'Designer' Babies

[Davey Gaga]

Bit of a deep thread for 1.30am but I'm throwing it out there

While studying Genetics this year I came across (naturally) the topic of designer babies.

What's the first thing that comes to mind? "Messing with nature"? Being shallow? Not loving babies? Aborting/killing? One step too far in science?

I used to think so, too, until I learned what's actually involved in designer babies.

The term 'designer' actually gives a false sense of what's involved in the process. It's not a terrifyingly unnatural creation of a genome. Parents aren't asked to tick a load of boxes and we'll be right back with your product. 'Designer' gives an idea of a DIY situation, where in actuality it's different. A number of embryos are created outside of the uterus ("test-tube babies) and their genes are sequenced - parents are then told, for eample which of the embryos have genes for blue eyes, blonde hair, or HIV resistance. It's more of a catalogue system than a manufacturing process.

Since the acual process it not half as barbaric as it's made out to be, does this change your opinion on the matter? Is it really that terrible to select babies based on their genes? The embryos would not be able to grow unless they're implanted so there's less of an issue (technically) with abortion. By this method embryos can be selected for "saviour siblings" (e.g. giving birth to a child for the purpose of future blood transfusions/transplants) and help to save lives.

Where do you draw the line?

 

[Valvalis]

I think the term "designer babies" does give it a sort of negative connotation, but I really can't say I have too much of a problem with it, tbh I think it would be a good foil to overpopulation because a lot of couples lately will keep having children until they get the gender they want--i.e., you'll see families where there are three older boys and then a younger girl, or vice versa, because the parents wanted the opposite gender of whatever they got first. And it's kind of not fair to the first kid(s) that they weren't wanted, and there are carbon footprints and all that, so if people got to choose what gender their first child was, that sort of thing would never happen. (And hey, look at Henry the VIII) So no, I don't really see a problem with babies' genders being engineered. Some people may say it's unnatural, but we've already messed around with nature so much that the only way to do anything to fix it will likely require doing some more unnatural things.

...Gender selection is a part of this, right? /hopesIdidn'tjustwasteabunchoftime

 

[Gaige]

I don't think the concept of these designer babies in itself is a bad thing, because, not to sound shallow, but nobody wants an ugly kid. If I had a kid and he wasn't as "handsome" or she wasn't as "pretty" as the other kids in her class, he/she would get crap for that. Kids are cruel, and they can't help being what we perceive as ugly or good looking.

There are some out there who would reject a kid just for turning out a different way than they envisioned. Yes it's rare, and yes it's cruel, but this happens. Giving the parents that sense of control isn't a bad thing if it gives people the children they want.

I'm looking at this from a materialistic point of view because I've seen friends and acquaintances alike get teased for having to wear glasses, having big teeth, being too short, too tall. And yes, there is the danger of the world being a little less variable, but that's just the direction we're moving in. It's sad, but there'll always be people to pick on looks. And if this prevents children from growing up to be what we perceive as ugly, it does no harm.

 

[Rydia]

I remember reading about this in an ethics class. And we saw the movie Gattaca where people only had children in test tubes and they were made to be super humans. Babies born from the womb were second class citizens because they were not perfect. People who had genetic diseases were denied health insurance.

I think simply choosing your child's eye color and look isn't too bad of a thing. I'd just be worried that things would get way too out of hand in the future.

Also, just because you chose what your child looked like doesn't mean it will always be so. Autism can develop at any age before 18 and they are not certain of the causes. There is little evidence of it being in the genes and that it could be due to environmental factors. Or if God forbid your child is in an accident and comes out with scaring.

And lets say that there was a mistake in the gene reading and instead of getting blue eyes, the child ended up with brown eyes. How will the parents react? Can they sue the company because their child isn't the way that they wanted? How would the child feel about that?

There is also the risk of the uterus not taking the egg. My cousin's first attempt with invetro fertilization was a failed attempt and that was $10,000 dollars gone. Her second attempt was successful. It will most likely be more expensive with "designer" babies. Also, there is also the chance of a miscarriage. (designer babies are placed in the womb right?)

I have also never heard of a parent rejecting a child because of their looks or gender. To me, designer babies just sounds like a waste of money. Children themselves are expensive enough.

I personally would only want to have kids the old fashioned way XD. Unless I find myself infertile and really want to have kids and other methods have also failed, then I'd go for the invetro. I can't see myself wanting to design my kids because I could care less about what the child looks like or what gender they are.

 

[Kandy-Sugar]

The idea of it does seem a bit ridiculous in my opinion.

If you can have babies naturally then I think this option is just silly.

If however you need help getting pregnant and you've come across this and you have the money to invest in it, then go for it.

It's something I would never do.

1. I don't want kids anyway.
2. If and when I do have kids I'd rather have them naturally. They already are going cost you enough money in the long run. =/

I think you'd set yourself up to expect your child to come out looking exactly the way you imagined and then when they do grow up and look totally different, you'll only disappoint yourself, hurt your child because they will find out somehow, and you would have spent all that money for nothing. =/

 

[Gaige]

Unfortunately though, there are people like that, aren't there? Those materialistic people who are going to want their child just so and spend money in an attempt to have it turn out the way they desire.

Really, it's better to wrap yourself in that delusion to have your child turn out just the way you like rather than rejecting him/her because he/she has brown eyes instead of blue.

Yes, it's sad that we live in a materialistic world, and if I ever have kids, it won't matter to me if they're autistic and have purple hair with green highlights, with some kinda gene that makes it spiky like a star. At the end of my day, he/she is my kid, and I'll love him/her. Unfortunately, not everyone has that frame of mind.

 

[Rydia]

Unfortunately though, there are people like that, aren't there? Those materialistic people who are going to want their child just so and spend money in an attempt to have it turn out the way they desire.

Really, it's better to wrap yourself in that delusion to have your child turn out just the way you like rather than rejecting him/her because he/she has brown eyes instead of blue.[/quote]

Exactly. People are treating their kids like they are accessories and not people. And another thing, if the parents design their first child, and decide not to spend the money to "design" a second one, is the first child going to be favored? How is the second child going to feel?

I don't mind however, that if the parents have a very bad heredity gene (such as HD) and they do not want to pass that on to their kid. They I'd understand why they might want to pick out certain genes.

 

[Sum1sgruj]

I think the idea is absurd. But all the same, everyone on Earth will eventually be the same race through 'mixed relations', so f*ck it.

I feel that money twists people to do these things. If they were normal, hard-working people, they wouldn't be so asinine as to waste their money on something so ridiculous.

 

[Gingerbread Lesbian]

I don't agree with any sort of scientific involvement at any stage of pregnancy or before. Scientists shouldn't "play God" when it comes to reproduction nor do I condone it, whether it be "designer babies" to in-vitro fertilization, children are born the way they are for a reason. If the child is born with brown eye colour and is female then the parents should accept it. If they are disabled, then the parents should accept it. If they are prone to a certain disease, then the parents should accept it. If they are born with some sort of disease, then as saddening as it is, I feel there's a reason for it. The same goes with instances such as being infertile, as unfortunate as it is, and something I would never wish upon anyone, but if you can't have children then maybe there's a reason for it; it may be natures' way of keeping the population to a certain level.

Life is what it is, personally I find the thought of tampering with reproduction unnatural and wrong.

 

[Rapture]

I don't agree with any sort of scientific involvement at any stage of pregnancy or before. Scientists shouldn't "play God" when it comes to reproduction nor do I condone it, whether it be "designer babies" to in-vitro fertilization, children are born the way they are for a reason. If the child is born with brown eye colour and is female then the parents should accept it. If they are disabled, then the parents should accept it. If they are prone to a certain disease, then the parents should accept it. If they are born with some sort of disease, then as saddening as it is, I feel there's a reason for it. The same goes with instances such as being infertile, as unfortunate as it is, and something I would never wish upon anyone, but if you can't have children then maybe there's a reason for it; it may be natures' way of keeping the population to a certain level.

Life is what it is, personally I find the thought of tampering with reproduction unnatural and wrong.

I agree with about 99% of your post Argar. The only part where I disagree is the part about invitro. Yes, its expensive, and no you don't know exactly what you are going to get out of it, but picture this: A woman waits to find "Mr Right" finds him, marries him...and they decide to have children in her late 30's or very early 40's...and they try...and they try...and they try. A year or two later and nothing. If they get the chance to experience the miracle and blessing that is parenthood by this method, than so be it. Yes, it does some messing about of stuff as far as reproduction goes...but some women and their significant others may have difficulties with their egg being released at the correct time...or the men with having a decreased sperm count....or whatever. Something about their bodies does not allow the initial correct environment for the fertilization of the ovum inside the woman's body. If by invitro they can achieve this process by bypassing it inside the woman's body than I personally see that as okay. There is no messing about with anything asides from the fact that the point of fertilization did not happen in the mother's body. I've seen the awe-struck look of a mother who has tried for years to get pregnant and finally after all else failed did invitro with her husband and they had twin boys...I wouldn't want to take that away from anyone...and thats what would have happened if she didn't have it.

On the whole designer baby thing, I do not agree with it. Every day I see people dipping into things that shouldn't be meddled with and I believe that pregnancy and babies are one of them. I would not personally love or enjoy my child any less if he/she was autistic, had green eyes (when I have blue) or if they were missing a toe. I would love them because they are MY child. These designer babies would technically be your children yes, but you take away a lot of the true miracles of pregnancy by delving into "oh its gotta be a girl" and "oh she's got to be 5'7 just like me and have blue eyes" and "has to have an IQ of 175" and yada yada. Eventually there will be shops where you can get a blueprint for the child you want. Today we want control over everything under the sun...and if we go this route our children will be accessories and not the people that we love and appreciate for the miracles that they are.

 

[StrungOut]

I don't mind however, that if the parents have a very bad heredity gene (such as HD) and they do not want to pass that on to their kid. They I'd understand why they might want to pick out certain genes.

That's the only reason why I'm for the gene selection or modification. In my family (on my mother's side) there is some bipolarity and schizophrenia cases. I'm still not sure if I want children i the future knowing that. If I could, I would be willing to pay to change the genes responsible for these kind of illness. I wouldn't love my child less if he has such an illness but his life would be much easier without it.

When it comes to thing like the colour of the eyes, colour of the air or even the gender, I'm totally against it. I think we should keep these things as a surprise you discover when the baby is born (although you can know the gender before that). That way we would keep a diversified society and humans with their little physical flaws here and there. No humans are perfect physically and beauty is relative, so it's pretty much useless for parents to try to have with a designer baby what they would consider a perfect baby.

 

[Bambi]

I really dont like the idea of this at all. theres just something about it that i dont think will ever sit right with me. Just let nature do its course. I can understand from a medical point of view, if there is a risk the child may have some form of defect etc, or theres something or other genetic that runs in the family, but not if its just something as simple as eye colour

Im on the fence with this whole saviour thing as well. on one hand, you can understand the desperation and the need to save child A, but what about child B thats essentially created for this? What kind of effect will it have on this childs life, as it ggrows and becomes aware of why it was born, and the potential surgical shite it has to go through..?

Ahhhh its a weird subject

 

[Davey Gaga]

The same goes with instances such as being infertile, as unfortunate as it is, and something I would never wish upon anyone, but if you can't have children then maybe there's a reason for it; it may be natures' way of keeping the population to a certain level.

Modern medicine helps to treat people. Bit of pneumonia? Throw back some antibiotics. Breast cancer? Ingest some herceptin, or get some radiation in ye. Renal failure? Dialysis or transplant.

These are all things that are unnatural - medicine is used to treat sick people, people who might die without the medicine. To paraphrase Scrubs, medicine is used to elongate the lives of people who would've died long ago. We've increased our life-span from the days before antibiotics, because radiotherapy, before surgery. These diseases or failures or conditions have occurred naturally but we have no qualms with treating them "unnaturally" (the only natural treatment being your own immunity).

So, why are we drawing the line at genetic screening, essentially getting a pre-emptive strike on disease?

I think mentioning choosing eye colour was a bit of a bad idea, as I might have misled people myself. You can't literally DIY the genes of your baby - whatever eggs have been fertilized by whatever sperm develop in to an embryo, their genes are screened and mapped, and diseases/conditions are calculated on probability and principles of Mendelian inheritance. You can't literally say, give me a baby with blue eyes, blonde hair and HIV resistance. Your embryo, which has naturally developed, is screened, you're told what's wrong with it and you choose whether you want it to go to term.

Given the money I'd love to do it. If I had the choice between someone with Downs/Huntington's/Pett's/Duchenne or someone perfectly 'normal' then I'd go for the latter every time.

 

[Shu]

Honestly it's the most definite form of being shallow. Though I really can't disagree with it because I knew it would happen one day. The only problem is I think about it like this:

It's like we are pre-programming our kids already. We want the physical composition of their body to be a certain way in order to benefit us, the parents. We are already sending our kids down the path of "programming". As soon as that baby comes out of the womb (or by this point tube or cut out of the body probably) then it will already lost the genetic family off springs traits. It will be like a machine already. All that needs to be done is programming the data. As in brain washing the little tyke.

I knew it would happen one day, just a matter of time, like clones. I don't think it's immoral, I just think it's boring. Who wants to be designed in a certain fashion and let the value of nature diminish?

 

[Bambi]

You can't literally say, give me a baby with blue eyes, blonde hair and HIV resistance. Your embryo, which has naturally developed, is screened, you're told what's wrong with it and you choose whether you want it to go to term.

I know that, but still, my mum has green eyes my dad blue, Im sure a little girl could have been created with blue eyes and I would never have come to be

I certainly agree with the medical side of it, if I was pregnant and I found out the baby had something wrong with it that would result in life time care, of COURSE I would want to have a healthy child, which creating and screening the embryos would be beneficial, but ONLY in cases were the risk would be high. I wouldn't just do it on a whim. Not that I could ever afford to anyway, but still, if I had the means to well, unless the doctor sat me down and said theres a high risk of *etc etc* then yeah. I ust don't really like the idea of the choice.. I dunno why.. jut..choosing which one you want to give the life to... It's not even like I'm pro -life or anything like that, it's just ...weird

I knew a familiy that had 4 children, 3 of them having systic fibrosis (sp?) the three all now having died. In that instance, without a shadow of a doubt it would be beneficial, but for cosmetic reasons. Nah, nature. It's course. Etc.

Though I knew those o personally, Jane was my best friend when I was younger and it's weird to think she wouldn't of ever existed because of this...

Ahhhhhh