(Closed) Genetically Engineered Babies

posted 8 years ago in Babies
  • poll: Should we genetically engineer babies?

    Only to make them more awesome

    Only if they had a disease

    All is game in genetic warfare

    I don't f*ck with mother nature

    Other

  • Post # 17
    Member
    1561 posts
    Bumble bee
    • Wedding: November 2011

    I just couldn’t.  To me (with the caveat that I realize this is not everyone’s view) babies are a gift from God, to be accepted as they are.  But I can understand the appeal to others, as well as the multitude of ethical dilemmas that would be faced.

    Post # 18
    Member
    2143 posts
    Buzzing bee
    • Wedding: July 2015

    I’m generally pretty against it. I’m on the fence about using it to prevent genetic abnormalities or disease, but I’m not to fond of the idea of designer babies. 

    Post # 19
    Member
    10635 posts
    Sugar Beekeeper
    • Wedding: January 2011

    For diseases sure.  Right now we can treat certain diseases caused by faulty genes via supplementing whatever would be at a higher level if that gene was normal.  Rather than have to treat someone for life, why not just fix that one gene?  It would also increase the possibilites of conditions that could be treated.

    Post # 20
    Member
    5658 posts
    Bee Keeper
    • Wedding: August 2012

    @deetroitwhat:  I would LIKE to say that I would only do something like that in extreme measures, such as a diagnosed disability. But even then is missing with the “plan” and everything supposedly happens for a reason. I guess unless I was in that position I’m not really sure what I think. But I think it’s pnretty vain to practically pick your perfect child out of a line up 

    Post # 21
    Member
    11231 posts
    Sugar Beekeeper
    • Wedding: August 2013

    View original reply
    @housebee:  Yes to superpowers.

    Anyway. Only if it was going to fix a health problem. GMOs freak me out and GMO foods/seeds have caused too many problems in the world. I wouldn’t do that to a kid.

    Post # 22
    Member
    11735 posts
    Sugar Beekeeper
    • Wedding: November 1999

    My opinion on this is sort of harsh (so i’ve been told). I’m all for scientific advancement and I think it’s wonderful.  But, a large part of me feels that “survival of the fittest” is necessary to prevent overpopulation.  It’s obviously horrible when people, especially children or unborn fetuses, have fatal diseases but it’s also the natural cycle of life and serves a very important purpose.

    Of course, I’ll admit I’d be the first person to sign my loved one up for life saving treatment.  It’s always easier to be against things like that when it’s not your loved one suffering and dying, I know. 

    I’m definitely against it for designer babies – that’s just one step away from reverting back to a Hitler regime.

    Post # 23
    Member
    2203 posts
    Buzzing bee
    • Wedding: June 2014

    View original reply
    @somethingaquamarine:  love that movie! i thought of it right away, too. 🙂

    Post # 24
    Member
    10355 posts
    Sugar Beekeeper
    • Wedding: September 2010

    View original reply
    @deetroitwhat:  I was thinking more along the lines of messing with how smart/athletic etc the child is than pretty. Intellegence and skills have a much greater impact on future success than just looks. If the rich have the option to increase these skills, but the poor do not, I see it widening the gulf of have and hane-not substantially. I think the only “real” way around that is to have it open to everyone in a national healthcare-style setting.

    Post # 25
    Member
    234 posts
    Helper bee
    • Wedding: May 2014

    I would be for it 100% if only for medical reasons.

    Post # 26
    Member
    10355 posts
    Sugar Beekeeper
    • Wedding: September 2010

    View original reply
    @MrsWBS:  I feel the same way as you (and i’m a scientist who specializes in molecular genetics, haha). We are already in grave danger of overpopulation. It’s not as though people will have fewer, more “fit” kids if this became reality. Man has shown that they do not have the foresight or self control to limit birth on a large scale.

    Post # 27
    Member
    1880 posts
    Buzzing bee
    • Wedding: April 2013

    View original reply
    @crayfish:  “A twist:

    Since genetically engineering a baby is likely to be very expensive, this would almost instantly become a class issue, with risher couples opting to make their child healthier, smarter, whatever, and thus more competitive. This could seriously impact the cycle of poverty, making it much more difficult to rise above than it already is.”

    This is what I would be worried about. Yes, I am in the class of people that would be able to afford it. But what about all those who couldn’t? Is it really fair to create a class of people that is so much genetically better when so many people won’t have that opportunity and will be STUCK being poor and dumb, without even the option of bettering themselves? I don’t think so. That goes against everything I believe. And I don’t think it would just impact the superrich – I think everyone upper-middle class and up, even those on the lower end, would scrimp and save to afford this for their kids, just like they do with sending them to college. So I think if ~10% of the population is “genetically superior,” that’s just ASKING for trouble.

    Post # 28
    Member
    11735 posts
    Sugar Beekeeper
    • Wedding: November 1999

    View original reply
    @crayfish:  good to know! I always kind of feel bad feeling that way because I seem cold just saying let them die! (and such a hypocrite because you bet I’ll be begging docs for every possible last option when it’s my own family member).  I work on the business side of health care and we can’t afford to keep paying for such high priced services with little to no improvement in outcomes.  I just think there’s a very fine line between the good and evil of scientific advancement.  It’s so wonderful to make such great strides in curing diseases, but ultimately we cannot afford to have cures for every disease.  

    Post # 29
    Member
    5398 posts
    Bee Keeper

    View original reply
    @crayfish:  this was my first thought. As well as what 
    View original reply
    @MrsWBS said. 

    Post # 30
    Member
    3051 posts
    Sugar bee
    • Wedding: February 2015

    View original reply
    @somethingaquamarine:  I totally forgot about this movie! Now I have to rewatch it because I don’t even know how long it’s been since I’ve seen it…so much that I barely remember it.

     

    I’m pretty sure I’m against it. maybe in the case of diseases but in that same breath, we already have a HUGE overpopulation problem…I hope it never becomes a viable option honestly. I definitely 100% think that it would cause a ridiculous gap in classes.

    Post # 31
    Member
    10450 posts
    Sugar Beekeeper
    • Wedding: February 2014

    I don’t see a problem with it. Science is evolving, let’s use it.

    The topic ‘Genetically Engineered Babies’ is closed to new replies.

    Find Amazing Vendors