(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 # 62
    Member
    5398 posts
    Bee Keeper

    View original reply
    @goodasitgets:  I’m talking about the offspring’s offspring. Second, third, etc generations of people that are potentially being altered. Whereas children with Down syndrome and other serious genetic problems likely wouldn’t have reproduced (which obviously varies).

    Post # 64
    Member
    3313 posts
    Sugar bee
    • Wedding: October 2010

    View original reply
    @Luvdisc:  You actually can’t prevent autism with what we currently know.  They have an idea of *some* of the genes that are likely associated with it, but there is no hard conclusive studies because it’s affected by so much more then just genetics.

    That’s the problem with a lot of this.  There are very few diseases that are caused solely by bad genetics.  Most of them require other outside factors to determine whether they manifest at all and if so how badly they do.  Diet, environment, household products, any chemicals put into your body no matter when, all contribute to most of these diseases.

    I know how tempting it is to want to fix things before they become a problem, but to me, this isn’t a question.  I’m totally against it!

    Post # 65
    Member
    5540 posts
    Bee Keeper
    • Wedding: December 2011

    One word: Gattaca. 

    Hitler believed in engineering a genetically perfect race too he just did it with genocide instead of science. 

    Post # 66
    Member
    7899 posts
    Bumble Beekeeper
    • Wedding: March 2012 - Pelican Grand Beach Resort

    Can anyone say GATTACA?

    I understand the desire to deal with health problems, but I think we cross the line when we start choosing vanity features or messing with intelligence. We start down a path towards eugenics, and that’s a dangerous path.

    Post # 67
    Member
    996 posts
    Busy bee
    • Wedding: July 2011

    I don’t see a problem with it either way. 10000% agree with it for medical reasons AND for “Designer” reasons. So you want your child to have black hair instead of blonde…so effin’ what. Parents decide what children wear, eat, go, and do for extra curricular activities. I don’t see whats wrong with choosing the sex, hair color or eye color of your child. I’m not really “religious” so obviously that isn’t a factor here but if you could make your future child smarter…why wouldn’t you want to? Why prohibit them from doing exceptionally well in life if there was  science (it would have to be safe of course) to help out with that?

    Eye color doesn’t affect personality and hair color doesn’t affect personality. The only thing that could potentially have a bigger change is the sex but I’d still support it either way.

    Post # 68
    Member
    2959 posts
    Sugar bee
    • Wedding: May 2014

    View original reply
    @somethingaquamarine:  I show that movie every semester to my genetic students to raise the issue of genetic ethics. In fact I have the students write a paper discussing whether or not they believe such a scenario is possible and if so, would they want a GE child? The one major flaw of the movie is that it completely ignores the environmental effect on phenotypic expression.

    Personally, I am very much against it. One problem is that in order for the engineered genes to have any chance of being assimilated, the egg must be injected with the engineered DNA very early in development, and I mean in the first few weeks. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that GE babies would definitely be a class issue and eventually used to discriminate.

    However, I regard Groomsmen foods (GMOs) to be a far more serious risk to human and non-human animal health. The long-term effects of inserting foreign DNA from organisms of different kingdoms has never been studied for such possibilities as frame-shift errors, possible nonsense and mis-sense errors, and unintended vector DNA transfer. Despite what the biotech industry claims, there are proteins that survive the digestive process, as well as undesirable protein residues and derivatives.

    Post # 69
    Member
    1430 posts
    Bumble bee

    eh I think I hate this. It reminds me of a futuristic movie where everyone is walking around Earth like gorgeous robots.

    Post # 70
    Member
    1019 posts
    Bumble bee

    View original reply
    @dodgercpkl:  I know…autism is a pretty bad example. I was assuming this was sometime in the future, when science has figured out more of the genes and triggers behind autism.

    Regardless, I’ve been thinking about this topic, and some the potential pitfalls of genetically engineered babies have made me a bit warier of it. The main thing that I’ve been weighing is the social problems it’d cause. There is surely no easy answer to this question.

    Post # 71
    Member
    4761 posts
    Honey bee
    • Wedding: September 2012

    I am against genetic engineering for physical traits (height, hair color, etc.) or personality traits (level of intelligence, funny, etc.).

    However, if we knew more about the effects & just the genome in general, I would be open to correcting diseases/disorders in fetuses – I mean, if it were my child, I would want to give them a chance of a healthy, full life.

    Post # 72
    Member
    13094 posts
    Honey Beekeeper
    • Wedding: July 2010

    I don’t agree with “designer babies” where you can choose their height and hair color and such.  I couldn’t get behind it for things like smarts or athletic ability either (especially because of the class issues it would create).

    But I don’t have a problem with helpling prevent a child from suffering from a horrible disease through some method of “genetic engineering”.

    Post # 73
    Member
    7768 posts
    Bumble Beekeeper
    • Wedding: July 2010

    Completely against.  Pretty sick, imo.

    Post # 74
    Member
    9916 posts
    Buzzing Beekeeper
    • Wedding: June 2013

    Why wouldn’t you want what was best for your child?  

    Post # 75
    Member
    4494 posts
    Honey bee
    • Wedding: October 2013

    I plan to have embryo selection. I have one of the rarest diseases in the world – Osteogenesis Imperfecta (OI) and there is a 50% chance I will pass it to my offspring. In simplest terms it is basically like Osteoporosis in reverse – you have it when you’re born and depending on the type you have (there are 4 types) it can remain serious your entire life or your bones may strengthen when you reach adolescence. I have the mildest form – so by the time I was 14 I was much stronger than when I was a young child (as a child I fractured my femurs, among other bones, countless times just by a simple fall). In more serious cases you break bones when you sneeze, roll over in bed, etc. I have lived through this disease personally and I would not want my children to have to experience it. I don’t see anything wrong with doing it to prevent genetic disorders. People take medications and undergo medical procedures to live longer when they would normally not be chosen to thrive through natural selection.

    I don’t agree with designer babies though.

    Post # 76
    Member
    1009 posts
    Bumble bee
    • Wedding: June 2012

    I am in a somewhat similar (but not really) situation to

    View original reply
    @adoc86:  and I spend a lot of time debating whether to do embryo selection.  I’ve already left one reproductive endocronologist who was only willing to work with me if I did the selection (we have to see a RE because of non-genetic fertility issues on DH’s side).  But I have ethical issues with it even for genetic defects.  Not that I’m against it or for it, I just see both the pros and cons and think its up to each person to make a decision.  The decision about embryo selection shouldn’t be made for us– either by doctors who say we must do it, or lawmakers who say we can’t.

    For my family, the issue is not so severe, which is why its so difficult for me (if it was severe or lifethreatening, it would be so much easier).  I have all of zero symptoms, and am happy and active.  But its a late onset issue, and my mom uses a walker.  I am soooo glad that my mom didn’t have the option to discard the embryo that became me.  A lead researcher on the condition feels very confident that there will be treatment/cure available within the next 50 years (the approximate age at which any affected child I had would start to show mild symptoms; doctors and genetic counselors feel confident that any affected child would follow other family members in age of onset and severity).  On the one hand, I want to give my child the best chance for a healthy life.  On the other, when the treatment/cure is announced, it would be a big punch in the gut to think of the embryos that we disposed because of this gene, that could be living long, healthy lives had we not thrown them away.  My grandmother had the issue and was eventually in a wheelchair, but she lived to her late 80s and her cause of death was unrelated.  And again, I’m very very glad to be here.

    View original reply
    @deetroitwhat:  Thanks for bringing the podcast to my attention.  I’m very much looking forward to listening to it.

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

    Find Amazing Vendors