toward this woman because there are always other ways to have a girl. ADOPTION!!! However, I am not completely close minded; I can see how appealing having a super star athlete or brilliant genius child would be. But what if you create a super athlete and he wants to become an artist or a piano player? Why would we want to predetermine his future? The only reason I would ever consider genetically altering my child would be if I was like the mother who had hemophilia. She honestly was trying to save her child from a world of pain and she did not care about the gender. She was a happy mother who just wanted to have happy children who were safe and healthy. If she had the money to do that than all the power to her! In the article http://www.actionbioscience.org/biotech/agar.html it talks all about how some humans have been super athletes and wonderful musicians without being “designed” before birth. It also talks about and how some mistakes in the creation can actually caused defections in the embryo. I personally will never have a “designer baby” but I would never judge another family for making that decision.
I think that this issue is very controversial and the article I chose discusses the controversy. (http://www.hplusmagazine.com/articles/bio/great-designer-baby-controversy-’09) I understand the use of genetic engineering when it comes to genetic disorders. If the family knows of a genetic disorder that runs in the family they should be able to make sure their child does not get the disease. This is different than choosing their child’s eye color, hair color, intelligence level etc. When they try to keep from having a specific disease they are keeping them from suffering and are trying to make sure they have the best possible quality of life. When they engineer the babies to look different, they are just changing their child for the parents sake not really the child’s. I think this is unethical, unnatural, and really selfish. There are so many people out there that cant even have kids and all they want is to have a child, they don’t care what gender, what it looks like, they just want to be able to have a kid. There are the other people who want to genetically engineer their babies and make them exactly how they want to be and I think they should really just be grateful that they are able to have a healthy child.
The movie brought up a very controversial subject in America today. People want to provide the best opportunity for their children and if genetic engineering provides this then maybe it would be a good option for America today. But there are also moral issues involved with this subject. Is it right to change DNA? we would be paying to provide our babies with the best chances in life to live but it wouldnt help the lower class. Only the richest of the richest would do this. They might pay for brains and then you would have a bunch of rich smart people and the lower class would suffer because of this. The rich would have all the advantages in life with this designer baby idea. We could use this idea to cure diseases or disorders but i think making people smarter would be taking it too far. An example of what we could cure or help would be mad cow disease. http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/59949.php.
Also cancer, and other life threatening diseases could be cured because of this idea.
Science and technology are rapidly advancing. Doctors can increase chances of getting either sexes and can determine possible defects. Genetic testing and alteration are a great gift, but as they say in Spiderman “with great power comes great responsibility. This is my gift, my curse.” http://www.poemofquotes.com/quotes/movies/spiderman.php Since we have the capabilities to help increase chances for healthier babies, we should. Although we have to be very careful with this power and use it only responsibly. It is a thin line between healthier babies and genetically superior babies. Parents want their kids to have every edge possible, so isn’t genetic testing just another edge? There are so many questions pertaining to ethics around genetic engineering and problems continually arise. Many technological and medical advances have been rejected and then widely accepted and praised such as organ transplants and blood transfusions, so maybe eventually genetic engineering will be the same.
When I decide to start a family, genetic engineering may be commonplace. I don’t think it is a question of whether your parents will love you or not, as much as them just trying to give you a better chance in life. Most parents love their children in spite of their flaws. No one is perfect, but genetic engineering just gives us increased chances of health and possibly success.
Designing a baby genetically to make it superior physically and mentally is not right. Trying to make the perfect baby would make a genetic upper class considering it would be very expensive. By making the perfect baby through genetics, we would be comparable to Hitler when he put all those inmates of the concentration camps through horrible tests in an attempt to create the perfect humans. He was trying to make an army of perfect soldiers, and if we started to make babies to be perfect by genetically enhancing them then we would be doing what Hitler wanted to do a long time ago. Although this is a little extreme considering we are not planning on taking over the world, it would still cause problems in our society. Considering that we already have an upper class separated by money, a genetic upper class would be far worse. Since genetically altering a child will be awfully expensive, it would be the wealthy that will have these babies, and if every rich persons baby was smart and beautiful then it could cause some serious havoc. The major difference between a genetic upper class and a financial upper class is that those who do not have the wealth have an opportunity to obtain it later, but you cannot alter your genetics later in your life so there will be no chance of the lower class becoming upper class. Society would almost turn into a food chain where there would be humans, then one level up genetically superior humans. Although there are the negatives of genetically altering a baby, there are also steep positives. By genetically altering a child we could eradicate a disease that could be potentially life threatening later on. We could also rule out mental retardation and other disabilities. Although these positives outweigh the negatives, it is the possibility that babies being genetically altered for health reasons, could turn into babies being genetically altered for self-interest. Another example of a medical advancement that started out for health and turned into self-interest is, plastic surgery or reconstructive surgery. During the time of the World Wars, plastic surgery was in high demand and was strictly for reconstructing the face after the soldiers suffered brutal head injuries. As time went on and more advancement was made in plastic surgery, the more it became self-interest. Instead of using plastic surgery to fix a burn wound or a bad face injury, it was used as a self-improving tool. People would get stuff done to their face and body even if there was no medical problem with it. Much like the genetic altering, plastic surgery is expensive and can only be afforded by the wealthy so they are fairly similar. (http://www.plasticsurgery.org/About_ASPS/History_of_Plastic_Surgery.html). Although these two things are similar, they are also very different. In plastic surgery, the under class can get wealthy through hard work and afford it, but a genetic under class can never get wealthy and genetically alter themselves, but they could alter their kids but only worsening the problem in the long run. We can also argue that when genetically altering a child, we are messing with religion. Since God makes all humans and the genetics that they naturally have is what God intended then are we not acting as God. By genetically altering a child we are altering God’s natural plan, and that could raise some serous controversy in the religious world. Just like organ transplants in modern science, we alter nature’s natural course. By giving a dying victim an organ from someone else we are acting as God and deciding who lives and dies. In the big picture we are saving a life but if we want to get into the religious aspect of it then we are going against God’s plan. A transplant surgery is a long process too so its not like we are just acting suddenly to save someone, in most cases it is premeditated and the patient is put on a waiting list and then they have a lot to do. (http://surgery.about.com/od/proceduresaz/a/OrganTransplant.htm). This can be comparable to genetically altering a child in order to eradicate a health issue. We are again acting as god and messing with what God intended for us. Although the positives in designing a baby can save a life, it can cause a lot of controversy of both a societal standpoint and a religious standpoint. We should be careful before implementing a procedure such as genetic altering to the public because we do not want to start a new set of social classes.
In Biotech class, we recently watched two videos: one about Eugenics and one about Designer Babies. These two videos were about ethical decisions when it comes to new medicine, and although they took place in different times and locations, they’re both very closely related topics. The two correlate in that they both deal with scientific advancement and ethical questions. While many argue that creating genetically modified embryos would go against God’s will, wouldn’t the same argument apply to saving a person from a stroke or a heart attack? The ethical question should not be about whether or not it interfere’s with the natural scheme of things, because every scientific breakthrough changes the way things would have happened naturally. The question instead should be what is the best way to utilize this new technology, and what usage would be completely wrong.
By expanding on this technology, children will become another product to be purchased, and that would create a whole new aspect of society. I don’t think that it’s being close-minded to not want this technology for your children, because a lot of people have less faith in this technology than they do in the natural process of things that’s been around since the beginning of the human race.
Eugenics is an example of new science gone wrong: people thought that the way to eradicate disease from the human race is to completely marginalize those with the slightest traces of below “average” intelligence, and this caused huge societal issues and emotional issues for those individuals. New cautions must be taken against technologies that leave room for the same mistakes, and when going forward with this new technology, past mistakes must always be remembered.
David King (http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/05/the-first-genet/) said that “this is the first step on the road that will lead to the nightmare of designer babies and a new eugenics. The HFEA is right to say that the creation and legalisation of GM embryos raises ‘large ethical and public interest issues’ but neglects to mention that these have not been debated at all.” Like King, I think that the issue needs to be debated, not for the purpose of stopping the technology to reaching its potential, but for those who know the negative effects of eugenics. We must consider the full impact of every decision we make, and while there is much promise to genetic enhancement, there is also a lot of room for harm.
This film was definitely interesting, and it highlighted one of the world’s most controversial topics in the science field. Personally I do not support the practice of genetically altering or enhancing to change one’s child. Although I found it interesting that I didn’t have as much of a problem with genetic alteration, if it was for a good cause. If a disorder or mutation occurs while an embryo develops, it could lead to serious complications during birth as well as the rest of their future. To be able to use this tremendous advancement in science to help save lives is huge. On the other hand, caution should be used in the availability of these services. Research is still underway, and any findings are still new and experimental. I think that it is too early at this point in time to risk using such potentially hazardous practices. The part of the film I had the biggest problem with was the parents who were using the gene enhancements or alterations to make their kids smarter, more athletic, or to determine the gender of the baby. I think that people should love and be grateful for however their child is created, whether they are boy or girl. Intelligence and athleticism can be developed throughout a life, although some skills people are born with. But I think the sense of choosing for example, how smart you baby is, would just raise your hopes for having a genius in your family. If that child doesn’t perform as highly as the parents thought, wouldn’t they be disappointed? But is that even humane to expect so much out of a child because you paid for it? I think it should be a natural process. You get what you get, and you should be happy as long as your baby is alive and well. The article I chose to read, (http://www.svsu.edu/clubs/vanguard/stories/2094), tied into the debate of ethics and morals. It talks about a speaker that is presenting the topic of “babies-by-design” to people who were previously unaware, speaking to both the pros and cons of the subject. It is surprising to see that not many people had a strong opinion. Although it is a scientific issue, and knowledge is needed on the subject to make and opinion, I believe that your own morality should factor into your response. My English class is currently reading A Brave New World, which takes place in a civilization where babies are created in essentially a giant laboratory. Natural births are found to be unethical, and children are not only created scientifically, but are also genetically altered to fit into certain castes. I think that this scientific system of creation is a far cry from where technology is know, but it is moving in that direction. I think that we should limit the advancement of this process, and not fall into the traps of the Brave New World civilization and lifestyle.
I think it is just amazing what our science can do these days. Sometimes I think it is good to design babies but most of the time I think it is a bad Idea. http://education.theage.com.au/pagedetail.asp?intpageid=233&strsection=&intsectionid=0….. Gives the idea that two deaf parents want to design the baby to be deaf and I think that does not seem right. I just think that if I was born deaf and found out that my parents did that to me I would be extremely upset. I think that it might be ok to make sure the baby is not born with an incurable disease but sometimes I even think that is wrong because maybe God wants that baby to be born with that disease so the baby can make some kind of difference in someone’s life. I think that everything happens for a reason and I think that it is odd that people are messing with God’s greatist gift, life. I am still not completely sure if I dissagree with every form of desinging babys but I do dissagree with designing a person to be extra pretty or extra smart or extra athletic. I kind of look down at the parents in the movie who designed their boy to be super smart. I think that part of being a parent is making this new baby the person that it can be to his or her full potential. It just does not make sence to me why someone would want to design their baby. I am excited to see what God gives me one day. I do not think that designing babys will turn into the way it is in brave new world, babies in a factory, because I think that too many people are against designer babies.
I believe the whole “designer babies” concept shows how rapidly science is being developed. I personally do not believe that parents should be able to create their baby and give them what ever features they want them to have. I feel like they are making it like a computer game such as the SIMS where you can make your baby however you want it to be. I feel like that takes away from God’s creation. He is no longer the creater when these “designer babies” are born. I believe that the “designer babies” can be useful in some cases such as preventing children from having horrible diseases, but to be able to choose a child’s personality is a little extreme. This arcticle on http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1286539/against_designer_babies_pg2_pg2.html?cat=9 makes a good point. It says that if everyone got to choose their childs personality it would eliminate all the unique personalities and make a “standard” personality. I also believe that even changing a child’s illness is also going against fate mostly because there are so many people who have mad a huge impact on the world because of their ability to be strong even when faced with a deadly disease. If everyone was born healthy, there would not be those selected individuals to impact the world. I just believe that it is not human’s job to control the genetics of an unborn child. I believe it is going against God and giving a child genetic features that it may not even want. “Designer babies” is just another step for science and an issue that is going to become very contraversial if it becomes widly known and used.
The designer babies movie that we watched in class was really an eye opener into the advances of modern medicine and technology. I think that overall this is a good idea, but like every good thing it can be abused. Being able to manipulate, manufacture, and replace DNA is an amazing ability to have to help weed out genetic defects, such as disease like Tay-Sachs and sickle-cell anemia. However it is once people use this technology for trivial things such as making it so that your baby has blue eyes, is 6′6″, and is a genius. It is once we give the option for humans to improve upon their child instead of trying to give them a better quality of life. Even though this technology is cutting-edge and has not yet evolved to include the manipulation of the intelligence gene or the height gene, people have tried and succeeded to change the sex of their child. It is actually one of the most common reasons behind providing a pre-implantation genetic diagnosis or a PGD, according to Dissent Magazine(http://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/?article=861),”42 % of 137 IVF-PGD clinics allowed parents to select for gender.” Now this may seem pretty ridiculous to us, but, like the lady in the video who had all boys and wanted a girl, some people just want their own little girl to dote on or their own boy to carry on the family name. I think that this is something that will become much more common in the future as mankind tries to “breed” out genetic disorders and better the human race through self-guided evolution.
I definitely agree with what most of the people have already said. The entire concept of designing babies is pretty scary. I think that there are two different levels of it though; one which I’m okay with, the other, not so much. The first part of designing babies that I feel is acceptable has to do with health. Not saying, “design my baby to be healthy”, but along the lines of medicine. I feel like, if you were a parent, and you found out that your unborn baby has an extremely high susceptibility for having serious conditions such as leukemia, hemophilia, or severe medical conditions as such. I feel that if you were a parent, and you found out that your child will have one of these diseases, and there was a cure, to know for sure that your baby would survive, that you would take it. I mean obviously I’m not for certain unless I was put in that situation. I just feel like knowing that there is a way to help cure your baby, it would be a smart thing to do. However, the other side of designing babies, I am completely against, physically designing them. I think that being able to design the hair color, eye color, whether or not they are tall, short, big, small, smarty, athletic, etc, the list goes on and on. And the fact that the list goes on and on is frightening. Designing humans is just wrong. It God’s work and we need to stay out of the entire process of it. I know I may sound a little hypocritical, but I feel like there is a fine line between saving humans, and designing humans; a line which we need to recognize. The idea of creating the exact type of baby we want is really creepy. As they said in the movie, I think there is a very important fact; only wealthy people will be able to afford this. Of course, they will pick the nobel peace prize winners, the celebrities, the athletes, etc. These babies will then genetically have an advantage over the others. I feel like this will create a social system of genetically enhanced people over the non genetically enhanced.
This is kind of a step in another direction, but last year, I took Genocide and the Holocaust. One topic that came up was ethnic cleansing. (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/194242/ethnic-cleansing) I thought that this was really interesting in respect to Nazi Germany, the Armenian massacres, and especially in Cambodia. I feel as if, even if not a hundred percent relation, that in a sense, there might be a part of ethnic cleansing in designing babies. If everyone wants the brightest, best babies, we’re wiping out all the genes of everything else. I’m not sure what everyone else think about this, but personally, I feel like designing every aspect of our baby would become an obsession with people trying to have the perfect child, which would in a way, lead to an ethnic cleansing.
Genetically engineering you baby? First off, having a child should be an adventure, but it shouldn’t be all science with high expectations. If people were to have the decisions of the height, sex, eye color, intelligence, longevity, and other personal traits, what would make you you? What has the world come to when parents create their perfect kid? What is happening to the days where a couple’s perfect child is made in the image and likeness of…them? Why give your child a perfect singing voice with perfect pitch or the ability to jump higher so that can excel in a certain sport? What’s the point? What if the child ends up not being interested in those specific areas of interest? Or what about the couples who will create a child who is “made” to be thin or a have a certain body type? Does that make other body types that aren’t requested shunned from society? What if something didn’t go as planned, would the parents be resentful of their child? Unhappy with the gift of life? Genetic engineering of a child would create much controversy, maybe heartbreak, and, I dare say, discrimination. However, when it comes to curing or eradicating illnesses, this could be a huge step for mankind. The article from http://www.netlink.de/gen/Zeitung/2000/000305a.html contemplates the ethics of GMOs. But I still don’t see choosing your child as anything equivalent to ethical. Genetic engineering would take away all the excitement of wondering how you make a baby. What will my baby look like? What will he be like? How will he live his life? The world is composed out of countless varieties of people, and it all because of the mixing and making of people. Unathleticism happens, and so does sickness. Fat is not bad, and being tone deaf doesn’t make you impaired. It makes the child you have who they are…and if a person imposes or “enhances” their child to fit their thoughts of what “perfect” is, how selfish is that? Nature happens, how about that.
My initial reaction to the designer babies and the enhancement of humans through genetic engineering was that it was selfish. It was selfish of the parents to be taking control of their kids lives and not allowing their kids to lead and create their own path in life. The children were no longer themselves but rather, their parents depiction of themselves if that makes any sense. I did not think it was right for the parent to be given that power and then for them to take that individuality and freedom away from their kids.
But as we discussed it in class i realized that these acts could also be seen as selfless. Its just the parents wanting to better the lives of their children much like my parents want to better the my life. Whether thats through where i live or where i go to school. Every decision my parents make are acts of trying to better my life and are in no way selfish.
However, i do not feel this is a significant reason to alter genes and mess with society and humans. These procedures are very costly so the rich will only be able to afford them and in turn will get the leg up in society. The rich will get richer and the gap will only widen between the societal classes creating more struggle, poverty, strife, ect. As thought about this point i realized that in class alot of us students did not agree with genetic engineering and all of us being in good financial terms, being equipped with more than average intelligence and all of us being in an enviroment where we are safe and can grow. This is not the case for everyone though. If genetic engineering were offered at third world countries or to poor families that desperately wanted their children to have a better life it would be accepted without a doubt. This response made me think, are we (the well off and well equipped group in society) disagreeing with genetic engineering because we want to remain at the top of the totem pole and know that we will no longer be “special” if the playing field is evened out? I can not answer this question for everyone but it made me realize that genetic engineering would not be essential in my life but would be to others.
As i researched for websites for this reaction i came across a very good point proposed on the following website, http://www.thehumanfuture.org/commentaries/general/general_commentary_isasi01.html which talked about how genetic engineering could be considered a form of performance enhancement in athletes much like steriods are today. Being an athlete and an avid baseball fan i have seen and heard my fair share of steriod drama and come to the conclusion that it should not be a part of athletics. Hard work, determination, and god given talent should be the determining factors not some shot injected or some pill popped before a game. So if genetic engineering did become advanced enough to alter a humans body and athletic ability i feel it would cross into the steriods, sports enhancement realm and would continue the corruption of athletics in todays society.
I think that this idea of having “designer babies” is not really that big of a deal. If someone wants their child to have a specific gene, who cares. Will it affect you? Probaly not. If I had kids, I would never use genetic engineering. But I have nothing against someone who would want this. I would say that I would not draw a line on these designer babies because it’s not my choice how someone wants their kid to look or act. I really dont see why people get so bitter to people who do this. I hear things like thats just like playing God or they just want a perfect child. If these parents want something, just let them do it, they are the ones spending all the money for a gene. All the people that don’t agree with this practice in our class will never meet these people in the movie. However, I do agree with the people who choose to do this because of the medical reasons. If I was in the position of some of these parents whose children had serious diseases and it could affect their lives, I probaly would support altering their genes. Other than that I wouldn’t use genetic engineering, but I don’t look down on the people whoc chose to.
The idea of “making your own baby” is completely absurd. People are naturally egotistical. Society offers such advanced technology in which people can determine almost every aspect of their own offspring, possibly their own offspring’s future. The whole idea of genetically engineering is a scary thought. There will be a misconception with this process. People might think that they will be helping the human race, but they will actually be destroying it. The world will essentially become “Brave New World” if genetic engineering became a consistent process.
i think the idea of “designer babies” is wrong. I feel everything happens for a reason in life. i dont feel it is right for people to have the choice of having a baby girl or boy because maybe that is not what God had in store for them. for example the women in the movie…maybe, she wasnt meant to have a girl. She wanted a girl so badly that when she found out she was having a boy she considered abortion. That is wrong! the concept of “making your baby” goes against everything we have ever been taught. i think the whole idea of designer babies is selfish of the parensts. we should not be able to choose the characteristics of our children. with that being said, parents should be happy with a healthy child. They shouldn’t want to change there child in any way. The website http://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/?article=861 supports my opinion in which this issure is immoral and wrong and is teaching younger generations that it’s okay to mess with ethics. parents should love the child they are given unconditionally.
Science continues to amaze the world in its advancements, but I fear that we push the envelope too far on certain issues. I believe there are issues with tampering with the process of creation. I understand the benefits of being able to identify and fix a disease. This is amazing science and can be used for good. However, picking certain traits and gender for a baby worries me. Not only does this create signifcant advantages to those who can pay for it, but it can strain the relationship between parent and child. In the world today, there already exists a large gap between rich and poor and this would clearly further this trend. Scarier in my opinion is the effect it can put on parents when the process does not meet their standards. The article http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/08/08/designing_your_own_baby/ talks of how many parents become disappointed when they discover that the gender they had picked did not work out. This can lead to more abortions or lack of love for the child. Parents should be happy with a healthy child and learn to love their children. When tampering is done, it is not nearly as special process because the baby does not come from just the parents. There is an addition that can not be connected to the parents. Lastly, there are religious issues with the interference with the process. I think we should slow the process down because we may move too fast and not think of what we are actually doing.
I feel that the line of designer babies has a few positive benefits but in the long wrong has many moral and ethical issues. I believe that parents should have the ability to see if their kids have congenital illnesses or birth defects and should be able to choose whether they think it is a good life for their future child or not. I do not believe that the human race should be able to pick and manipulate the traits of the future children in order to get them ahead in life. I feel that the science would in a way produce the best possible offspring, but it would at the cost of completely ending the natural evolution of the human race and introducing a new form of prejudice. We most take time and think about the repercussions of are actions. “The prospect of designer babies, like many of the ethical conundrums posed by the genetic revolution, is confronting the world so rapidly that doctors, ethicists, religious leaders and politicians are just starting to grapple with the implications–and trying to decide how they feel about it all.” http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,989987,00.html. This is a new discovery and scientists must take more time to understand the repercussions of their actions before opening this practice to the general public. The effect of designer babies will not be seen until that generation has grown up. If we just allow everyone to have access to this procedure we have no idea what the possible outcome could be. Scientists need to figure out a way to do tests, limit the amount of these procedures being done, and have data to show the public of the positives of designer babies before it should open to the public. Selecting genes is an issue that is above God and creation because it is messing with the course of nature. It is going against the very basic laws of nature because you are presented with the ability to manipulate the eye color, height, body type, gender, and intelligence of your child. We are in fact making these human beings in a class above the naturally conceived in the image of the “perfect human being”. The amount of pressure this individual would be under to achieve would be immense due to the fact that he or shes was designed to achieve or be successful. We have to consider the psychological ramifications of this decision along with the ethical and moral dilemmas as well.
The scary fact that humans could be designing everything about their babies in twenty years is frightening to think about. The fact that doctors will give humans, those who have the money to do so, the right to chose how they want their baby to look, act, and how athletic they are makes me question science. While I believe that some of the advantages of genetic engineering are fantastic, I also believe that some of the other things that it brings cross the line. For the wealthy to be able to play God, so to speak, and go beyond giving their children the advantage of having wealth and living in a positive environment is not acceptable. Their children will already have every advantage and to further separate humans from the rest of their peers, by making them perfectionists in all aspects of life is atrocious. The article on, http://www.bionetonline.org/English/content/db_cont1.htm, agrees with my opinions on the possible disastrous outcomes of designer babies. Eventually, I believe having a child who is so genetically engineered would be like having a robot. The parents would pick every desirable trait they would want in their child, which would alienate the child from them. The genetically engineered would behave, look, and perform so differently from their parents that no connection could really be made, as there usually are between children and parents. If such, “robots”, were created there would be a huge separation from them and their peers; the genetically engineered children would be smarter, stronger, better looking, and better athletes. The difference between these “robot children” and their supposed human peers could be as different as that of humans and apes.
Despite the many negatives that could eventually be outcomes of genetic engineering, there are some big positives to genetic engineering. The largest of those is the ability to screen, and avoid genetically transferred diseases that can be found in the chromosomes. Such diseases can be screened for and if the scientists can get rid of the gene sequence that would cause an offspring to carry such a genetically transferred disease. This “bad” genetic sequence would then be replaced with a healthy gene sequence that was not a carrier of the disease. Diseases such as Sickle cell disease, Hemophilia, Down syndrome, Turner Syndrome, and Celiac disease could all be avoided with such screening of genetic information.
personally, i think that there is something wrong with going against nature and manufacturing the ‘perfect baby.’ if a person is selected to become a musical genius, i think it is less of an achievement than the natural genius who didn’t need the alteration in his/her genes. however, when using to prevent diseases that are genetic and connot be avoided otherwise, i think that the use of the technology would be extremely helpful in promoting the sustained existence of the individual. but, while this may seem rather radical, i don’t think that we need all that many more people in the world. the world is already overpopulated and polluted enough without the added millions who would be surviving longer without these diseases. but then again, i say that without ever really knowing that many people who have suffered from the inflictions.
in the designer babies video, it really bothered me that the mom was extremely disapointed in recieving another boy when she really desired a girl. what do you tell that child as he’s growing up? “i really wanted a girl, and even paid for genetic engineering, but got you. sucks.” no i don’t think that that is okay. i don’t think it should be okay for the baby to be chosen to be beautiful, or have supernatural abilities or to simply change its gender. that is interfereing with the natural order of events, and i don’t think we have a right to do that. or to make a profit out of it either.
i have read BRAVE NEW WORLD and i think that that is what will happen if technology in this form gets deeloped even further- humans will no longer be born…they will be manufactured as i said above. i wouldn’t go as far to say in a factory as in BRAVE NEW WORLD but they would take out all of the mutations that would be seen as negative, which would probably decrease the amount of art and anything that requires creativety and sadness that comes from certain negative traits (vincent van gogh as an example).
however, while i think that genetic engineering in humans is a negative development, i do think that sometimes the engineering concerning other materials is highly beneficial. for example, there is an article in the new york times (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/25/science/25genome.html?_r=1) where there was a successful run of a synthetic form of life- bacteria, which will help with biofuels as well as to slow or stop pathogens from inflicting the human race. this would be highly beneficial in furthering the survival of the earth because if the environmentalists are correct, the earth will run out of resources in the year 2050 which hopefully with these scientific developments will be extended.
Designing babies seems to be a very debatable issue. In the world we live in today, advantages are given to everyone. This type of advantage is one that could be great or horrible. The concept of making our next generation better off is something this does. In a way, by making humans better and creating them without as many flaws will better society. With better genes comes better ideas and behaviors. There is a worry that in the long run, things might not be better off. There are few that will be able to get such a genetic advantage because of cost. This would divide our world even more than it already is. People that are not able to make their children better off will slip into a terrible part of society. Terrible events might stem from genetic engineering of our offspring (http://www.greens.org/s-r/20/20-01.html). In reality it should come down to the choice of the individuals.
After my class watched “Designer Babies”, we had a class discussion in which I found myself slightly uncomfortable. While it seemed that most people had either strong opinions against genetic engineering in unborn babies or at least opinions leaning toward that extreme, I am a little hesitant to say that I disagree with most of them.
First of all, some people brought up the point that it is selfish. While this is an arguable point, I think that it is actually in the interest of the child to give it the best and most opportunities. Of course, I have no idea now what it would be like to be a parent, but I do know that I would without a doubt want the best of everything that I could give my child. This is not to say that I would change the eye color or sex of my child, but if I could guarantee an easier life for my child by making him/her, say, smarter, I think that I might make that decision in the interest of the unborn child. This website (http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Human_genetic_engineering) discusses future possibilities in genetic engineering, including intelligence and mental aptitude. You might be thinking that this is kind of creepy, and I can see how it could potentially be, that is, if it gets out of control. I am merely expressing my personal opinion of what I might do if given the opportunity.
I think that the only other acceptable form of genetic engineering is to create a healthy baby who might have otherwise been born with a disease of illness. This goes along with the idea that parents onloy want the best for their children. I think that we can all agree that, if we had a choice and we knew that our children would be born with a terrible disease, we would do everything in our power to prevent this from happening. And now that we have that power, will you put it to use?
After watching the video and seeing the thoughts and actions of these parents, really did change my way of thinking about designer babies. I think that, like one family did, if the parents decide to make the baby they want so that there is not chance of the baby to get a certain disease, that would be okay. However, some people take this action way to far. Parents should not want to pick and choose what they want their children to look like. Every person is made a unique way and for a parent to choose what their child will look like, almost is a way of the parent saying that they will only accept their child if it looks or acts a certain way. One woman wanted a daughter so badly she designed her own daughter, they baby can out as a son though. She almost came across as having a disappointment with her son because of his gender. http://www.actionbioscience.org/biotech/agar.html This website states that there are still some issues with designing your own baby. If your child was supposed to have a certain trait i believe that there is no way around that child having that certain trait. After all, before we could design our own babies people still came out into the world perfectly fine. I believe that a parent should have no say in what their child will look like, but should proudly accept their child for who they are, no matter what.
The genetic engineering of humans is a complicated and controversial topic. There are both health and cosmetic aspects and the question is how to determine boundaries of when it’s gone to far. There’s nothing wrong with wanting your child to have blue eyes, but is it going too far to reject embryos that won’t have blue eyes? I think so. In the article “Designer Babies: A Right to Choose?” (http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/03/designerdebate/) John Hughes suggests that the right of a mother to choose the baby’s hair color is in the same category as her right to choose if she should have an abortion. I think this is a bit extreme. Abortion and genetic engineering choices are not in the same category. The only connection I can see between abortion and genetic engineering is that a person is essentially killing the babies that won’t become what they want. I disagree with cosmetic choices in genetic engineering. I think it’s going too far. Not to mention it’s inconsistent. What a parent wants a child to look like is based on their idea of what is attractive. Fashion is always changing. One season pale, blond hair, and blue eyes could be the epitome of beauty and the next season everyone wants a tan and darkly colored eyes and hair. There’s no way to tell if the characteristics that parents choose for their children are the ones that will benefit the child the most. Not to mention if the child does not turn out
I do think genetic engineering has an important use when it comes to health and disease issues. I think that if the child could have a disease or health issue that has a known connection to genetics that it is acceptable to screen embryos to prevent having a child with that health problem. . In the case of the couple that wanted a girl so they wouldn’t have a child who would suffer from hemophilia it is acceptable. I think we must be very careful with what we allow people to choose about their babies. I don’t see any serious ethical issues with choosing gender. However, I think that serious regulations are needed in allowing this. The parents should have to undergo interviews, meet with counselors and certain requirements, such as no gender selection for the first child except in the case of health problems, are needed. I think genetic engineering could be helpful in some cases but the process needs to be strictly regulated.
I think that the “designer babies” video was pretty interesting and shed some light on what was being done, the process, the availability, and provided insight from scientists who had taken part in developing the embryos and genetically changing them. After we watched the movie, I learned a lot through the class discussion, everyone’s opinions varied from agreeing with and disagreeing with having a genetically modified baby if you will. It was interesting to hear the different insight because on one hand you should always want best for your child as a parent but then on the other hand changing who your child should be and creating the perfect child based one what the parents think the child should be like is another. I do not believe that many parents who decide to take part in the changing their embryos do not do it for vanity reasons, they do it so because there is a high risk of the child being a carrier or having a serious condition that would make it difficult to live with. I think that changing the embryo’s DNA is wrong even if it is to help the baby because the religious aspect comes into play for me which affects my opinion making it hard to be neutral and see both sides of the situation that has developed from having test tube babies.
Although this seems like a totally cliche answer, I think that the issue of genetically altering your child’s DNA is an entirely situation-based issue. From a conservative standpoint, I can understand why this issue is very controversial. Religiously speaking, life is miracle enough. You could argue that you should be satisfied to simply have a baby, regardless of the its sex, intelligence, or athletic ability. In fact, I would bet many infertile couples would say that they would be totally happy with a mentally handicapped baby, whereas many couples would want to modify their baby to elimate this possibility. Again, speaking from a religious context, one could argue that God gave you the baby you were destined to have, and all parents should be so very thankful to be blessed with a child. But, there is always the issue of “what if?”. Branching away from traditional conservative thought, it is not radical to say that a baby should be screened for diseases, and if these disorders are present, they should be fixed. One could make the case that the Constitution guarantees this unborn child to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”. I think most would argue that a healthy baby has a better chance to exercise this right than one with a disorder such as Down’s Syndrome, or even more devastating Spina Bifida. Should we not do what we can to save a life? And, if this one gene were corrected, would the baby be an entirely person? Finally, the is the issue of availability. As Katha Pollitt describes in her article (http://www.thenation.com/doc/20010723/pollitt) there is the issue that only the elite would be able to afford this treatment, and the gap between those with power and desirable traits and those without would grow vast. And, what would stop these elite from adding other genes, such as the gene(s) that relates most to jumping ability, VO2 max, intelligence, looks, or any other desirable trait? We could very well see an alpha plus/delta minus society, such as the one seen in “Brave New World”.
When forming my opinion, I try to keep all the arguments above in my head. As Peter L stated above, I would have no problem with those who decided to use this treatment and create their own designer baby. Who knows? Perhaps their lives have been particulary scarred by a genetic disorder? If they wish to take advantage of this treatment, then it is their choice, and I would not judge them; it would not be my place. Personally, I would not have this treatment done for the religious reasons stated above. I would do my best to love my child as he/she is. But, who knows how my opinion might change in a few years.
I think that genetically modifying a baby so that it lacks a certain gene for a disease (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/11/AR2008041103330.html) so that it can potentially live a better life is a positive step for society. In this example, a couple genetically modifies their child so that it doesn’t end up with the gene for breast cancer. By doing this, this child added thirty to fifty years onto her life, which in her case is a positive thing. In order to truly understand if it is moral or just to genetically modify a baby just because a parent wants their child to be superior in certain aspects, we need to ask a genetically modified baby. Since this technology is so new and there isn’t a genetically modified person in the position to answer this question, we will just have to wait and see how some of these children end up in life. In the film on designer babies, I thought the couple who had their little boy genetically modified due to “heart problems” in the family was using eugenics as a scapegoat for their own issues. Both of the parents were at least 100 pounds overweight, which almost always leads to “heart problems”. If these people would exercise and eat correctly and were healthy, then there wouldn’t be enough of a risk to have to use eugenics and instead of genetically modifying their child, they could simply teach him how to live a healthy life.
This movie was very interesting as well as thought provoking. I did not know that people were actually starting to try this genetic engineering of babies. I knew that scientists were researching and experimenting, but I did not know that it was open to the public yet. I personally feel that this “designer babies” experimenting is very unethical and wrong. I believe that reproduction is a gift, and it is not something that should be altered to fit the parents desires. Babies are born with mental illness’, diseases, and deformities. This is a part of life. If a child is born with an illness’ one must still be grateful, and love the child. I do not think that people should be able to choose what they want in a child. They should accept whatever is given to them. It really frustrated me when the mother in the video refused to hold her son, because it was not a girl. The child is not going to have to live his life knowing that his parents did not want him, but rather a girl. This is completely irrational and unfair to the child. This article http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/00000006DD57.htm) makes a good point when it says that these genetically engineered children are being treated as a “commodity” rather than a normal child. Human characteristics are not something to be chosen, they are something one is blessed with. I still need to research more about the positive aspect of “designer babies”, but until then I think it is simply inhumane.
The idea of “designer babies” may sound farfetched but can one blame a parent for wanting their baby to be healthy? I personally believe in the statement that everything happens for a reason therefore parents get the children they are supposed to get no matter how healthy or unhealthy they may be. Yet I can’t help think that when I’m a parent, how will my life change if my child had a disability? If there was a way I could prevent that would I? I volunteer teaching horse riding lessons at a therapeutic riding center so every week I see kids who suffer from a variety of disabilities and the interactions they have with their family. This also makes me think how I personally would deal with a situation like that. Not only does a disability affect a family emotionally but also financially. I personally at this time feel I would not want to take part in a test to figure out if my baby was healthy simply because I know whatever is supposed to happen, will happen. Even so there is no guarantee a certain disease is curable at such an early stage.
As far as wanting to inject a baby with certain genes to make it more talented, athletic etc. is taking the science too far. As mentioned in an article on LifeNews.com, the fact that we can do something doesn’t mean we should do it. The bigger issue is that were deciding to make children in our own image instead of letting nature take its course (http://www.lifenews.com/bio2978.html). I cannot see how this would be healthy for a baby to undergo this if a certain baby was made to be a certain way but was forced to become another. Granted parents have a right to do what they want with their children but how do they know that that child wouldn’t have turn into something greater than what they made it? There are too many questions surrounding this practice to make it okay to put to action.
I think that the thought of ‘designer babies’ is way out of line. If it were meant for us to be able to design our own kids I believe this would have started along time ago. Yes, its nice to think that you can make the perfect child that could be very successful later in life, but is that right? I think that this will only make the world a more seperated place for the rich and the poor. This operation cost so much money that the poor can not even think of such a thing but the rich can continue to make well off children. I also believe that this takes away apart of life because if you are designed to become a seven foot male basketball player than your not really allowing your child to make there own decisions in life. Being born and already having your career picked out is unfair for that child. ON this website http://www.essentialbaby.com.au/parenting/conception/you-choose-your-babys-name-why-not-choose-their-face-20090309-8spw.html they made good points on that it may be okay to try and fix babies from disease but when it comes to looks that should not be permitted. Choosing your childs appearance is over the top and is ridiculous. Its sad that adults actually think about doing so. That is taking away God’s creation and making it your own. People need to accept what they have and not always want more just because they have the money to do so, thats pathetic. Trust God’s work and everything will be fine.
I do not agree with genetic engineering the way that your future baby will come out. When someone else tries to decide the fate of someone else’s genetics its trying to do something that God does. God creates us all the way he wants us to be so if a baby is born with a disease or deformation then that is in the hands of God. I do not think that we should put the “creation” of a new life into the hands of man, unless it is done the natural way. The only reason that i think would be okay for someone to alter the birth of a soon to be child is so that a parent is able to give birth or have children. If a child is born with a condition doctors can do all that they can to try to help the baby. In the article form http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/arguments-for-and-against-the-designer-baby-541283.html it says that doing such things like selecting eye color or height is ‘playing God’.
The first time I ever heard of genetic engineering was in the 6th grade when scientists cloned a sheep whose offspring was named Dolly. As a strong Catholic and a child of God, I am obligated to say that this action of cloning is absurd. When did humans ever have permission to create living things without His consent? Now we are talking about cloning babies! This, I believe, is where scientists need to draw the line. I understand that humans have created much technological advancement for curing diseases and other things that may help one’s life advance. However, this is after the person has already been conceived. I am one to believe that the life of a human begins once the male sperm meets the female egg. After conception, that person is now lying in the hands of the human race. It is at this point when we are responsible for another human; should he be in any trouble. A good example of this would be the one Mrs. Annee gave to the class. She said something like, “So if someone were to have a heart attack at this very moment, wouldn’t you call and ambulance or retrieve a defibrillator to save him from dying? And wouldn’t that be, at some point, interfering with the course of natural events?” My answers to those are “yes” and” no”. God has given man the power to grow and prosper as a whole. This is, in fact, one of His desires we are obligated to fulfill during our lifetime on Earth. After birth, it is perfectly alright to assist someone with a problem if he or she needs or wants it. Isn’t that what God wants of us; to help each other? Francisco Ayala, professor of biological sciences and of philosophy at the University of California answers this pondering question, “How can you reconcile the conflict between evolution (science) and religion?” He answers, “A Scientific view of the world is hopelessly incomplete. Science seeks material explanations for material processes, but it has nothing definitive to say about realities beyond its scope. Once science has had its say, there remain questions of value, purpose, and meaning that are forever beyond science’s domain, but belong in the realm of philosophical reflection and religious experience. (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/religion/faith/statement_01.html) I guess the big question is, with all of our world’s technology and with all of its experience including its past success and failures, is it worth taking the risk to design a baby which will eventually lead to all designed human beings on Earth? Would this baby have something against its parents if he or she didn’t appreciate who they were or found out they could have been someone else if they themselves had the power to choose? What if a designed baby was discriminated against because of a trait their parents choose? For instance, let’s say in the future, 99.7% of the world population likes blonde hair and likes to hang out with other people who are blonde. A parent decides to make their child “unique” and orders their doctor to give their baby the trait for brunette hair. Who is to blame when this child has difficulty making friends because of his or her hair color? Although this is a silly circumstance and will most likely never occur, something similar, however, just might. I am currently reading A Brave New World by Aldous Huxley in English. I’m sorry to say that my immediate reaction after reading the first chapter was to burn the book. I constantly shook my head as Huxley described the world he had imagined as he wrote this wretched novel; a world where love, marriage, uniqueness and religion no longer exist. How boring would it be to live in a world where everyone was predestined to work a certain position or live a certain life without choice? The few advantages I see to designing humans would be that the world we live in would be without disease and that war would most likely cease. However, life is all about finding problems and trying to solve them. If it is true that the human race will be “human originated” in the future, what would it be like without love, God and emotion? Just ask yourself this one question, “Who do I turn to if I need help or if I’m in a state of depression?” If any of your answers refer to a loved one, a friend or a spiritual deity, you can kiss them goodbye because they would no longer be. Instead, you can say hello to a special drug Huxley likes to call “Soma.”
After watchign “Designer Babies”, I was not in favor of it at all and my stance now hasn’t changed. If every parent in the world genetically altered their child, then I feel like we would be living in a world such that of the movie “Stepford Wives”. It would be the ideal world not the real world. One of the joys and rewards about parenthood, I would say, is discovering what your child becomes and what your offsrping turns into. If parents would geneitcally engineer their kids to be really intelligent, then there is that unfair expectation for their kid to be perfect in school. What makes the world different is that everyone has their own strengths and weaknessess, and it is how people use their strengths and weaknessess to be who they grown into being. I think that genetic engineering crosses the line from the start. It changes the course of nature which I just don’t like. Even though parents do have certain expectations for their children most parents let their kids become who they naturally want to be, which is why everyone is so unique. Not everyone is a “Franken-Baby” created under the parents selfish idealistic wants. http://www.allaboutpopularissues.org/human-genetic-engineering.htm. This link talks about how genetically engineering takes away individuallity which is one of my main points.
I thought the designer babies movie was extremely weird and unnatural. The idea of designing your baby to be anything you want it to be is really freaky. By designing your baby, you are taking on the role of God. No one should be able to interfere with God’s plans. Along with interupting the natural order of things, designing babies is unfair to other people. It is one thing for someone to get a better education than someone else, but to be genetically made to be smarter or more talented a completely unfair advantage. In an article by Roger Crisp called “Designer Babies and Slippery Slopes,” the author brings up the point that now people are choosing eye and hair color, but soon it will turn into choosing height and intelligence. Being able to choose the intelligence and height of your baby will lead to discrimination against short and unintelligent people. (http://www.practicalethicsnews.com/practicalethics/2009/03/designer-babies-and-slippery-slopes.html ) According to the video we watched, they already have been able to alter the intelligence of embryos. I think it is crazy that people can say, “Well it’s ok to fix it if they have genetic diseases, but changing the gender and intelligence is going too far.” The line between what will help them be healthier and what will just make them be “better” can become a very fine line. It is easier to just say that genetically engineering your baby is wrong, no matter what. The natural way is what is suppossed to happen, whether it is for better or for worse.
I understand the one mother with all boys who wanted to have a girl so badly. I feel like I can’t judge her for that or say that she shouldn’t be doing it. Honestly, whenever it comes time for me to have kids, I know that I will want to have at least one daughter. I do wonder why she didn’t just try adoption or something, but I also understand that some people just like having their own kids. She probably wanted a daughter that could look like her or her husband and could share some part of her genes. I can see gender selection becoming a problem in the future, though, if it becomes more popular. People might favor one gender over the other. Right now, we’re pretty close to being 50% girls and 50% boys, but unbalancing that may cause problems that we can’t even imagine yet. I do like that some of the clinics that offer gender selection have restrictions. For example, parents cannot try for a certain gender if the baby is to be their first child. And also, parents can only have a certain gender to even up whichever gender is lacking in the family.
When it comes to actually “designing” a baby, though, I am not exactly sure where I stand. I think if we could find a way to prevent certain diseases or to even cure things like asthma, then we should use those methods, but I don’t think that we should just abort every baby that has something like asthma. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_genetic_engineering
This website explains how some genetic engineering can be done. Gene therapy may be able to cure afflictions that an embryo may develop in the future. I think that using gene therapy as a cure is better than finding out which embryos have what and then just tossing them aside. Some of the most influential people in the world have suffered from diseases or afflictions. What if we had just tossed them out before they had the chance to be born if we knew that they had something like asthma? The website also suggests that science is nearing the point where we could specifically choose embryos based on the physical or mental traits that the baby might have. Choosing a baby just for its eye color or its intelligence seems a bit extreme. Without the differences that random selection gives us, it seems like everyone would just be the same. Plus, we’re supposed to love children the way they are, and not teach them that we had to change them in order to love them.
The movie, Designer Babies, was a very fun movie to watch. From first glance I assumed that the term “designer baby” meant that parents could pick exactly what they wanted their baby to look like and how tall they wanted them to be. Little did I know the movie was about only scratching the surface of actually giving the parents the power to what they wanted their kid to be or look like. Giving the parents this power brings up the debate of the parents “playing God”. I feel that if the technology is available then as long as it doesn’t cause major health issues it should matter what the parents choose to do. If someone does not agree on the issue they shouldn’t be affected by it. Some people feel that the thought of designing a baby rather then letting nature take its course is so wrong that it is wrong to even research. Most people forget that this research may also lead to eliminate birth defects and various genetic disorders. In the article, Designer Babies- to create or not to create at http://www.bio-medicine.org/medicine-news/Designer-Babies–To-Create-Or-Not-To-Create-21-7459-3/ it brings up a story where a couple attempted to have a child but was not successful because of a genetic disorder so they turned to a doctor to help the matter.
The movie “Designer Babies” was very thought provoking in regards to the future of bioethics. I must admit that when I was first presented with the idea of genetically modeling our offspring, I was immediately turned off. I envisioned a bunch of freaky looking”franken-babies” taking over our society and ruining the entire fate of mankind. However, as I grew to learn more about the topic, I realized the importance of genetics in furthering the evolution of the human race. Ronald M. Greene puts it into context when he says, “new studies show that many chronic ailments, such as heart disease, lung disease, and arthritis, are occurring, on average, ten to twenty-five years later than they used to,” (http://nsrc.sfsu.edu/article/designing_babies). Humankind is evolving healthier and healthier with new discoveries in technology. Genetic engineering would be another step forward in human evolution. What I do struggle with is the idea of changing more trivial traits of a baby such as height or eye color. I feel like the baby would automatically feel like he or she was”made” to be exactly how it’s parents envisioned it to be. While most people’s parents already have an idea of how they envision their kids to be, actually stepping in and genetically altering their kids to meet that status is a problem. All in all, it was a pretty sweet movie and brought up some pretty sweet ideas.
The idea of designing babies is completely unethical. I can understand families trying to prevent genetically inherited diseases from being passed on but once you begin to change other traits, you begin to play the role of God. Designing babies would create a second-class of citizens. According to the article on the website http://www.geneticsandsociety.org/article.php?id=127 in the United States their will always be someone with enough money to genetically enhance their children. This will create cliques of children; the “gen-rich” and the “gen-poor.” There is already a divide between different backgrounds of children because of environmental advantages having to do with wealth. Using gene therapy to give your child genetic advantages are similar but a lot more unethical. Environmental advantages are a result of the hard work of the parents being successful. Parents’ success could also lead to gene therapy but then the role of God gets compromised. Designing babies needs to be stopped before it goes to far, but unfortunately I do not believe the movement will be able to be stopped.
Although I don’t agree with being able to design your child, I understand why some parents might want to be able to give their children better lives. My link (http://www.buzzle.com/articles/genetic-disorders-in-humans.html) lists a lot of common genetic disorders that can be passed from parent to offspring. In the movie, one of the couples used genetic engineering to keep a child from hemophilia to be born. I personally would not have done this, but I understood why these parents did: they just wanted to ensure that their child would not be born automatically with a disadvantage. After being diagnosed with Celiac Disease, a genetic disorder that makes me have a gluten intolerance, I have become more understanding about how genetic disorders can affect one’s life. However, I am glad that my parents did not try to change that about me. I was slightly sickened by the lady in the movie that tried to choose the sex of her child; I believe that that is something that should be left up to God. A child is not something that show be manipulated; nor is something that can be chosen like food or clothing.
When I was younger, my parents, brother and I would go to the Indiana State Museum. I distinctly remember a section of the museum devoted to the future, and one part of it was about genetic engineering. There was a game that we could play, where you sat down at a computer and decided how your life would play out if you lived in ‘the future’. Would you genetically engineer your plants to grow better, even if it meant testing on food that could have been given to third world countries? Would you genetically engineer your livestock so that your cows would have great beef and your pigs excellent pork? And finally, would you genetically engineer the baby you were trying to conceive, in order to make the child perfect? I remember thinking how ridiculous this concept was, yet now that I look back, I realize that babies were actually being genetically altered during that time. according to Bright Hub, in 2001, fifteen genetically altered babies were successfully born. (http://www.brighthub.com/science/genetics/articles/47654.aspx) Although these babies were not altered in order to be smarter or be a boy or girl, it moved genetic engineering in children along and gave other scientists the confidence to search for ways to create ‘the perfect child’ that a parent would want.
The concept of changing genetically altering an unborn child has always been an odd one for me. The first thing I always think of is, how would the child have turned out if it hadn’t been genetically altered? Would the star football player have actually been the valedictorian with stellar grades? Would the incredible mathematician have been the next Ralph Waldo Emerson? It seems so weird to me that parents don’t think of this once their child is born, and it kind of makes me think of what happens if the parents don’t like the outcome of their genetic alteration. Would they regret ever changing the baby; regret every having the baby? I think that genetic alteration brings up the controversial issue of abortion. There are people that abort their fetuses once they discover it will be born with down syndrome, in order to essentially save their baby from a life of misery and pain. With genetic engineering, parents can eliminate the chance that their babies will get certain diseases, and that puts a lot of people at ease. While that is a great possibility with genetic engineering, I also once again wonder, what could this child have accomplished if they did have the gene for a certain cancer. Would they have written a best selling novel about dealing with cancer? No body would ever know.
Genetic alteration is an incredibly advanced science, and I am blown away by the fact that scientists have discovered how to change huge parts of humans. However, I would never subject my unborn child to genetic alteration, because I know that whatever a child is born as will be great.
Human genetic engineering, is something that can change the lives of millions of people in positives and negative ways. To start i feel that there is nothing wrong with being able to treat diseases, or to eliminate the chance of a birth defect. But wanting to change physical characteristics of an unborn child is simply immoral.
The problem that i have with Designer babies is that it seems to be unethical. When wanting to change the way your child looks for your own selfish benefits is morally wrong. There is nothing wrong with wanting to have a daughter, (one of the women in the film discussed) but the fact she said she didn’t want to hold her own child makes me question how far some people are willing to go to get what they want. So how far will some people go have the son/daughter of there dreams.
This article (http://australianforterri.blogspot.com/2007/01/ethics-of-designer-babies.html) discusses what i feel might be a positives aspect of genetic engineering. If a birth defect and be fixed through genetic engineering, i fill it should be fixed. If you are willing to pay for the health of your child before birthday, then it should be acceptable.
Genetic engineering is a complex and multi-faceted issue in more areas than morality. It can be useful, dangerous, desirable, or unethical. But in the end, it falls to the consumer to make those distinctions. The fact is that genetic engineering is now an available and marketable technology. Regardless of opposition by many, genetic engineering is a science that is being utilized at a growing rate. As with anything, however, there is a line that ought not be crossed. The controversy with the subject of genetic engineering surrounds the determination of where that line is. Some say that because genetic engineering, especially that of human embryos, can have unintended consequences and therefore we should avoid it altogether. Sigrid Fry-Revere, writer for the Cato Institute, proposes that in everything we do as humans we are faced with the possibility of unintended consequences but that should not deter us from searching for knowledge and truth. He suggests that when it comes to scientific endeavors such as genetic engineering, we proceed cautiously until we reach truth (http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2006/12/01/genetic-engineering-the-eugenics-of-tomorrow/). I tend to agree with this analysis. We should take advantage of the advances we have made and continue to move forward scientifically. However, we must move forward cautiously. I think that anything more than eliminating genetic defects and conditions in the practice of “designing babies” is trying to move too fast with a science that has not yet been fully explored. If we have not yet determined the limits of this science, then we must be careful in its uses.
This movie was ridiculous. I understand wanting to check your baby’s DNA for disease or mutations that could be altered if caught early in the pregnancy. However, towards the end of the movie when they showed the family who made one of their kids to be more “brainy,” as they stated in the movie, and they made another one of their kids more “musical.” For me, changing your child’s DNA to have genes that are considered “better” is kind of like cheating. Also, if I were to alter my baby’s DNA to that extent, I would feel as though he/she would not be my own because the DNA that he/she originally had would be changed. Also, it will create more of a gap between classes than there already is. The procedure needed in order to change one’s DNA is expensive, so most likeley only the rich will be able to afford it. If certain traits are idealized as being “better” than other, then those kids with those better traits will be considered higher up on the social ladder, while kids who were born naturally could be considered lower on the social ladder. There is a fine line between protecting your child against diseases and altering his/her traits to your liking. Science is advancing rapidly and if trait alterations becomes an option, it will eventually become optionable to everybody. In the article at http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/03/03/earlyshow/health/main4840346.shtml, he mentions the fact that if parents do in fact select traits for the their child to obtain, more pressure is put on that child to succeed given those selected traits. If a parents picks a child to have the smart trait, and he or she does not succeed, then the parents become upset because they invested in something that did end up how they wanted it to. If a person only wants a child if they are smart, athletic, or beautiful than maybe they are not emotionally ready for a child at all.
I can completely understand why the idea of designer babies appeals to prospective parents. I can’t imagine the sense of security they must feel knowing that their child will, in their eyes, be perfect. While I can understand the appeal of the designer baby idea, I personally think it is incredibly wrong. What if, when this designer baby grows up, it somehow finds out that it was a designer baby? Talk about the ultimate slap in the face from your parents. They’re essentially saying “Well, when you were going to be born, you weren’t QUITE perfect enough for us, so we just made you better and more suitable to our liking.” Oh, great…thanks mom and dad. When you think about it, there is really no way for that conversation to go well. The only direction I can see all of this technology going is out of control. Once it becomes more refined and stream-lined and mainstreamed, it will eventually become cheaper and it will have a greater availability. Soon, everyone could become “designed”. No one would be a real person or at least not who they were ever meant to be. It is scary to think about all of the ideas or inventions or thoughts that would never be introduced to the world because everyone has been changed into someone they were not originally supposed to be. This type of genetic engineering on humans just seems incredibly dangerous. There is no way we can predict what will happen for sure when we cut and past peoples’ genes. We could be damaging another system crucial for survival and end up wasting our time. http://www.actionbioscience.org/biotech/agar.html. The only way I can see this kind of engineering being alright is to test for diseases or mutations that could be harmful to the child. Even then, though, I can not say that I would be completely comfortable with doctors going in a fixing the problem. The way I think about it, every person is born the way they are supposed to be born, and that’s it. I feel like changing any of that is playing God, and I don’t think it is right.
I believe that if there is science that has the power to rid a child of a painful genetic disease then it should be embraced by all. Some people say that it is unethical to change a fetus because it is made in Gods image, but I see no problem in saving a fetus from a lifelong painful disease. On the other hand, this science could be taken too far therefore a line must be drawn. It would not be right if a person pays to pick out the desired traits for a fetus. By doing this it would only cause a gap between different wealth classes because the wealthy people would be the only ones with enough money to have this process done. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2000/oct/04/qanda.markoliver
I watched this film for the first time freshman year, have had a lot of time to ponder on the issue, and just watched it for the second time last week. My opinion stands the same. Whether it be a debate about ethics or legality, there is not an excuse to tamper with the potential of a human being. Science is moving so quickly these days and it’s all so exciting, but sometimes people forget to stop and think about what the point is. When genetic engineering first started, I’m pretty sure the point was to be able to catch genetic disease or mutations early on to prevent suffering or hardship for a human life. However being able to design your child has taken this to a whole new level. Parents should love their children as they are. “There’s a view that humans shouldn’t be tampering with the natural world.” (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/20/science/20tier.html?_r=1) It seems that there’s a lot of that going on right now including stem-cell research and abortion. Deciding if or the way a person lives their life should not be in our hands.
The video I’m using to compare Designer Babies to is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ixEDLa3Jlc from CBS News.
One of the things that started to rub me the wrong way about genetic engineering in the movie was when it came to cosmetic traits. I feel like preventing potential disease in a child is one thing, even choosing gender, but going so far as to pick eye, hair, or skin color seems a bit…extravagant. In the CBS news report I found myself agreeing a lot with the things doctor Caplan had to say. He advised first of all that the bioethics discussions on this topic had to begin soon because as Designer Babies also noted, the technology often precedes our ability to deal with it ethically. Second, he mentioned that this kind of option should, if allowed, come with some kind of counseling for the parents. I totally agree because he brought up a point that I hadn’t even considered yet: what if the parent pays to have an athletically, artistically, or intellectually above average child and the child, later in life, does not live up to their expectations? THis may, in some cases, devalue the child and turn them into some kind of lost financial investment. Further, when it’s possible to pick traits for your child radically different from your own I feel like it may take away a certain primal connection between parent and child. Instead of having your child be a piece of you, something created from you and your spouse’s combined DNA, it becomes more like a foster child with little to no connection to the original source.
I thought that this film was extremely controversial. Our medical science has come a long way and it is hard to believe that such things in “designer babies” can be done. I would have to agree with many other people that the only time I would consider using gene therapy on my child would be if they had a genetic disease and it might better off their life. I would only be doing it to better off my child. I do not care if it is open to other people to use because if that is what want, then so be it. If they are willing to pay thousands of dollars to cheat their way in life, okay. I feel that if you choose the genes of our baby, you are contradicting the whole “mother, father creation” because it is not your child anymore; it is something that was created with the help of science, not naturally. One big thing that I feel would present a problem would be the reaction of the child when they found out that they were changed to be different. If it happened to me, I would feel that my parents didn’t like who I really was and would be hurt. For example, in the film where the mother really wants a daughter and uses help to try to better the odds of having a daughter, but gets a son, would terrible to find out. The child would know that his mother doesn’t truly want him as her child.
(http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,989987-1,00.html ) according to Time magazine, we have some time before we can go “shopping” for all of our babies traits. One good point that the article made is that most people don’t know what to think of it and that maybe it will only be used for the help with genetic diseases. I think the line is drawn when the parent goes from wanting to help the child’s health to wanting to create a child.
I feel it is a lot like Brave New World because children will start to become numbers instead of individuals. We cannot start harvesting children into specific roles. It doesn’t seem correct.
This movie really made me think about our society and our strong emphasis on looks, athletic ability, and intellectual capacity. I think it is one thing to look into the health of your future child, but to want to change their genes to make them taller or smarter is completely ridiculous. I think that could change our society and divide into two groups, the genetically modified (superior) class and the normal (inferior) class. The division would also be based on wealth since only the wealthy would be able to preform this procedure for their future child. The difference between trying to eliminate diseases your child might have and changing their height or gender is one is only trying to improve and maximize your child’s life, while the other is changing it completely. When someone is rushed to the ER and the doctors save their life, that is not playing God, but trying to design your own child is. Many influential people in the world might not have been born if this was available in the past due to their height or gender. George Annas a bioethicist believes that “designer babies” would ultimately lead to the end of the human race. Annas theorizes about the division in society it would create in our society. He believes since humans have a history of racism and genocide that by creating a new “improved” human species it would also create segregation and racism and ultimately end horribly. (http://www.wired.com/medtech/health/news/2003/04/58467)
I agree with everyone who has previously stated that genetically altering a baby is unnatural and, in a way , selfish. I feel like altering the genetic makeup of a baby, which changes something which was naturally going to happen, is wrong. I think that designing babies is kind of sick, and i feel like if a person is “designing” their baby, it is not really their baby. It’s just bits and pieces of them which they want the baby to have, where the baby should have natural development and take on the characteristics which it naturally is supposed to receive. It kind of creeps me out that babies can now be basically designed. It seems extremely weird, and I think that by taking on the responsibility of a parent, a person should let nature take it’s course and love the baby for whatever is the outcome. The only aspect of “designer babies” which I agree with on some level is the idea of preventing a disease, like discussed in http://scienceray.com/philosophy-of-science/designer-babies-2/. If you could go in and change a few things around, letting your child not have mental retardation or something, it would be good because it would save the child an entire lifetime of difficulty which can hold them back from meeting their potential in life. So I guess to wrap up my argument, designing babies should only be used if it can prevent something serious like a disease, not something like gender, hair color, or height.
I have to admit, even as I try to stay firmly nonbiased on this issue, I can not help but bring my personal views into this discussion. I believe that we all came into this world for a specific reason, call it destiny if you will. This entire process is one that has been developing for millenia, thousands upon thousands of years. The creation of a human being, or of any being for that matter, is not a process to be trifled with. As far as I see it, evolution knows what it is doing, and if we (as a human race) believe that we can make better a process that has been created and perfected over millions of years, and is still being perfected, then we are nothing but an extremely arrogant and idiotic race. We, a people that have been walking this earth for a handful of years do not know better than the forces of creation themselves. How could we? Now, I will say this though. As medecine advances, certain concessions can definetly be made. As said in my article (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/babies_prog_summary.shtml), certain gene therapies that could prevent a child from suffering a life of pain due to certain genetic diseases are fine by me. In fact, I would push for funding for those cures, but that is where I would draw the line. I don’t care if we can make our children look better or run faster, or if we can even make them smarter. Learning to accept who you are as a person is one of life’s greatest challenges, and an experience that I believe we must have if we are to be human. If we perfect the embryo and change it to our exact specifications, is it still a person? Or is it a toy that we created for ourselves. I for one would have trouble believeing that that child born would have any real love from his or her parents. Let’s think for one second that we did go through with this whole genetic engineering thing, and we are able to make our children “perfect”, what if we pay the however many thousands of dollars to have an embryo changed, what if something goes wrong? What if the parents realize when the child is born that this isn’t what they ordered? What happens to the child then? Do they kill it like they did with the deformed children in ancient Sparta? What? I also fear that if we start down this path, that we won’t be able to stop, and we will simply destroy our race, and our world right along with it.
Quite obviously there is an uncomfortable element that factors into the controversy surrounding “designer babies.” Some believe that build-a-bear babies evoke fears of a blond hair blue eyed Nazi utopia. Surely the process of hand selecting your children takes away any attempt at trying to use the line, “your perfect just the way you are,” during the awkward teen years. The fear of having an “imperfect child might have been a factor in the parents’ decision to genetically engineer their child, such as is the case of a mother, who was shown in the “Designer Babies” video we watched in class, who spent thousands upon thousands of dollars to ensure that her child would be smart. Some say that’s immoral and that she is in fact playing God by spending money to guarantee that her son have an above average IQ, giving him an unfair advantage. But is it not the same as many people today, who also spend thousands upon thousands of dollars to guarantee that their child have an above average education, also giving them an unfair advantage. Are they also playing God by providing environmental advantages?
While the ethical issues on the matter can go back and forth, the notion of designer babies is not new. In fact, according to a March article of Psychology Today, (http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200903/common-misconceptions-about-science-iii-designer-babies) parents have been producing designer babies throughout history. Because only traits that are 100% heritable, such as skin color, are the only ones that can be guaranteed in the creation of a “designer baby,” others, such as height, intelligence, weight, and personality can only achieve a maximized probability. Through the selection of choosing a suitable mate, humans, and other animals do the same exact thing, selecting partners with traits that would increase their chances of having successful offspring. So if anything, using science to further maximize those chances is just taking a common process and applying modern day technology to it, allowing it to become even more successful.
Before I was even alive, “Designer Babies” were just a dream. It was an interesting topic for sci-fi movies, and made for great discussion in books. But when this dream became a reality, the issue was very controversial. I thought that the Designer Babies video was very interesting. There are so many reasons why genetically altering babies is frowned upon, but I can also see a few of the reasons that people find genetically altering children to be acceptable. The first issue of genetically altering children is if the technology is safe. Many times, the genes that we want to select are affected by multiple other genes. Genes only affect talents when they are combined with other genes. One reason that I find acceptable for genetically altering children is if the child has health issues. If by designing the child, they lose all risks of health defects then I believe it is acceptable to alter the genes. Aside from this, I believe that no child should be genetically altered just so that they can have advantages in their lives. No parent should be changing the height, or the hair color of their child. On top of all this, it really says a lot about the parents if they are willing to pay that much money to have the “perfect” child. When religion is involved, people argue that by controlling how perfect parents want their child to be, they are not showing thanks to what God has given them. Many other pros and cons of genetically altering genes are shown in this article; http://www.buzzle.com/articles/pros-and-cons-of-designer-babies.html. Overall, it worries me that parents are genetically altering their children so that they can have physical advantages.
Technological advances rarely escape controversy. Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis (or PGD), is no exception. The relatively new technology was originally intended to screen for diseases. However, it has since been further developed to allow couples to choose the gender of their babies and other physical traits. The primary concern of parents should be the well-being of their children. For this reason, I believe PGD should always be used to select healthier babies. By using this technique, the human race can live longer with a higher standard of living. Parents would be able to provide for their children without having to spend exorbitant amounts of money on insurance. Also, many diseases could be eradicated as parents select babies lacking their respective genes. The problem I have with PGD is it creates a situation of which the well-being of the child is secondary to the vanity of its parents. For example, my family has a history of diabetes. Almost every faction and generation has faced the disease. I would have no reservations for selecting a baby without the diabetes gene. Without such a gene, the child could live healthier and longer. Once, we start editing the physical traits of embryos, create an entirely new situation. Like a product from a store, couples could essentially shop for the baby of their dreams. Just as Dr. Caplan insinuated in his CBS interview, nothing could guarantee the effectiveness of the order. A baby genetically engineered to be smart, could be born with average intelligence. Unlike most products, one cannot just return a baby. The parents could then potentially treat the child maliciously as it would be unable to meet their demands. I also believe that if we were to somehow eradicate undesirable traits, we would lose humanity’s natural beauty. Beauty is subjective and based entirely on the ugliness of the world. We view sunsets as beautiful because we have seen cloudy skies. Green grass is beautiful because we’ve
seen frost-bitten grass covered with snow. Without our flaws and other “undesirable” traits, we would all be the same and therefore lack the capability to see beauty. Additionally, PGD bothers me because it is essentially an option for the rich. The poor lack the access to benefit from its use. According to the LA Times, many “would prefer PGD to [prenatal diagnosis] but lack insurance coverage for assisted reproductive technologies.” If mankind could be trusted to use PGD for the well-being of future generations rather than for selfish agendas, I would be okay with its use unequivocally. However, nothing has proven to me that mankind as a whole would be capable of such responsible use. Consequently, I feel that PGD should only be used for creating physically healthy babies- not abnormally fit babies, but babies less susceptible to sickness.
1) http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/03/03/earlyshow/health/main4840346.shtml
2) http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/booster_shots/2009/10/prenatal-genetic-diagnosis.html
Sure, the whole concept of designer babies is unethical and quite frankly wrong, but I think it might be a stretch to make it completely illegal. Even though there are clearly more negatives to the idea (like the growing gap it would create between the rich and poor, the false hope it gives parents, and the subjective roots), who are we to say that someone cannot choose traits? On the other hand though, who are we to say that brown hair is better than red
hair? We have messed with nature enough as it is and should probably draw a line somewhere, but I don’t see the need to make this illegal. Because it is so expensive, this will probably not become a trend. I definitely see how RIDICULOUS it is for someone to see the need to go to such extremes to change the hair/eye color of their offspring, but if we’re so in touch with “not messing with God’s creation,” how can we make exceptions to this rule for disease? It seems to me that we should either make this legal or not. No exceptions.
http://www.readersdigest.ca/mag/2001/09/designer_babies.html
I find the idea of designer babies to be one of ingenious yet one that can cause major problems in the world. I am able to see both sides of this dilemma. I can see the side of people who say that having designer babies can help rid the world of diseases and problems within the human body. And for those reason i see that designer babies is a good idea. But i can also see it from the stand point of those religious people who say that this is taking away the act of God and allowing nature to takes its rightful path. By altering your babies genes or making him the way you want him to be you are taking away the variety that makes every person unique. If this were to become popular and grow into something huge every basketball player would be seven feet tall or every football player extremely quick or every kid really smart. Everyone in the world would be the same and there wouldn’t be any variety among us. But personally i find it crazy how parents would want to design their own baby. For me i will just allow nature to takes it course and take in whatever it has in store for me and my family. I will take care and protect my children no matter if the have a disease, aren’t the smartest or most athletic, because i know that they are truly mine and not created in some lab. This website gives an insight on how babies are gender selected which in a way is designing your own baby. http://www.microsort.net/
When i first saw the designer babies video… i was shocked. I think that is it crazy to have a designer baby. First off i think that it is immoral to cheat nature into having the baby that you want. Second i think that it is wrong to try to fool the natural order of things. To me this sounds like the craziest thing in the world. Having a baby is the one of the most nature things in the world. People have been having babies since the dawn of time, and then with in like 30 years we take away the whole process. Where do we draw the line with designer babies? We need to draw the line, so that it cant be done any more. The whole reason people get it done is very selfish and i dont think that we need any more greed or selfishness in the world.http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/03/03/earlyshow/health/main4840346.shtml
I personally believe that this entire idea of engineering a baby is just completely insane. There is nothing wrong with the idea of creating positive advantages for your child; however, when a parent is choosing specific genetic traits it crosses over the line that we as a society should have drawn a long time ago. Our modern day society is fixed on this idea of moving forward. Now I am not saying that the technological advancements have diminished the human race as a whole, but there needs to be a line somewhere. When we start designing our babies the entire idea of Darwin’s survival of the fittest dies. These selective “bad” genes as we call them are than spread throughout our society like wildfire therefore not helping anything but furthermore digging the hole that we as society will soon call our grave. We need to stop moving forward and take a couple steps backwards. The fact that Indiana was the first state to permit eugenic sterilization is no shock to me.
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/citc/cle/eugenics/index.html
THANKS MRS.ANNEE! YOUR THE BEST!!!!!! wooooooo!
I’m not exactly sure how I stand on the subject of designer babies. Of course, I do not believe that it is justified at all for parents to pick out their children’s IQ or beauty, but I can see some reason for wanting to use the technology in order to save a child from a horrible disease. However, I think that in all issues like this, you have to look at the situation from a completely objective standpoint. It’s difficult to imagine a small, innocent child with a painful disease, and that instills in most of us the attitude that we should try and help the child before it is born. But, take away our “soft-spots” for cute little babies and our attitudes might change. Also, my views on this would undoubtedly be completely different if I were a parent faced with this decision. I would want the absolute best for my child and would do all I could to make sure it didn’t have a disease that would effect its future. But, the emotional factors in these kinds of issues can’t always be trusted. The fact still is that genetic engineering is a scary phenomenon. If in thirty years or so we can hand pick our kids out of a catalog, it seriously takes away from the miracle of birth and ultimately takes away the value of our children. http://www.allaboutpopularissues.org/genetic-engineering-in-humans-faq.htm talks about the risks of genetic engineering and how in the future children will become merely commodoties like cars and big houses – the richer you are the smarter, prettier, more athletic or musically prone your child will be. It becomes a way to boast and show off and detaches parents from their own children. Also, legalizing the whole thing is going to be a whole new controversy. It’s hard to legalize something like genetic engineering, but place restrictions on it. It’s sort of an all or nothing thing, which can have very bad consequences because not everyone is going to make the right moral decisions when it comes to this. Though the “poster intentions” of legalization would be to rid humans of genetic diseases, the truth is that there would probably be an equal amount of people taking advantage of the system. The whole idea of it is so controversial, and all the more so when we put our own emotions into the picture. Issues like this are hard to have a firm stand on because they are so delicate, and my own views go back and forth a lot on this topic.
Well now that my computer is working lets try this again. The movie Designer babies gave a lot of good information about the process, but I think it lacked opinions of people who would be against the process. I personally am against the whole designer baby thing. I can understand why parents would want to do that and why it might be the better option. But in the long run I think we would end up creating a whole new human race. The “less perfect” humans would be looked down on and probably giving mediocre jobs while the “perfect” humans would get all the good jobs. It would be a lot like the movie Gattaca for those of you who have seen it. The biggest reason I am against is because I am afraid of the outcome. I know most babies would be perfect, but then what would that mean for everyone else. Would it another Holocaust like what happened to the Jews, or like what happened to the people in Rwanda; getting rid of the “less superior” race of humans? That may be extreme but who’s to say it won’t happen? Also if the world really did become like the movie Gattaca, I wouldn’t have a place in it. Being overweight isn’t exactly a good trait that parents want in their children and because I am overweight I would get looked down on and eventually marginalized. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123439771603075099.html
This article gives a little bit more insight to designer babies.
The issue that I have with designer babies, is that there is now a choice to make me potential children ‘better’. That is assuming better means more beautiful and smarter than they would have been. (This is not pertaining to the prevention of disease in babies). I would rather have one of my kids come out naturally and have my raising it determine its’ life and happiness, not some scientist engineering my little Stine Jr. potentials as to what society usually considers the more successful traits- beauty, smarts, athletics ect. Of corse any parent given the opportunity or choice to make their child ‘better’ would take it, because it’s our human nature to want the best for our mini me’s, and anyone who says they wouldn’t be tempted is lying. The mere fact that this choice exists puts the immediate thought into our brains that there is something that needs improving with our future children, like something is wrong with them just because they are perfect. Another problem I have with the idea of designing your baby is that it is common knowledge that no body is perfect, and that we all have character flaws that we must embrace as our personality. Flaws only make us more human, and the more ideal like we become, the more our society becomes a few steps closer to the striven for ‘utopia’ community witch to me just seems like a bunch of mindless automotons.
Here’s an interesting article that deals with designing babies to prevent disease. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2629-designer-baby-ruling-stokes-controversy.html
I guess I am very different from most of my classmates. I think that parents should be able to do whatever they want. Couples who can afford to make their baby “genetically better”, should be able to. I do not understand why people think this is such a bad thing. First, parents would only do this in order to make their child better. It isn’t like they would pay to give their kids bad genes. If my parents made me genetically better, I would be very happy! The parents brought the kid into the world, so they should be able to do what they want. I think it is very stupid to try and limit technology, and science. Look how far science and technology has brought us. If it was not for technology, I would not be on this computer. If it was not for science, I could have already died from some sickness already. Basically, science and technology are two things that help us grow as a society, and genetic babies is the next big step. I am personally very excited for genetic babies. I am going to work very hard so that I can make alot of money. This way I can afford to make my kids better! According to my article http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/designer-babies-will-be-created-before-2030-says-expert-690958.html, making changes to your babies could be ready in 20 years. Even though I never planned on having a kid that late, I would have one just so I could modify them. Maybe I will make them extra smart, or very athletic. Maybe I will even make them look like Tupac Shakur. I can do whatever I want because it will be my kid! We should stop and realize that making genetic changes to babies is not mandatory. If a couple does not want to interfere, they do not have to. However, if a couple does want to change up their baby, who are we to stop them?
My initial reaction to the genetic engineering of babies was just straight shock. Wow, I cannot believe that this is even possible. It blows me away how much science can manipulate nature already, and to see how we can now take something that has been the most random of all events, the creation of a particular person, and put even just a little bit of certainty into it is absolutely incredible. However, it is also one of the scariest things I have ever heard of. At first I was thoroughly disgusted at the idea. I thought that already with plastic surgery and products to make us look better, this is just a step way too far to the extreme. The article I read seems to agree with me. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,989987-1,00.html had this to say, “It’s the ultimate shopping experience: designing your baby,” says biotechnology critic Jeremy Rifkin, who is appalled by the prospect. “In a society used to cosmetic surgery and psychopharmacology, this is not a big step.” Is it really not THAT big of a step? I mean seriously. Screwing around with the genetics of a human being? Not just that, but the genetics of a human being that does not have a say in the matter. Would you like it if someone decided for you that you were going to get breast implants or a nose job because they know it would help you out in life? Maybe. But you get the concious choice to decide yes or no. Messing with an embryo, you are messing with somebody’s life and future body. And also people are talking about someday meddling with personality types? What is that all about. Really? It’s stupid. Of course.. that was all my first opinion about the matter. Then I started to think about it. Could this be mankind’s last and final hope for natural selection? In the modern society we have taken away most needs for adaption and natural selection to our enviroment. Most things you have, we can fix it. And if you have something that isn’t curable yet, just wait a while. We’ll fix it. But is that really such a good idea? The invention of glasses took away the need for good eyesight in human beings, leading to generations of us who could not function in the world without some kind of man made evolution. Our genetics are slowly but surely getting completely screwed up with recessive genes full of diseases that we can cure now. These people do not perish and keep their genes away from the general population, but instead flourish and pass them on again and again. Is this new technological advancement the answer to that question? Could this help bring about natural selection, through the hands of man and not the hands of God? It most definitely could. However, we as humans probably do not (for the majority) have the self-control and clearness of mind that could keep this technology from advancing from pure helpful science into the depths of the transgression of man. In the right hands, this could be a miracle. However, who will be the judge of those hands is the real question.
I really have no problem with genetic engineering to inhance a child. I don’t see it as any different than any other type of enhancement such as sending a child to a private school so they get a better education. (ie.everyone at brebeuf) I think it is the parents decision and no one should be able to get in the way of this dission.
However, I came across an article that discussed genetic engineering to insure a genetic match for a sibling. http://www.mindmagazine.com/story/designbaby.htm
This was interesting to me because it is very similar to the book I’m reading, Jodi Picoult “My Sister’s Keeper.” This is the point where I start to wonder is this morally ok. Creating a child just for the purpose of helping their sibling is just so questionable. On one note, how can you let your other child die if there is another option? Then, how can you force your baby to go through surgeries and later on in life know that their purpose was to help their sibling, and they were not created out of any type of love. It could turn out like “My Sisters Keeper,” with the child sueing for the rights to their own body and that could be devasting to the family.
I suppose with genetic engineering becoming more prevelant, situations like this are going to arise more often.
Although the arguement from Faith is a common one, I feel that it is the principle argument in this discussion. And really, why shouldn’t. Man has always apsired to have the powers and abilities of God. Thus it is no surprise that He should be interested in the technology of genetics. Designing babies is only the most recent manifestation man’s quest for perfection. But in this quest, He disrupts the balance of nature. A balance designed by a perfect being, God. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/search=Genesis+1&version=KJV. If we look to The Bible for inspiraton, we find that God created Man in His own image. A perfect image. He intended Man to be of his image i.e. not perfect. And so, with designing babies in a fashion which attempts to perfect our children, we are goin against God’s will. A mistake for sure. Reference the other books of the Old Testament to see what becomes of those who do.
I am undecided on the designer babies video. Although i feel the that altering what a baby could become would take away genetic diseases, i dissagree with changing a babies looks and personality. I feel when you start altering personality, you start messing with too much. But to take away diseases, you could benefit so many people. The ultimate goal of altering babies should be to find the perfect balance between helping genetic disease, and keeping personality personal.
Designer Babies reminds me a lot of the novel Brave New World by Aldous Huxley because the people in that novel are not created through the natural process of reproduction. Rather, they are made in labs and maticulously picked out based on how their embyros form. This is similar to the modern practice of picking genders and having or deleting certain genes among human beings.
The idea behind both concepts is to create desired children. Parents who choose specific genes for their sons and daughters know what they want and will only be happy if they get it. Thus, they turn to designer babies. In the movie, one woman went to a clinic to ensure that her baby would be a girl. When the procedure “failed” she was very unhappy because she gave birth to a boy. The only time when the idea of designer babies seems acceptable is to prevent a disease that could setback a family or child. For instance, in the article, “Designer Baby Madness” by Melanie Phillips an acceptable case is discussed. Michelle and Jayson Whitaker have been refused permission by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) to create a ‘designer baby’ to produce a tissue match for their three year-old son, Charlie, who suffers from a rare and life-threatening form of anaemia. In this instance, I think that the Whitaker parents should be accomadated with a “designer baby” because then they can be sure their next child will not inherit the severe form of anaemia that their other son has to live with.