Are Designer Babies Unethical?

[Comrade #138672]

What is your opinion on designer babies? The ability to modify genetics and choose eye colour, hair colour, etc. Do you think it's unethical?

Personally I'm opposed to designer babies. It seems to open the door to Racism. But what about "the freedom to choose"?

[#FF0000]

I would say yes because of the pretty huge risk that comes along with artificially fucking with genes in this context. One is practically inviting exposing generations to totally unknown and unpredictable new ailments like that.

And that's kind of the thing of any sort of 'eugenics' thing. DNA isn't something you can alter like that so easily. You can't take out the "bad" and replace it with the "good", because strands of DNA effect more than one trait or thing. Further, we flat out don't know what is "bad" or "good" in the gene pool in the first place.

[Raúl Duke]

I'm not opposed to it. But I fear of the social implications (alla Gattaca) it would bring in a stratified society where not everyone has the opportunity to have a "designer baby."

[Rugged Collectivist]

No. Choosing the physical attributes of a child gives the parent too much control and further reinforces the idea that the child is the parents property.

That being said, I would support the reconfiguration of DNA to eliminate all genetic diseases.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

No matter what it's called, it's still eugenics, and that's always ethically dubious.

[Lynx]

Well, 'bottom up' eugenics if this technology were widely available and affordable. I'm undecided if this is unethical, I believe it could lead to social strife.

[Positivist]

If for what purpose genes can be manipulated is limited and developed in the context of an equal society, then yes.

[MustCrushCapitalism]

If it's to counter unhealthy hereditary diseases and increase life expectancy, then fuck yes, I'm all for it. Of course, however, it'd need to be regulated, as this kind of thing could easily be abused.

[Sir Comradical]

If it means getting rid of diseases and baldness, and producing healthier offspring, AND if it's available to all, then I'm all in favour of it. Eventually fucking will purely be for fun while test tubes will be for reproduction.

[X5N]

I agree with Rugged Collectivist.

Parents shouldn't be allowed to lob off a body part when the child isn't able to give any kind of consent for dubious reasons, so they certainly shouldn't be allowed to decide whether or not their kid will have blue eyes because they like blue eyes. Youths are not the property of their parents, and the idea that their genome can be decided on a whim by the parents just reenforces that idea.

I also find it disturbing when people think of their kids as commodities or pets like that.

However, I'm not opposed to genetic stuff as a whole. Just not when it's to make people look and act like what the parents think of as "perfect" or "normal."

[#FF0000]

Just wanna point out it's not really, well, possible to just get rid of diseases like that.

Wanna get rid of sickle-cell anemia? Good work, you've also done away with the gene that makes one resistant to malaria.

[Sir Comradical]

Just wanna point out it's not really, well, possible to just get rid of diseases like that.

Wanna get rid of sickle-cell anemia? Good work, you've also done away with the gene that makes one resistant to malaria.

Yes but the more we learn about genetics the better we'd be able to get it right.

[Maize]

The concept of altering certain "cosmetic" features on a child doesn't strike me as unethical. Placed into reality, I can't help but feel that doing something like this will have negative effects on the child (consider how this knowledge would effect someone mentally) along with asserting the concept that the child is in complete property of the parent. But I designed you!, I can already see it. It strikes me as so utterly unnecessary considering the moral implications

[Marxaveli]

The social implications would be most detrimental to people at both a family level and social level in my opinion. We already have a racist and ethnocentric element in ruling class hegemony that people with blonde hair, blue eyes and fair skin are more beautiful than "others" and are phenotypically desirable to anything else. I'm afraid this would greatly enhance this element even more, which would be very destructive, not to mention dehumanizing toward many other cultures. Plus, how far could they take it, even if it was intended for good? Quite far, I'm afraid. So yes, I am against it. I am all for science being used as a tool for improving humanity, but this is pseudo-science along the same lines as Nazi eugenics.

[doesn't even make sense]

Well there is already a procedure available for selecting the sex of a child which has lately become a hot vanity buy among rich people obsessed with the idea of having little versions of themselves as pets or whatever. I find it all pretty repulsive. IMO any tampering with the genetics and physiological development of an embryo should have a medical purpose. This is just one of those limitations of the liberal concept of self-ownership.


I was going to post a link to a Slate article on the topic but I don't have the required post count, so if you are interested just Google 'slate sex selection in babies'. It's kind of interesting, but it's also fucking Slate so...

[TheRedAnarchist23]

I think people should have the freedom to choose.

[doesn't even make sense]

I think people should have the freedom to choose.

Everyone wants people to have the freedom to choose. What we all disagree on is the freedom to choose what.

[#FF0000]

Yes but the more we learn about genetics the better we'd be able to get it right.

No, because individual genes perform more than one function.

[Rottenfruit]

What is your opinion on designer babies? The ability to modify genetics and choose eye colour, hair colour, etc. Do you think it's unethical?

Personally I'm opposed to designer babies. It seems to open the door to Racism. But what about "the freedom to choose"?
No i find it a good thing and i support it and this is coming from a person who has a rare genetic defect (ehlers danlos syndrome type 3)

Genetic modifying does not necessarily mean race

[Rottenfruit]

No matter what it's called, it's still eugenics, and that's always ethically dubious.
Because Hitler did something or supported something does not mean its automatacily always wrong, if that was the case everybody should hate dogs

[Marxaveli]

Because Hitler did something or supported something does not mean its automatacily always wrong, if that was the case everybody should hate dogs

We are talking about Eugenics here, which has long been discredited. Period.

[#FF0000]

Yo, again, fucking with genes is also going to cause consequences that we won't be able to predict.

EDIT:

This is a decent article that went over all the reasons eugenics is dumb. Forget moral qualms, even. It's practically undoable.

http://io9.com/5925024/why-eugenics-will-always-fail

[Marxaveli]

Great article. Our DNA and biology in general is far too random and complex to systematically make eugenics or any sort of biological alteration for our species to be practical.

[Prometeo liberado]

What is your opinion on designer babies? The ability to modify genetics and choose eye colour, hair colour, etc. Do you think it's unethical?

Personally I'm opposed to designer babies. It seems to open the door to Racism. But what about "the freedom to choose"?

Have you ever seen reality T.V.? I mean c'mon there must be some way out of this mess. Right?

http://ts1.mm.bing.net/th?id=I.4796250842597196&pid=1.7&w=245&h=155&c=7&rs=1http://ts2.mm.bing.net/th?id=I.4600374577725733&pid=1.7&w=109&h=151&c=7&rs=1
http://ts1.mm.bing.net/th?id=I.4693738570646804&pid=1.7&w=182&h=142&c=7&rs=1http://ts3.mm.bing.net/th?id=I.4814031999798546&pid=1.7&w=230&h=133&c=7&rs=1http://ts1.mm.bing.net/th?id=I.4821883212989052&pid=1.7&w=250&h=120&c=7&rs=1

[TheRedAnarchist23]

Everyone wants people to have the freedom to choose. What we all disagree on is the freedom to choose what.

One would think freedom of choice comes with freedom of deciding whatever one wants. Otherwise freedom of choice means nothing.

[Nihilist Scud Missile]

What is your opinion on designer babies? The ability to modify genetics and choose eye colour, hair colour, etc. Do you think it's unethical?

Personally I'm opposed to designer babies. It seems to open the door to Racism. But what about "the freedom to choose"?

Milton Friedman was a capitalist propagandist who is responsible for framing freedom as being "free to choose" some bullshit lifestyle sold to us as our own enslavement. Anyway, having that said rich people can afford this, all this is is a new twist on the 'master race' theory but more of a 'master class' foundation. It's 21'st century eugenics. This isnt about 'freedom'. People who advocate this are scum.

[Nihilist Scud Missile]

If it means getting rid of diseases and baldness, and producing healthier offspring, AND if it's available to all, then I'm all in favour of it. Eventually fucking will purely be for fun while test tubes will be for reproduction.
Baldness is comparable to disease? Maybe we can make all female babies be born with blone hair and large breats? I do just fine without hair thank you :)

[Firebrand]

Genetic engineering bothers me quite a bit, because while it may start with eliminating things like cystic fiberosis, which everyone can agree is bad, sooner or later you will get people trying to "cure" stuff like autism, and from there you will get people selecting for more passive obedient kids, and from there you get a docile obedient working class. (this is assuming they can even get it to work without creating a race of mutant reptile people who take over the earth)

[Monkeyboy]

First I wanted to say, from what I've read (I might remember this uncorrectly) it's not that easy. It's not:

I want to make genetic disease x "unavailable". So I'll switch gene PU3 off, this will make genetic disease x in person x "unavailable".

From what I've read most of the time a lot of genes are involved, and if you turn off some genes (is that even possible?) it may lead to other problems. Again, if I remember this correctly!

I can understand why you would want to eliminate genetic diseases, while it's against my philosophy, it is noble. However some of the genes involved in the disease might actually beneficial, I'm interested in mental illnesses and some people who have mild forms of this can actually benefit (mild schizophrenia and creativity, mild bipolar and creativity, mild autism and systemizing).

And I'm afraid it will start with genetic diseases to mild genetic diseases (mild depression and high functioning autism) to mild defects (shyness) to personality (introversion, as there seems to be a bias for extraversion in Western culture) to looks. I believe shy people, less attractive people, introverted people, even people with severe autism have a place in our society.

Then I come to my other concern. Genetic diversity. I think people are biased for certain types (for Caucasians it would be a extravert, blue eyed, blond haired, tall, otherwise attractive boy or girl). I think we would see (not proven though) more or less the same people and thus genetic diversity becomes lower. You may think, genetic diversity, whatever! But this is helpful for our survival, may there ever come a disease or maybe a apocalyptic event, genetic diversity may put us through this.

And designer babies even when done in a noble way (elemating genetic diseases) seems a lot like eugenics. I'm definatly against that.

Well, we do in some way practice eugenics; sexual selection. But that's natural (a bit naturalistic fallacy, but whatever...), and you're not eliminating anything, you're choosing the best mate. Sure, some may be eliminated by not reproducing. Ok enough, I'm still opposed to designer babies.

Also, I pray to the great spaghetti monster in the sky for not letting designer babies ever be practiced by capitalists because that would result into disaster!

[Sean]

This is a Sciences & Environment discussion, talking about something so far removed from today in terms of discrimination seems silly.

What exactly is the discrimination against? A foetus' rights as a human being? Doesn't have any, its a foetus.

Is it offensive to people's sensibilities that people would rather a child look one way over another? Definitely. Are those people discriminated against by not having equal access to a vagina? Fuck right off. The world and the people in it don't owe you the right to reproduce something in your image.

Maybe the day will come when they have to artificially inseminate the last gingers alive in captivity because they've refused to breed with each other, but I can't see that happening tomorrow.

Are you worried about being discriminated against by a new generation of superbabies? It could happen, but super or not, I could kick the clean shit out of a football pitch full of babies.

[RedAtheist]

... from there you will get people selecting for more passive obedient kids, and from there you get a docile obedient working class. (this is assuming they can even get it to work without creating a race of mutant reptile people who take over the earth)

I agree that this could be a problem. Parents benefit from having children which blindly do what they're told. If parents are allowed to decide the personality traits of their children, they'll fail to take in to account the broader needs of society and the fact that the human races as a whole benefits from the existence of people who think for themselves and defy the status quo (characteristics which parents dread because they result in their authority being undermined.) The ideal child is not the ideal human being.

A similar problem exists with parents choosing the gender of their children. People argue that because parents in the West who practise 'gender selection' choose girl children more often than boy children, the practise is no longer sexist. This ignores the fact that the most likely reason why the parents prefer girl children is because they think a girl child will be easier to control (quieter, less rowdy, less troublesome.) It should be obvious that any child selected to be a specific gender is going to have gender roles shoved down his/her throat, for this reason and the one stated above socialists should be opposed to gender selection.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Great article. Our DNA and biology in general is far too random and complex to systematically make eugenics or any sort of biological alteration for our species to be practical.

I don't really agree that it's so random and complex. Someday soon genetic mapping is going to become something that's done to most newborns.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2012/12/03/165272373/genome-sequencing-for-babies-brings-knowledge-and-conflicts


"Parents could elect for termination of the pregnancy in connection with the diagnosis of a particular disease," says Shendure. "In other circumstances, there may be opportunities [for] treatment of the fetus during pregnancy, as well as for treatment after birth."

[homegrown terror]

one scary facet of this discussion that no one's mentioned is the possibility of biologically stratifying social class. once you can manipulate hair and eye color, you'll soon learn to manipulate things like intelligence, disease resistance and physical strength. do you think any of that shit will be happening for free? no, it'll be ridiculously expensive, available only to the castes of privilege. the gap between the rich and poor will no longer just be one of economic standing, but one of biological evolution. the children of the bougeoisie will become supermen, and the children of the poor will remain as they are. the rich and powerful will own the rest, and soon phrases like "the poor are cattle to the rich" will go from trite analogies to frightening realities.

[MarxArchist]

I oppose eugenics in most forms but especially when the technology or practice is meant to only be available to the wealthy in so creating a 'master class' of blonde hair blue eyed higher IQ less prone to cancer 'race'.

[Mackenzie_Blanc]

I'm not opposed to the idea of genetic modification per se, and believe in a potential purpose in a workers society for removing diseases and so forth; but in the current capitalist society, the ruling class having the ability to alter both mental and physical traits is a dangerous idea. It could become a Brave New World scenario - where the lower classes are mentally altered to accept low paying jobs and accept them as a "benefit to society", just like the deltas and epsilons.