Should designer babies be allowed?

[War Gears]

With gene therapy progressing more and more there has been increased discussion about "designer babies," which are children developed from an embryo created with in-vitro fertilization and selected based on certain genes, with the genetic makeup often being modified by genetic engineering. Some people such as transhumanists have looked forward to this and see it as the next step for human evolution, while others such as the religious and philosophers like Francis Fukuyama being opposed to it and what it means for ethics and our relationship to nature.

Should we allow this practice?

I believe that we should, the benefits that come from eliminating dangerous diseases and mutations seems much more tangible than appeals to relative, abstract ethics. I'm not even really bothered by parents being able to select their children's hair or eye color, it just seems a more advanced scientific form of sexual selection (which is how we have the traits we do nowadays). Though state regulation is probably something which is going to be necessary, I can't help think there's going to be some Trekkie parents who want their children looking like Klingons or other instances of people who belong to an obsessive fandom making bad decisions.

What say ye, NSG?

[Grand Britannia]

Mmm yes. My RP nation can be a reality.

[Neo Balka]

No....

[Neutraligon]

I support it in that I think it would be a great way of eliminating certain genetic diseases. I think of course that we would need to be very careful to ensure no harm comes from the genetic engineering, both in the sense of the engineering itself harming those who it is used upon, and ensuring that people are treated equally (nothing like the Gundam Seed universe). It would also be important that those who are less well off should have access to this type of medical procedure.

[Costa Fierro]

If they can afford it, why not?

[Valgora]

I don't think there should be designer babies; the only exception should be genetic illnesses.

[War Gears]

I don't think there should be designer babies; the only exception should be genetic illnesses.

It doesn't really help add to discussion if you don't explain why though.

[Godular]

Deal with genetic illnesses and predispositions. As for genetic engineering... ehhhhhhhhh.

Law of unintended consequences and all that.

[Community Values]

My gut says it's wrong in any other case than genetic diseases. But who knows.

[Yes Im Biop]

Why not? SUper babies for the win

[Sovaal]

AS long as it doesn't involve modifying the human genome and won't cause genetic defects, sure.

[Dooom35796821595]

I approve whole heartedly. Space marines don't make themselves you know!

Seriously though, gene mods are awesome, but they probably need extensive testing and observation since there is still a lot we don't understand. You don't want a generation suddenly getting early onset dementia because we put the muscle enhancement gene mod in the middle of a vital gene that only activates when needed. (Eg 50+)

[Grinning Dragon]

Sure why not, I don't have any problems with designer babies.

[Yes Im Biop]

AS long as it doesn't involve modifying the human genome and won't cause genetic defects, sure.

But...Humans having babies the boring way auses defects tho

[Lashata]

I don't think "designer babies" should be banned, but I think there should be heavy testing and research done before anything can be modified. Just to make sure whatever your modifying doesn't come with unforeseen consequences.

[San Lumen]

No absolutely not. I dont want to open the door to parents deciding what a child will look like race or feature wise or possibly deciding what their interests will be or what their sexual orientation will be. Its unnatural and should never be allowed.

[Grand Britannia]

No absolutely not. I dont want to open the door to parents deciding what a child will look like race or feature wise or possibly deciding what their interests will be or what their sexual orientation will be. Its unnatural and should never be allowed.

Appeals to nature are a poor form of arguing against something.

[San Lumen]

No absolutely not. I dont want to open the door to parents deciding what a child will look like race or feature wise or possibly deciding what their interests will be or what their sexual orientation will be. Its unnatural and should never be allowed.

Appeals to nature are a poor form of arguing against something.

why is it poor?

[Palmyrion]

Suppose all this testing and stuff has been done.

While I have little against designer babies (besides some ethics), no one should force down your throat that you must "design your baby" - ergo, it is the parents' choice whether or not they want to genetically modify their embryo. Also, such method must be affordable for everyone.

The only ethical problem I have against designer babies is that the baby (at the embryo stage) doesn't get to choose what genes they get to have, should their parents genetically modify them.

If anything, I would suggest that if parents are to genetically modify their embryo, it must be done only to cure genetic diseases. Only when the child is born AND is at the legal age (18 right now) can they have augmentative genetic therapy.

[Republic of the Cristo]

From a religious perspective, I am vehemently opposed to genetically engineering human beings. I think we are fine as we are and the thought that we can some how improve upon the human form is blasphemy.

But because I know I am dealing with a lot of secular atheists here, here is an argument about bodily autonomy: By designing a human being before they are born, you are in turn deciding for them their lot in life - what they are going to be good or bad at, what crowds will most readily assume them ( tribal instincts of solidarity with people like them ), and are deciding for them what they will look like without consideration of their opinion on the matter. Human being's are canvasses which other more privileged people can use at their whimsy.

[Montesardo-East Adanzi]

Ah, another taboo. I'm mixed on the whole issue, but I see this as being an inevitable stepping stone for human evolution. It all depends on the ethics, and it's something akin to the ethics that are needed for AI (my branch of knowledge).
But, we need genetically modified catgirls :3

[Grand Britannia]

Appeals to nature are a poor form of arguing against something.

why is it poor?

Under this logic we should stop using vaccines and just let children build up immunities the good ol fashioned way.

Modern corn is man made, so are bananas.

Suppose all this testing and stuff has been done.

While I have little against designer babies (besides some ethics), no one should force down your throat that you must "design your baby" - ergo, it is the parents' choice whether or not they want to genetically modify their embryo. Also, such method must be affordable for everyone.

The only ethical problem I have against designer babies is that the baby (at the embryo stage) doesn't get to choose what genes they get to have, should their parents genetically modify them.

If anything, I would suggest that if parents are to genetically modify their embryo, it must be done only to cure genetic diseases. Only when the child is born AND is at the legal age (18 right now) can they have augmentative genetic therapy.

There's little point in saying kids not getting a say in the genes they get is an ethical issue, this implies they currently do.

Kids also get no say in their name, their surname, their families, and their social status, genes are the least of their worries.

[Major-Tom]

Seems...weird to me. In the sense that I really, really, really don't like it personally.

[Republic of the Cristo]

Ah, another taboo. I'm mixed on the whole issue, but I see this as being an inevitable stepping stone for human evolution. It all depends on the ethics, and it's something akin to the ethics that are needed for AI (my branch of knowledge).
But, we need genetically modified catgirls :3

That's another thing - people are going to make their babies fashionable for the current time. Fashions change, but because of short sightedness of parents, you may not.

[SD_Film Artists]

No, as it's too vulnerable to becomming a tool of discrimination. And I think it's rather disturbing that you think that allowing potential genocide is ok but giving people little Klingon ridges isn't.

If any changes are made to someone then it should be done when they're 18 and consenting.