PDA

View Full Version : is it right to 'design' you child?


britishboy
October 20th, 2013, 02:35 AM
there are now companies that let you choose your childs gender and physical appearance, do you think this should be legal? (btw no religious stuff)

I think it's fine, I wouldn't do it myself but have no objections

CharlieHorse
October 20th, 2013, 02:37 AM
what? How?

Harry Smith
October 20th, 2013, 02:40 AM
BTW no religous stuff- that's pretty stupid to say I mean it's an issue for people who are religous and they have a right to express their beliefs.

It's completely immoral, you can't design your kids. It would lead to a new type of racism in the sense of genes. What happens to the kids who didn't have these designer genes, it would led to new levels of elitism and would just show how shallow parents are

britishboy
October 20th, 2013, 02:44 AM
BTW no religous stuff- that's pretty stupid to say I mean it's an issue for people who are religous and they have a right to express their beliefs.

It's completely immoral, you can't design your kids. It would lead to a new type of racism in the sense of genes. What happens to the kids who didn't have these designer genes, it would led to new levels of elitism and would just show how shallow parents are

laws aren't based on religion pointless debate really

it can help stop diseases that are passed down and reduce birth defects, as well as of course the option of improving physical appearance

Harry Smith
October 20th, 2013, 02:49 AM
laws aren't based on religion pointless debate really

it can help stop diseases that are passed down and reduce birth defects, as well as of course the option of improving physical appearance

Laws actually are, you need to listen. Both Cannon law and the gay marriage law shows that religion is still a very powerful force in britain. It's pointless to pretend otherwise. We have 29 bishops sitting in the house of lords- you have the church in the parliament of Britain- that means they make the laws. Understand?

Improving appearance? That's fucking stupid- I don't care what my child looks like because I would actually love my child rather than being some fickle parent who only cares about appearance. This is where you'll go into you rant about ugly people.

The techniques established by the field of gene therapy could potentially be used not to treat to disease, but to create "designer babies"

Abyssal Echo
October 20th, 2013, 02:52 AM
NO ! I don't think its right.

Jess
October 20th, 2013, 02:59 AM
I don't know...it doesn't sound right, but if someone wants to do it, why should I stop them, if they want to do it? I'm unsure on this..

britishboy
October 20th, 2013, 03:57 AM
NO ! I don't think its right.
why?
I don't know...it doesn't sound right, but if someone wants to do it, why should I stop them, if they want to do it? I'm unsure on this..
being pro choice I thought you would agree, lets say I have a genetic disorder, and I want a child but don't want him to suffer like I did, why can I not remove the gene that will give him the disease

Harry Smith
October 20th, 2013, 04:05 AM
why?

being pro choice I thought you would agree, lets say I have a genetic disorder, and I want a child but don't want him to suffer like I did, why can I not remove the gene that will give him the disease

Pro choice and pro engineering are very different, women don't abort a child because it will have blue eyes they'll abort it because they feel they can't or won't be able to provide for it.

I've already told you that designer babies are different to removing a gene, it's completely different. I even provided a quote but sure ignore it because it disagrees with you

britishboy
October 20th, 2013, 04:16 AM
Pro choice and pro engineering are very different, women don't abort a child because it will have blue eyes they'll abort it because they feel they can't or won't be able to provide for it.

I've already told you that designer babies are different to removing a gene, it's completely different. I even provided a quote but sure ignore it because it disagrees with you

similar in beliefs one should have the freedom to do what one wants and yes I know that is flawed

there will be loads of quotes on the internet debating every issue, it dosent make them true

so do you support the removal of a gene? and I myself am against designing a baby, I think that it suggests you will only love/ want the perfect child however there could be other reasons such as they was bullied because of their appearance and want their child not to be. so I believe it should be legal but maybe with regulations similar to abortions

Harry Smith
October 20th, 2013, 04:30 AM
similar in beliefs one should have the freedom to do what one wants and yes I know that is flawed

there will be loads of quotes on the internet debating every issue, it dosent make them true

so do you support the removal of a gene? and I myself am against designing a baby, I think that it suggests you will only love/ want the perfect child however there could be other reasons such as they was bullied because of their appearance and want their child not to be. so I believe it should be legal but maybe with regulations similar to abortions

It doesn't make them false either, the issue isn't about removal of genes the issue is people wanting to design their children down to the extremeity. It leads to a class system being built on what traits you have, it would also lead to the natural gene pool getting completely fucked.

You always draw on the idea of bullying, but you really don't understand it. Some of the fitest guys I know have got bullied, children will get bullied no matter what they look like, people will always find a way to bully someone. A parent picking their eye colour won't change that

britishboy
October 20th, 2013, 04:37 AM
It doesn't make them false either, the issue isn't about removal of genes the issue is people wanting to design their children down to the extremeity. It leads to a class system being built on what traits you have, it would also lead to the natural gene pool getting completely fucked.

there is already a class system on appearance, ginger people, short people, fat people all at the bottom, with the tall mountains of muscle at the top.


You always draw on the idea of bullying, but you really don't understand it. Some of the fitest guys I know have got bullied, children will get bullied no matter what they look like, people will always find a way to bully someone. A parent picking their eye colour won't change that

well I've never seen bullying really, anyway thats irreligious you could be bullied because of anything, you might have just simply upset the bully

my actual point was to outlaw it completely may have complications if a genuine reason comes up, abortion is fine but regulated, why not regulate this?

Harry Smith
October 20th, 2013, 04:43 AM
there is already a class system on appearance, ginger people, short people, fat people all at the bottom, with the tall mountains of muscle at the top.



well I've never seen bullying really, anyway thats irreligious you could be bullied because of anything, you might have just simply upset the bully

my actual point was to outlaw it completely may have complications if a genuine reason comes up, abortion is fine but regulated, why not regulate this?

Sure- it's the not the bully who is responible for bullying someone, just like you claim the rapist isn't responsible for rape. You brought bullying in the debate mate.

Do you understand the class system? You know with upper, middle and lower class. You don't get into Eton if you have blonde hair and blue eyes but you get in if daddy knows the headteacher. Our class system in Britain is based on your family. I'm having to explain the British class sytem to someone called Britishboy, that's a tad ironic isn't it?

Elysium
October 20th, 2013, 04:43 AM
While I see the potential for problems, both social and biological, I think in moderation it would be okay, but I definitely wouldn't do it myself. The issue with that, then, would be deciding how much "in moderation" is and to whom it applies, which is a can of worms I don't think needs to be opened.

britishboy
October 20th, 2013, 04:55 AM
Sure- it's the not the bully who is responible for bullying someone, just like you claim the rapist isn't responsible for rape. You brought bullying in the debate mate.


wait what? and as much ad you are awesome harry we are not 'mates' :P



Do you understand the class system? You know with upper, middle and lower class. You don't get into Eton if you have blonde hair and blue eyes but you get in if daddy knows the headteacher. Our class system in Britain is based on your family. I'm having to explain the British class sytem to someone called Britishboy, that's a tad ironic isn't it?
lol your crazy I'm not talking about wealth , think of it like a metaphor, you get what I am saying now?

While I see the potential for problems, both social and biological, I think in moderation it would be okay, but I definitely wouldn't do it myself. The issue with that, then, would be deciding how much "in moderation" is and to whom it applies, which is a can of worms I don't think needs to be opened.

I agree with what you saying but it should be opened

Harry Smith
October 20th, 2013, 05:01 AM
wait what? and as much ad you are awesome harry we are not 'mates' :P


lol your crazy I'm not talking about wealth , think of it like a metaphor, you get what I am saying now?



I agree with what you saying but it should be opened

That's good, I wouldn't want to be mates with someone who has a record of sexist, homophobic, xenophobic and elitist comments but that's another debate.

No, social class isn't determined about wealth, its about family connections. Do you even live in Britain?

there is already a class system on appearance, ginger people, short people, fat people all at the bottom

That's plain wrong

britishboy
October 20th, 2013, 05:06 AM
That's good, I wouldn't want to be mates with someone who has a record of sexist, homophobic, xenophobic and elitist comments but that's another debate.



awww your breaking my heart


No, social class isn't determined about wealth, its about family connections. Do you even live in Britain?

actually it's many things, how one act, who's blood you have mainly money, but it is rude to talk about money and this is off topic

lets steer this back, would you stop someone having a child without their genetic disease?

Harry Smith
October 20th, 2013, 05:26 AM
awww your breaking my heart



actually it's many things, how one act, who's blood you have mainly money, but it is rude to talk about money and this is off topic

lets steer this back, would you stop someone having a child without their genetic disease?

I'd need a wooden cross to do that.

It's not, I've meet people who act posh in a council house. Your still working class. It's not about money, we are not American. The class system purely depends on your family.

The high majority of genetic disorders can't be removed simply because we don't have the means to do it. The bottom line is that it would end up with people creating some sort of super elite

Cygnus
October 20th, 2013, 12:38 PM
There is a very thin line between wanting a child or a super-genetically engineered behemoth, you see designing babies could lead to very messed up stuff like people abandoning their children because they didn't turn out like the "baby designer" said it would. Everyone would want perfection and that is simply not achievable.

conniption
October 20th, 2013, 12:44 PM
I can definitely see how parents with hereditary diseases could benefit from a 'designer baby'. This concept could save a bunch of lives. I say go for it.

Chrisf
October 20th, 2013, 02:35 PM
It's a little unfair to naturally born children, but if it something somebody wants to do, they should be able to.

Stronk Serb
October 20th, 2013, 03:19 PM
I am all for it if it removes hereditary diseases, we could actually exterminate those, but if it's for making a tall super-strong child which has the IQ of 160 on birth, no. It's wrong, the human gene pool would get messed up.

Amazerful
October 20th, 2013, 03:38 PM
I think its fine but I wouldn't do it, I always enjoy a nice surprise

candorgen
October 20th, 2013, 03:46 PM
For anything other than stopping hereditary diseases, NONONONONO.

The child has no choice in what genes they are designed for by their parents. The parents get the choice, and the child does not.
This would lead to whole new materialistic approach on appearance. Some families will have lines of children with blonde hair or blue eyes, because they see it as 'the trend'.
Certain appearances will be chosen over others and therefore will be more common, such as more being thin and tall. It might seem to have no consequences for the first generation, but it will permanently affect the human race. Generation after generation will have more 'designer bodies' and many physical appearances we used to have will be cleared for the current trend. More of us will look like each other. Individualism will be weakened. This will actually make the human species much less resistant to evolve, as we will have messed up our genes.

Why can't we take what we have?

Gigablue
October 20th, 2013, 04:27 PM
I actually see no problem with it. Obviously it would be good to eliminate genetic diseases, but I also think augmentation is a good thing. I want my children to have every possible advantage in life, so that they can have the best life possible.

Take intelligence, for example. I think most people here would do what they can to help their child be more intelligent, e.g. reading to them, sending them to a good school, hiring a tutor if necessary, etc. I see no difference between doing that and changing their genes to boost intelligence.

There is the inevitable problem of inequality between the rich and poor, but this happens with every new technology. The solution is to fix the wealth disparity, not to ban the technology.

As long as we are smart about it, and we don't mess up the gene pool, I think genetic engineering is a very good thing.

CosmicNoodle
October 22nd, 2013, 02:12 PM
I think you should be able to change a few things, britishboy did make the point about being able to get rid of broken genes that would cause children to have various advisability's. I think you should be able to make sure your child does not have any "defects" that you may have. But I don't think you should be able to change the appearance of a child, helping them is fine. But mucking with it's genetic code just to produce an offspring that you deem physically attractive just seems shallow and wrong.

darthearth
October 22nd, 2013, 07:07 PM
BTW no religous stuff- that's pretty stupid to say I mean it's an issue for people who are religous and they have a right to express their beliefs.

It's completely immoral, you can't design your kids. It would lead to a new type of racism in the sense of genes. What happens to the kids who didn't have these designer genes, it would led to new levels of elitism and would just show how shallow parents are

I agree completely with this. Can't say it better.

tovaris
October 23rd, 2013, 02:55 AM
We have been doing artificial selection with animals for centuries, why notuse tehnologie todo the same with our own species?

Alexwellace
October 27th, 2013, 03:58 PM
I don't like it, I don't think you should be able to pick and choose your child like a character in a bad game. It seems wrong to me, and reeks of the kind of stuff that would cause a new type of elitism. Think about if this tech was available in earlier times, like when Chinese families would abandon female children in favour of trying for a son. What kind of disaster would that of caused? In relation to removed hereditary diseases, then and only then could I try and understand this idea, because at its head it sounds utterly abhorrent. With out knowing the exact science all I can say is what my first impression of this is, and to me its a bad one.

TheBigUnit
October 27th, 2013, 08:35 PM
I think the only use would be to stop hereditary diseases

but the problem would is that there will be less diversity and possibly a more male dominated world and lets be honest, there will be a lot of "aryans", in a few hundred years all we will be is robotic nazi males using inviro fertilization in a incubator