Designer Babies

[Anddenex]

I recently read an article about "designer babies" or the potential parents could request, via genetic modification, a blue-eyed, petite little boy or girl.

The discussion resulted from some scientist who created an embryo from the genes of two males and one female.

What are some thoughts on the matter:

1. Are you potentially for "designer babies" (crude term)?

2. Is this ethically wrong, and if you feel so, why?

[SpiritDragon]

I personally am opposed to the idea of "designer babies." I think it is against the way God intends children to come into the world. I also realize that for most people this would set me apart as a religious whacko and my argument would be shot down.

I also think it is unethical because overtime it could likely increase the stigma against certain individuals with undesirable features, because they would be "preventable conditions." For instance disproportionately large heads or shortness that add diversity to the world may be looked at as preventable and therefore "inexcusable" attributes. It makes appearance even more like brand name clothes than it already is.

[Sharky]

I am very much oppossed to the idea.

Okay, so in this day & time we have the knowledge & technology & ability to "design" the baby using genes so that we will know the outcome.

Fifty some odd years ago a "world leader" had a similar idea to create a "superior race" with specific genetric traits. While he didn't have todays technology to actually select genes & design the baby, he had the same concept using "selective breeding".

We knew that leader as Hitler.

So generation 1 were naturally created.

Generation 2 were "designer" children.

What happens if that designer child wants to go the traditional route on their kids ....

Do we have any idea or concept, positive or negative, that could have on the human race over several generations?

In genetically modifying mankind would we be doing more harm then good to our own race?

I guess my thought is that sometimes what we see as desirable traits are not necessarily the beneficial traits.

In the livestock industry we breed to increase the good qualities while minimizing the bad qualities; however, in doing so one has to be aware of the dominate & recessive genes & the impact breeding for a handful of specific traits will have over all.

A neighbor has bred his sheep flock for decades to develop certain traits. They look to be a fine flock of animals. They put on muscle & weight rapidly as lambs & the produce twins & triplets each year, even can produce 2 hefty lamb crops every 14 months .... but in the process of breeding for those traits he neglected to keep in mind the genetic resistance to certain diseases.

This summer he gene tested every one of his breeders .... the prevelance of the recessive genes far outweighed the dominate genes, essentially meaning they are all suseptible rather then genetically resistant.

Survival of the fittest says that his sheep flock would not survive without mankind there to keep them healthy & alive.

Selective breeding in this case is/was not to the benefit of the breed & in the end is a risk not a benefit to the farmer.

Edited October 25, 2012 by Sharky

[Guest]

I'm opposed, and most of our children are in vitro babies.

[Anddenex]

I personally am opposed to the idea of "designer babies." I think it is against the way God intends children to come into the world. I also realize that for most people this would set me apart as a religious whacko and my argument would be shot down.

It is an unfortunate time when the an argument stemming from divinity is considered "whacko".

Thus, how could we as LDS defend this position without by using a similar argument without bringing God into the picture?

I was asking the similar question with my wife and your words here "the way God intends children to come into the world" were nearly her exact words also.

I also think it is unethical because overtime it could likely increase the stigma against certain individuals with undesirable features, because they would be "preventable conditions." For instance disproportionately large heads or shortness that add diversity to the world may be looked at as preventable and therefore "inexcusable" attributes. It makes appearance even more like brand name clothes than it already is.

I hadn't thought about this as an aspect, but definitely anything like this could lead to this type of mentality.

[Anddenex]

@Sharky & @Eowyn

With this type of learning and technology, would it be ethical to fully ban this type of procedure?

Or would this type of genetic modification be beneficial to cure potentially harmful diseases or birth defects of new born babies?

For example, I have a friend who potentially, if they have any children together, will always have dwarf children.

Would this type of procedure be great for our brother and sisters to be born without the possibility of being a dwarf?

Your thoughts?

[jerome1232]

Hasn't anyone here seen GATTACA? Hit's right on what I think about this topic.

[Anddenex]

Hasn't anyone here seen GATTACA? Hit's right on what I think about this topic.

Seen it, but don't remember what you are referring to?

[Guest]

I don't know. It's really hard to know where the line is. They do all kinds of testing and genetic counseling before you go into in vitro so you'll know what risks are of having a child together, and can make an educated choice on whether it's worth going through with it. I tend to think that if you have a genetic marker that you're concerned about, you change your plans. So rather than messing with the DNA of an embryo, you look into options for adopting. Of course there are people who say that about IVF alone. I was one of them, until it came to that, and it was clear and unmistakable that that was God's path for us. We weren't even okay with spinning sperm to choose gender, though. We just thought we'll use IVF to get us to the point we couldn't seem to conquer, and let God's will rule the rest.

[jerome1232]

That movie is pretty much about a society that does "designer babies". People have their gene's analyzed for job's etc... leading to two classes of people, genetically designed as being the elite, natural born as the underclass.

[Wingnut]

@Sharky & @Eowyn

With this type of learning and technology, would it be ethical to fully ban this type of procedure?

Or would this type of genetic modification be beneficial to cure potentially harmful diseases or birth defects of new born babies?

For example, I have a friend who potentially, if they have any children together, will always have dwarf children.

Would this type of procedure be great for our brother and sisters to be born without the possibility of being a dwarf?

Your thoughts?

I have a friend who is just ending her first trimester. She is pregnant for the first time. She's been married for 6 years (I think) and they've been actively TTC for 3-4. Over the past year they've been doing extensive fertility consulting/counseling/treatment, and were finally successful with IVF this summer. Even with a successful implantation, they were given a 30% chance of their children being "normal" all on their own. The other 70% consisted of "miscarriage, death shortly after birth, physical deformities, or an array of other health problems," in her own words. Following genetics counseling, she had 12 eggs pulled, 8 of which were mature, and 7 of which fertilized. Those 7 were tested, and of them, only one tested viable for a successful pregnancy. Fortunately it seems to have taken well, and she's been transferred to a "normal" OB, and isn't considered high-risk or a special case anymore.

Genetic testing absolutely has a place in modern medicine. It shouldn't be used for selective family planning with regard to cosmetics, though. That's an abuse of creative powers. I do, however, believe that its development is nothing short of miraculous in its ability to allow families like my friend to bring their own biological children into this world, healthily and with the chance to survive and thrive.

[BadWolf]

Neither for nor against.

There's been a lot of SciFi on this over the years:

- Friday - Heinlein

- gattica - Movie

((Opposite concepts, btw... Heinlein APs 'artificial persons' were bread as soldiers, whores, pilots, womb surrogates, radioactive waste disposal, etc. and were considered not to have souls/ were not 'real' people, were property of the lab that created them until they sold them then the property of whomever bought them... And follows one such AP. Gattica, meanwhile, the natural born were the low class undesirables prone to diseases, disorders, short lives, etc.)

But there are hundreds of books, and a good dozen movies that explore various aspects, both positive and negative.

My 'gut' response is 'Noooooooo'. My heart response (if I could have saved my son his pulmonary problems???) is YES! My head response is "Undecided : Exciting AND Terrifying on both the individual and sociocultural levels". My spirt response is keeping silent on the subject.

Will it happen? Barring the end of the world as we know it... Absolutely. In fact, its probably already been done, but we just don't know it, yet. Even if not, it will happen eventually, in my lifetime or my Grandkids. "We have the technology".

I think I'll reserve judgement for the time being.

[pam]

Thus, how could we as LDS defend this position without by using a similar argument without bringing God into the picture?

My first thought when reading this question is why should we leave God out of the argument?

[BadWolf]

My first thought when reading this question is why should we leave God out of the argument?

<Grin> Major Benefit of Having a Living Prophet!!!

[Backroads]

I recently read an article about "designer babies" or the potential parents could request, via genetic modification, a blue-eyed, petite little boy or girl.

The discussion resulted from some scientist who created an embryo from the genes of two males and one female.

What are some thoughts on the matter:

1. Are you potentially for "designer babies" (crude term)?

2. Is this ethically wrong, and if you feel so, why?

As a pregnant woman (who gets to find out gender today!) this horrifies me--I even opted not to do some of the testing because the Husband and I believe that any issues baby might have simply won't matter, we will be taking home the kid and loving it and raising it regardless. I do believe this little person is what God is giving our family.

"Designer babies" might be a crude term that horrifies those who support this, but I don't know a better term. It makes the baby more of an accessory than a human being.

As for ethics, while I don't know if I would call this unethical, I can't very well call it ethical. What if the kid doesn't like the parent-selected features? What if a parent is looked down upon for not picking certain features, picking others?

I really am thinking Scott Westerfield's "Uglies" here.

And to more or less paraphrase Big Bang Theory: "What if the baby isn't a genius?" "I"m sure the mother will still love it". "Well I wouldn't!"

Edited October 25, 2012 by Backroads

[Guest]

Coming from a family where none of my children look remotely close to my husband so much so that he always gets the "are they adopted?" every trick-or-treating, I would probably go for some genetic selection. As it is, I can deny my husband parentage of the kids and nobody would question it .

But, I'm sure when the time comes that designer babies become mainstream, the prophet would have something to say about it and all I really have to do is follow.

[Backroads]

anatess, just what would your husband give for a blonde-haired child?

[Sharky]

I brought this subject up with my wife this morning. Her 1st response was that it would do away with the "individuality" that God intended.

She then asked if being "fair skinned" was a desirable trait & pointed out that in a world where most people are indoors (home, office, school, etc) all the time, being "fair skinned" would not have the draw backs as it would in a culture where you were raising 6 kids in a 2 room cabin & everyone was working out in the fields all day every day.

I could see where the "designer babies" thing could become the demise of a country fixated on certain traits of beauty.

In the U S culture I think it is sometimes easy to look at certain traits or possessions as being greatness & not seeing or realizing the traits/possessions that truely are marks of greatness.

So while covetting the beauty it would be easy to forget or over look some of the other traits. During that time perhaps some other country could be using "designer babies" to develop great warrirors to man their armies with.