Genetically modifying fetuses

[Gamma Male]

If the technology developed to genetically modify fetuses in the womb to produce traits the parents deemed more desirable such as eye or hair color or increased intelligence, would you support it? Would you think it should be illegal?




I would probably support it. I can see a few problems developing because of it, but nothing to necessitate banning it.

[CosmicNoodle]

Honeslty, I'm against this, or we'll end up with a generation of children all with the same looks because they where deemed "good" at the time, humans need variation, not just in the gene pool, but in the way we look, or well all end up with a set of pre defined look, your child can look like one of 5 options etc etc.

Also, what about the children that didn't get it, would they be left at a biological disadvantage? Would they be more likely to be deemed unattractive?

There are too many social issues to be able to do this.

[Horatio Nelson]

Heck yes! Super soldiers FTW.

Plus you could theoretically eliminate every kind of deformation or disease. Right?

[Elysium]

Something somewhat similar exists already - preimplantation genetic diagnosis, or PGD for short. A couple goes through IVF treatment and the embryos are grown in a lab until they reach the blastocyst stage (where they have around 8 cells), at which point one cell is carefully extracted without harming or damaging the embryo, and that cell's DNA is examined. Theoretically, you could identify any number of genes in that DNA, such as hair or eye color, but it's currently only used to eliminate any embryos with horrible disorders (Tay-Sachs, for example). For that purpose, I totally support the practice, but obviously drawing the line is tricky and definitely has the potential to become eugenic and all. So, to some extent, by all means, as long as it doesn't go too far.

Heck yes! Super soldiers FTW.

Plus you could theoretically eliminate every kind of deformation or disease. Right?
Err, to some extent. Many abnormalities occur while in development (caused by environmental factors, like the mother drinking or smoking). So any process targeting a fetus' DNA would only have the potential to eliminate predictable disorders.

[phuckphace]

I'd say this might have some limited benefit if we could use it to eliminate genetic disorders like autism or Down's or sickle-cell anemia or whatever. I'm going to go ahead and oppose it however, because the potential for unforeseen negative consequences is very high.

also, nice to see I'm not the only one who acknowledges that intelligence is determined by Watson and Crick, rather than implanted by ivory tower university professors. :P

[Gamma Male]

also, nice to see I'm not the only one who acknowledges that intelligence is determined by Watson and Crick, rather than implanted by ivory tower university professors. :P

Depends on what you mean by intellegence I guess. I was referring specifically to innate cognitive abilities and not openmindedness and rationality which are mostly environmental.

[phuckphace]

Depends on what you mean by intellegence I guess. I was referring specifically to innate cognitive abilities and not openmindedness and rationality which are mostly environmental.

I was referring to cognitive abilities, yes. but I'd also argue that the other two things you mentioned also have a (partial) genetic origin. there's already an established link between intelligence and political affiliation (conservatives are lower, progressives are higher) so I'd say that's where an individual's predisposition to "openmindedness" originates. our rationality is malleable to a certain extent (in my case I was once 90% emotional and 10% rational, allowing muh feelings to dictate my beliefs, but now I'd say it's closer to 40% and 60% respectively) but the predisposition for rationality must exist first, which requires a base level of intelligence.

in any case, what we do know is that many environmental influences in our early development generally become more or less set for life. it might vary somewhat on the individual level, but nurture that is permanent is effectively the same thing as nature, if you get my drift.

[Vlerchan]

Do foetuses not have a right to control over their own bodies?

[amgb]

I wouldn't support this. No child's characteristic or appearance should be genetically modified to the parents desire, things should happen naturally. If the parents don't like Something about their kid then tough, it's their kid and they need to accept it. And there will most likely be negative consequences for the child, it's quite risky messing with Human cells just to produce a desired result.

[jakegette]

Seems to be an opportunity to eliminate any deformation or complications during birth so it could be beneficial. Also, a big step for science haha. But I just see a problem with the parents being able to choose the desired looks of their child. I think that's not for us to modify. My stand on this would be pro on the part of eliminating complications but against the parents choosing the desired looks part.

[JoeDangit]

Watch Gattaca, I highly recommend it. It talks about how they genetically modify fetuses and predict how the life of the fetus will play out. The fetus that has the less-desirable traits are given menial jobs such as janitors, while the more-desirable traits become astronauts.

[Stronk Serb]

By allowing parents to tailor their child we open a new door to a new apartheid/Master Race Nazism. I'm fine if it's being used to eliminate genetically transmitted diseases.

[ImCoolBeans]

I'm against this. This will effectively create a master-race ideology over time, and will create more problems than it's worth in my opinion. I think it's a dangerous road that we should not continue to travel down, but this is the world we live in.

[HUSTLEMAN]

If this technology is only for the elimination of very harmful disorders or diseases then I will support. However if people can use to determine how their child looks based on what the parents desire then I refuse to support such an abomination to the gene pool and nature.

[Atom]

I personally would fully support this kind of research. Humanity doesn't get anywhere by playing it safe and hiding behind the principles of moral.

However... This is a very difficult subject. The problem is in implementing it. For example, let's imagine scientist have just found a cure for cancer. Ok, now what? They can't just start mass-producing it. It would cause chaos. There would be protests, heated debates, a lot of people would get assassinated and etc. This would be a very strong shift in balance. (I hope I don't need to explain why.)

And by the way, only some characteristics may be influenced at the moment. Right now, appearance is almost impossible to even predict. There are more than 400 genes that influence height alone...
As a consequence, it is a very costly procedure. The high cost, to some extent, regulates the distribution.

[Vlerchan]

The high cost, to some extent, regulates the distribution.
This is why I don't support it.

Until its accessible to the masses then it will be a fundamentally oppressive tool.

[Atom]

until its accessible to the masses...
Good education is not accessible to the masses. Neither a good healthcare.
I'm sorry but not everyone is created equal. And I'm not talking in a racist or sexist way. A world where everyone is equal is a utopia, it can't exist, it wouldn't exist, because it's impossible.
...it will be a fundamentally oppressive tool
I don't think that children would walk around with a "GENETICALLY MODIFIED" brand on their foreheads. Kids might not even know about this for the rest of their lives, or until they are adults. Like adopted children, for example.

[Vlerchan]

Good education is not accessible to the masses. Neither a good healthcare.
In Ireland it is. In the first-world in general it is.

If it's not it also should be.

A world where everyone is equal is a utopia, it can't exist, it wouldn't exist, because it's impossible.
I'm arguing against this on the basis that it significantly undermines the principals of meritocracy.

It gives rich people an even larger advantage over poor people.

[Atom]

In Ireland it is. In the first-world in general it is.
No, I meant education that only well endowed people can afford. Like Oxford, Yale, etc.
I'm arguing against this on the basis that it significantly undermines the principals of meritocracy.
Does it really? I will both agree and disagree on this one.
It's a free field. People who are more talented will get rewarded respectively. These people didn't buy their merit. Yes, their parents did make them a bit smarter but they too had to work hard to earn the money to ensure the bright future for their kids.
It's like different weight categories for wrestlers.

My main point is as I said before. Humanity doesn't get anywhere by playing it safe and hiding behind the principles of moral.
Yes, we should keep to democratic and meritocratic principles and don't just throw people (people who can't afford modification in our case) under the bus, but we mustn't stop the progress.
The mankind will find a way, like always. "Slowing change when it's negative, speeding it up when it's good."
Will probably burn ourselves on the way though :rolleyes:
In the end, human decency will triumph.

Sorry, got philosophical there :D

[Silicate Wielder]

Honeslty, I'm against this, or we'll end up with a generation of children all with the same looks because they where deemed "good" at the time, humans need variation, not just in the gene pool, but in the way we look, or well all end up with a set of pre defined look, your child can look like one of 5 options etc etc.

Also, what about the children that didn't get it, would they be left at a biological disadvantage? Would they be more likely to be deemed unattractive?

There are too many social issues to be able to do this.

Not to mention identifying people, would we be all forced to wear uniforms in society that have our name tags? I certainly hope it's not because we can't identify each other due to genetic modification!

[Body odah Man]

Honeslty, I'm against this, or we'll end up with a generation of children all with the same looks because they where deemed "good" at the time, humans need variation, not just in the gene pool, but in the way we look, or well all end up with a set of pre defined look, your child can look like one of 5 options etc etc.

Also, what about the children that didn't get it, would they be left at a biological disadvantage? Would they be more likely to be deemed unattractive?

There are too many social issues to be able to do this.

As a kid whose been bullied a lot and still suffers mental damage from it I totally agree. The chances of people abusing it are too high for it to be legal.

[Vlerchan]

No, I meant education that only well endowed people can afford. Like Oxford, Yale, etc.
In Ireland this type of education doesn't exist.

In countries where it does it is generally accessible through a scholarship gained through high achievement in standardised second-level education.

It's a free field.
I agree there's still a course to be run. You've just decided to break working class people's legs before the gun is shot.

It's like different weight categories for wrestlers.
Except everyone is in the same ring.

My main point is as I said before. Humanity doesn't get anywhere by playing it safe and hiding behind the principles of moral.
Your argument is essentially "progress for the sake of progress".

I on the other hand don't believe that things should be developed which act as a net-detriment to mankind. Do you think there's a point to developing things that act as a net-detriment to mankind?

---

In the end, human decency will triumph.
No. This is not how market economies work.

[Atom]

Except everyone is in the same ring.
Every new innovation demands its regulations. Something like human modification wouldn't be just left unregulated.

Your argument is essentially "progress for the sake of progress".
No. Absolutely.
My point is that we shouldn't be afraid to experiment, and of change.
"Progress for the sake of progress" is the same as staring into the wall for the sake of staring into the wall.

Do you think there's a point to developing things that act as a net-detriment to mankind?

The answer is obvious, but this particular instance is not like this. I believe that a lot more problems will be solved than created. For example, skills shortage, which is a big burden on country's GDP at the moment. I take US as an example here.

Give me an example of progress, an innovation, that has done more harm than good. I personally can't think of one.

No. This is not how market economies work.

And again, something like this will be carefully watched. Like stem cell research. Because of that I don't believe there will be a "new master-race" controversy.

[Vlerchan]

Every new innovation demands its regulations. Something like human modification wouldn't be just left unregulated.
I don't think there's regulations that would stop genetic modification of this kind being more accessible to rich people and thus hampering meritocracy and intergenerational social mobility. Especially since regulations unreservedly make producing things more expensive.

Am I missing something here?

My point is that we shouldn't be afraid to experiment, and of change.
I'm not afraid. I just want someone to produce an argument for why we should proceed with the research.

For example, skills shortage, which is a big burden on country's GDP at the moment. I take US as an example here.
This is something that's being hindered through your poor higher education system.

It's also something that genetic modification wouldn't help unless it was accessible to working class people. This is because it's these people who are unable to get into third-level education and fill the skill gap - not rich people.

Give me an example of progress, an innovation, that has done more harm than good. I personally can't think of one.
Gunpowder.

[Atom]

I don't think there's regulations that would stop genetic modification of this kind being more accessible to rich people and thus hampering meritocracy and intergenerational social mobility. Especially since regulations unreservedly make producing things more expensive.

Am I missing something here?

I accidentally deleted this whole thing and had to retype it...

As I said before, this is a very difficult subject.
Something like China's one-child policy could be implemented.
(Not talking right now about this policy being a major human rights discrimination and a total failure in the end.)
But again, rich people were able to violate this policy because they weren't afraid of fines.
In response chinese government called on local authorities to expose those who have violated the policy. I don't think I need to explain how oppressed those people could be if they were exposed.
Ok, maybe we could make this policy/law more strict and change fines for imprisonment? Again a major human rights violation + the criminal aspect of this whole deal that I don't want to retype. Basically black market.
So maybe government could tax rich people more and give a big discount to working class? Yea, not a bad solution but this would give birth to price discrimination (which is not always a bad thing). Also this would violate the free market and companies would have to sell their product at a set price. Because of this government would have to give money to these companies to compensate their losses...
(Not talking about more than half of the people protesting against meddling with human nature.)

It surely could be regulated, it just wouldn't be easy.
These are just the ways to deal with it that I can think of right now. I'm sure there are much better and more liberal ways that experienced in this field people can come up with.

I'm not afraid.
I can see this (I wasn't implying that you are in the first place), but you and I are in a minority here (sorry for the tautology). Human beings are very conservative creatures and generally sceptical about unknown and new things.

I just want someone to produce an argument for why we should proceed with the research.
Worker efficiency, GDP, skill shortage, more creative and talented people, less diseases. All these things we have discussed before.

Gunpowder.
Hunting and mining. Gunpowder didn't invent war, it was only a mean, a method. And it wasn't unequally distributed.
And its discovery was inevitable. We can just as well remove chemistry as a whole from history if we would want not to invent gunpowder.

[Vlerchan]

I'm sure there are much better and more liberal ways that experienced in this field people can come up with.
I'm fine with this being produced if it could be guaranteed that it would be accessible to working-class people.

Just a heads up because we seem to be on the same page.

Also this would violate the free market and companies would have to sell their product at a set price. Because of this government would have to give money to these companies to compensate their losses...
No. It wouldn't. Or at least whenever the government has implemented price ceilings in the past it hasn't.

However what would happen it that with a lower price there would be less incentive to supply the treatment. Long queues would ensue. What would be a much better alternative would be if the government supplied the product as prices subsidized by taxation.

Worker efficiency, GDP, skill shortage, more creative and talented people, less diseases.
I'm unsure if you're making this argument with the presumption of working-class participation in the programme.

The answer I offer will differ depending on this.

Hunting and mining[1]. Gunpowder didn't invent war, it was only a mean, a method[2]. And it wasn't unequally distributed[3].
And its discovery was inevitable. We can just as well remove chemistry as a whole from history if we would want not to invent gunpowder[4].
This is off-topic so I'll give a short answer.

[1]: Neither require gun-powder.

[2]: It led to it wars becoming more deadly.

[3]: Beyond the point.

[4]: Beyond the point.

[Atom]

I'm unsure if you're making this argument with the presumption of working-class participation in the programme.
All I try to do is to prove my point of view (you are doing the same thing basically) that these modifications and research in this field will benefit everyone, some to a smaller degree, some to a greater one :)
In any case, people would not let themselves be forgotten. Especially working-class. And why would anyone leave them out of the picture? We live in a civilized society where every human being has rights.

No. It wouldn't.
It would if it wanted the company to stay in business. I remember there were cases like this in history, sorry that I can't remember anything specific. But again, this is off-topic...

[Arkansasguy]

If the technology developed to genetically modify fetuses in the womb to produce traits the parents deemed more desirable such as eye or hair color or increased intelligence, would you support it? Would you think it should be illegal?




I would probably support it. I can see a few problems developing because of it, but nothing to necessitate banning it.

Such would constitute an attempt to alter the form of a person, and as such should be illegal.

[flappybird]

Are you kidding me?

[kartik]

It should be banned

[Lovelife090994]

No! Last thing we need is more societal division and a Master Race. This opens the door to tailor made kids. Humans must keep their diversity. Intelligence and beauty are all opinions and subjective.

[normalperson]

in my opinion it's immoral but it's the parents choice. this has been an unstoppable issue since the 80's.

[Katie96xox]

Sounds like trying to achieve a master race. I know of one guy who would get right behind this. He's German, has a moustache, and died in 1945.

Why should a parent care what colour hair or eyes their child has. If they're going to love them less because they have brown hair instead of blonde then I wouldn't deem them fit to be a parent regardless. People need to stop trying to interfere with everything. Imperfection is human.

[normalperson]

Sounds like trying to achieve a master race. I know of one guy who would get right behind this. He's German, has a moustache, and died in 1945.

Why should a parent care what colour hair or eyes their child has. If they're going to love them less because they have brown hair instead of blonde then I wouldn't deem them fit to be a parent regardless. People need to stop trying to interfere with everything. Imperfection is human.

*frustrated exhale* look katie, as humans we are a "master race" and as my comment above yours states i do think it is immoral but it is up to the parents. with the Hitler thing i'm no supporter but society crushed him under it's weight and warped his mind so really you should blame Fabrique Nationale, Gavrilo Princip, the triple entente or Erich bohme to name just a few and P.N. the purpose of modifying fetuses is not to create a master race but to remove genetic defects. also there is nothing wrong with having a human master race it all depends on the way you achieve it.

[Human]

Better to eliminate genetic problems in children before they're born so they don't life their life in pain or negatively

[TheN3rdyOutcast]

I'm going to assume that it will become an issue much like the abortion debate, pro-choice vs. pro nature or something like that.

I'm not going to give an opinion because this place gives me the creeps.

[Silicate Wielder]

I wouldn't support this. No child's characteristic or appearance should be genetically modified to the parents desire, things should happen naturally. If the parents don't like Something about their kid then tough, it's their kid and they need to accept it. And there will most likely be negative consequences for the child, it's quite risky messing with Human cells just to produce a desired result.

Not only this but genetic modification has been shown to decrease fertility rate over time, What if the kid grows up and wants to have his/her own kid? Also, remember I said this happens over time, meaning it will help with overpopulation for a short while, we as a species will not be able to reproduce after several generations, and we will become extinct as of our own strive for 'perfection'

[Ouija]

Not only this but genetic modification has been shown to decrease fertility rate over time, What if the kid grows up and wants to have his/her own kid? Also, remember I said this happens over time, meaning it will help with overpopulation for a short while, we as a species will not be able to reproduce after several generations, and we will become extinct as of our own strive for 'perfection'


Wow, haven't thought about it that way. But we've all seen the movies, which I imagine wouldn't be too far off from what genetic modification would be like. I'm obviously no scientist but genes are being messed with here, and that's just going to add panic to the mix if something were to ever go wrong. That child will basically be living a lie. So how about not reproducing when, let's say, alcoholism, depression, genetic diseases, etc have run in the family line for generations? If we can eliminate these sorts of problems in the world then maybe we wouldn't feel the need to create "perfect people".

[amgb]

Not only this but genetic modification has been shown to decrease fertility rate over time, What if the kid grows up and wants to have his/her own kid? Also, remember I said this happens over time, meaning it will help with overpopulation for a short while, we as a species will not be able to reproduce after several generations, and we will become extinct as of our own strive for 'perfection'

I agree. I don't believe that perfection in a human being can be achieved, even with science. Perfection is an endless endeavour because we will always be wanting more and better. And decreased fertility rate is just one of many risks. Babies could end up with more problems than they began with; at extremes mutation could happen if the process is not carefully planned out

[fairmaiden]

I think that genetic modification would be abused by silly parents who would try to make their normal unborn child into some kind of super-child with a perfect appearance. There would have to be strict laws otherwise the process would be abused and we'd be living in a world of clones.

Also, there could be many backstreet un-qualified ''doctors'' who attempt to complete the procedure themselves in order to gain money. If they make a mistake, that child would become severely deformed and it could also kill the mother while in the womb.