Creating Perfect Babies

[Dynamic]

First baby tested for breast cancer form BRCA1 before conception born in UK

This is the first baby born that had been tested for breast cancer before conception. There were 11 embryos that were collected and 6 of them had the gene for cancer and 3 had abnormalities--so they were discarded. The other two were used and well the mother did get pregnant with one.

I think this is a terrible idea from a moral stand point. And I'm also concerned with what new diseases will come in place of the ones we finally get rid of. I am also concerned this will help lead the way for "designer babies".

Do you think this is acceptable? People creating their children from scratch and for what they want? Do you think it's okay to abort the other babies because there is a possibility they could get cancer? Is it okay to mess with nature's balance?

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

I think this is a terrible idea from a moral stand point.

I think it is a wonderful idea, and morally superior to exposing your children to that much of a risk of developing breast cancer. Of course, I'll never condemn people for choosing not to use such technologies as are available... but I believe this woman should be applauded.

And I'm also concerned with what new diseases will come in place of the ones we finally get rid of.

Do you honestly believe that new diseases are created because old diseases are cured? I'm sorry, but that is a ridiculous notion.

I am also concerned this will help lead the way for "designer babies".

I don't see this as a problem. Most of the traits that parents will select for are stupid and frivolous, but if it advances the technology to allow us to deliberately engineer our children to be stronger, smarter, and healthier, I am all for it.

We have an obligation to our ancestors not only to raise children, but to raise the best possible children we can, to bring honor to those who raised us. In this regard, I see genetic selection as no different than providing them the best education or nutrition; it is merely another factor that helps them to grow healthy and prosperous.

Do you think it's okay to abort the other babies because there is a possibility they could get cancer?

Yes. Do you believe that this action is better or worse than aborting children for financial reasons, which I also consider acceptable?

Is it okay to mess with nature's balance?

Are you wearing clothes? Do you drive a car? Have you ever eaten an animal that you have not killed with your bare hands?

Messing with Nature is what makes Man stand above the other beasts.

 

[1069]

I think it's a wonderful medical breakthrough as well.
Perhaps in time, we can phase these cancer genes right out of the human gene pool (unless they're recessive and will keep cropping up again in future generations).
But regardless, what a gift to give one's child.
These genes must be a terrible burden to have to live with.

 

[Laila]

Excellent, lets make it compulsory tbh.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Excellent, lets make it compulsory tbh.

I am sympathetic, but I cannot agree with that.

Should we make sex without birth control illegal, and only allow reproduction through licensed clinics? Short step from there to the government-- or the clinics-- being able to decide who is and who ain't fit to breed.

Might get a little more traction if you're suggesting that such screening measures only be mandatory for people using IVF technology anyway-- but then, what genetic traits should be prohibited, and which traits should be mandatory if present in at least one embryo? Who decides?

This is a legal minefield, and I believe the best interests of the species are well enough served by merely making this technology available to people who want it. Evolution is a numbers game.

 

[1069]

Excellent, lets make it compulsory tbh.

Yeah, I too disagree.
There is not enough money for the government to foot the bill for compulsory, across-the-board genetic testing, and poor people can't afford to pay for it themselves.
Making it mandatory would effectively bar the poor from having children.
Not that the poor can really afford breast or ovarian cancer, either, and not that society can easily absorb the cost of their treatment, but this is how we've been doing it, and so this is they way we should continue.
Only about 15% of breast cancer, anyway, has a genetic causal link.
They haven't really figured out what causes the rest of it, although obesity appears to play a role.
In most cases, though, a cause is never determined.
So it's not like eradicating the BRCA1 gene would eliminate all breast cancer, or even a significant percentage of breast cancers.
What it can do is ensure that your own child doesn't end up with the gene.
That's why it should be an individual decision.
The benefits are largely individual, rather than to society at large.
The government shouldn't mandate it.

 

[Laila]

Cancer treatment on the NHS costs hundreds of millions a year in UK.
But within US its obviously insurance.

It depends on which is cheaper tbh, if screening people to prevent large costs, i don't mind.

 

[1069]

Cancer treatment on the NHS costs hundreds of millions a year in UK.
But within US its obviously insurance.

It depends on which is cheaper tbh, if screening people to prevent large costs, i don't mind.

In the US, millions are uninsured.
We are expected to purchase our own insurance here.
Nearly all of the poor and many of the working class (including me, until about a year ago) are without insurance.
There are various government (ie, taxpayer-funded) programs like Medicaid which allow the poor to get medical care, but it is usually suboptimal, and there are many restrictions on who qualifies.

 

[DarkWizard12]

I'm really not sure where I stand on this. I think its good that we could virtually cure cancer for a generations, however, I'm not all too friendly with the "designer baby" idea.

 

[1069]

I'm really not sure where I stand on this. I think its good that we could virtually cure cancer for a generations, however, I'm not all too friendly with the "designer baby" idea.

No, we couldn't.
I just said, only around 15% of breast cancers are the result of genetics.
And the genes in question are, I believe, recessive, so they'll crop back up in later generations anyway.

But still.
As we learn more about genes, maybe we'll be able to test for and prevent other kinds of cancers.

 

[Dynamic]

Do you honestly believe that new diseases are created because old diseases are cured? I'm sorry, but that is a ridiculous notion.

Why thank you.

I don't see this as a problem. Most of the traits that parents will select for are stupid and frivolous, but if it advances the technology to allow us to deliberately engineer our children to be stronger, smarter, and healthier, I am all for it.

Hmm your views are interesting. I like to read them even though I don't always agree with them.

We have an obligation to our ancestors not only to raise children, but to raise the best possible children we can, to bring honor to those who raised us. In this regard, I see genetic selection as no different than providing them the best education or nutrition; it is merely another factor that helps them to grow healthy and prosperous.

Why do we owe our ancestors anything? They are dead. Do you honestly think they are reaping the benefits? If anything, we owe **** to our future, not our past.

Yes. Do you believe that this action is better or worse than aborting children for financial reasons, which I also consider acceptable?

I see it on the same page. I disagree with abortion for reasons other than medically necessary. What was your point with that one?

Are you wearing clothes? Do you drive a car? Have you ever eaten an animal that you have not killed with your bare hands?

Messing with Nature is what makes Man stand above the other beasts.

Messing with nature is something we do. Artificial insemination is one of them. It does throw off the balance. When we save animals that are naturally going extinct we are ****ing with the natural balance. I don't think we should be playing "GOD". I think it's dangerous. I'm entitled to my opinion, and I really don't think it makes me stupid or ridiculous to express myself--even if you do not agree.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Why do we owe our ancestors anything? They are dead. Do you honestly think they are reaping the benefits? If anything, we owe **** to our future, not our past.

Yes, I believe they are reaping the benefits. I believe that the honor of our family names follows us into the afterlife, and just as a good name benefits us here, it benefits them there.

And if we pay our debts to our ancestors by providing a future for our descendants, doesn't it work out the same?

I see it on the same page. I disagree with abortion for reasons other than medically necessary. What was your point with that one?

You seemed to be implying that this form of abortion was more abhorrent than the regular kind. It struck me as odd, because even with my casual acceptance of the regular kind of abortion, I see abortion for reason of genetic or gestational defect to be much more morally upright.

Messing with nature is something we do. Artificial insemination is one of them. It does throw off the balance.

Do you believe that couples who cannot conceive naturally should remain childless? Or should they content themselves with adoption? Personally, as much as I applaud adoption, I understand why people would want to have and raise their own biological children-- and I do not consider this a matter where they should concede to nature.

I don't think we should be playing "GOD". I think it's dangerous.

Call it hubris if you like, but if we were not meant to play god, why were we given the means to? Why were we given reason and free will and ambition if we were not intended to use them? If the gods didn't want us to play in their sandbox, why did they leave their toys where we could find them?

I'm entitled to my opinion, and I really don't think it makes me stupid or ridiculous to express myself--even if you do not agree.

I only labeled one of your opinions ridiculous, and I do not think that you are personally ridiculous or stupid.

The questions in my posts were not intended to mock you. They're not even purely rhetorical, because if you still disagreed with me after answering them, I would be interested to hear your answers.

 

[Dynamic]

Yes, I believe they are reaping the benefits. I believe that the honor of our family names follows us into the afterlife, and just as a good name benefits us here, it benefits them there.

And if we pay our debts to our ancestors by providing a future for our descendants, doesn't it work out the same?

You believe in an afterlife and also seem to believe in a god/gods. Yet you think my opinion of diseases and how they manifest--even though not completely explained--is ridiculous. That is...strange. (I would love to explain my stand point on that but it is off topic and I would be here all night trying to put it in plain English to make it understandable.)

You seemed to be implying that this form of abortion was more abhorrent than the regular kind. It struck me as odd, because even with my casual acceptance of the regular kind of abortion, I see abortion for reason of genetic or gestational defect to be much more morally upright.

What does assuming do Rat? I think distroying a person for personal preference is disgusting in any form.

Do you believe that couples who cannot conceive naturally should remain childless? Or should they content themselves with adoption? Personally, as much as I applaud adoption, I understand why people would want to have and raise their own biological children-- and I do not consider this a matter where they should concede to nature.

I know why people would want to, but if they cannot, it is because it is not meant to be. Do I sympathize? Sure. But yes I do think some people should be content with adoption. I don't know why you wouldn't be. This world is over populated with humans. There are reasons why natural disasters happen in my opinion. And there are also reasons why people cannot have children. I also understand you are okay with killing children that have not been adopted. So from that stand point I am more likely to be for people adopting over artificial insemination.

Call it hubris if you like, but if we were not meant to play god, why were we given the means to? Why were we given reason and free will and ambition if we were not intended to use them? If the gods didn't want us to play in their sandbox, why did they leave their toys where we could find them?

There are some things people should not do. I don't think the Atomic Bomb was a great idea. But hell we have it don't we? I'm not going to stop people from doing it. But I don't have to agree with it or participate in it.

 

[Wessexman]

Call it hubris if you like, but if we were not meant to play god, why were we given the means to? Why were we given reason and free will and ambition if we were not intended to use them? If the gods didn't want us to play in their sandbox, why did they leave their toys where we could find them?

I believe the term Hubris is Greek and I read somewhere it was applied to heroes who forgot their place and whose pride became so much that it angered the Gods themselves and they were always destroyed by it.

It seems to me that the greatest of caution should be applied to this like so many new technologies today. They seem to rush out with them without any thoughts of the possible consequences which could be enormous and negative, both in terms of unintentional and intentional outcomes.

You talk above of your belief in our obligations to our ancestors. That is an ancient view, it is a long view. It is a view of caution, of continuity and custom. A man serves his ancestors by remembering his small place in the long chain of human existence and remembering that it is his duty to bequeath to his descendents what was given to him. That requires caution and humility.

 

[rathi]

I don't find this application troubling. Breast cancer kills, and I don't see anything wrong in trying to prevent that. However, this technique does have other uses, in far less medically useful realms. There is a big difference between trying to avoid dying of disease, and say picking gender or hair color. Considering how rabid many parents today are about, "getting the best advantage for out child" even at the expense of reason, its important that they be kept in check. I'd really hate to see what happens to population dynamics if parents were able to pick the gender of their child as easily as they pick their color of baby clothes. Powerful technology like this can bring great benefits, but requires an equal amount of caution.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

You believe in an afterlife and also seem to believe in a god/gods. Yet you think my opinion of diseases and how they manifest [...] is ridiculous. That is... strange.

I am deeply religious, in a way that most people never experience. But when there is a scientific explanation for a phenomenon, where a scientific explanation is possible, I prefer the scientific explanation to the religious. I believe that to do otherwise is to dishonor the gift of reason given to us by the gods.

I think distroying a person for personal preference is disgusting in any form.

Well, we could go around in circles for awhile over this, because I do not believe that an unimplanted embryo sitting in a petri dish is even remotely close to being a person. But I think that would be more relevant to a general abortion debate, and less so to this one.

I know why people would want to, but if they cannot, it is because it is not meant to be.

I do not understand this passive acceptance of fate, when the means to change it are so readily available. If it wasn't meant to be, artificial methods would fail as surely as natural ones.

But yes I do think some people should be content with adoption. I don't know why you wouldn't be.

I would say that I am much less hung up on issues of bloodline than most people. I am much more concerned with the perpetuation of my family name, and raising many strong sons and daughters regardless of how they land in my custody. I would like to produce biological children, but I also want to adopt-- and if I should find that one or the other is unavailable to me, so be it.

On the other hand, I also will not consider either road closed to me until I have exhausted all practical options.

This world is over populated with humans.

This, I disagree with. On what criteria do you judge that there are too many people? There is still plenty of food, plenty of fresh water, and plenty of space for several times the Earth's human population. We just distribute all three resources painfully inefficiently, wasting food in one area while people starve in the next, and crowding into vast metropolitan areas while the suburbs sprawl endlessly across the landscape.

So from that stand point I am more likely to be for people adopting over artificial insemination.

That is my preference as well. I just understand why it is not shared by so many people.

You talk above of your belief in our obligations to our ancestors. That is an ancient view, it is a long view. It is a view of caution, of continuity and custom.

It is also a view that demands a certain ambition, a drive to accomplish great things and to leave a mark on this world so that the name of your fathers is remembered and respected.

A man serves his ancestors by remembering his small place in the long chain of human existence and remembering that it is his duty to bequeath to his descendents what was given to him. That requires caution and humility.

Indeed. I cannot argue this.

But I also believe that it is insufficient to one's ancestral obligations to leave to his descendants only what was given to him. That is laziness and over time leads to a loss of stature, a loss of esteem. Man should always seek to leave his children a better world than the one he has inherited, to give his children the benefits of more wealth than he had as a child, and to honor his father's memory by stepping out of his shadow.

This requires boldness and pride.

 

[Makedde]

Do you think this is acceptable? People creating their children from scratch and for what they want? Do you think it's okay to abort the other babies because there is a possibility they could get cancer? Is it okay to mess with nature's balance?

IMO it is perfectly acceptable. If I could prevent my child from getting cancer I would do this. People should have the right to decide whether they have a child with a disability. If someone doesn't want a baby with Downs, for example, a test to check if the embryo has Downs would tell whether or not that baby would have the disability. It would be much better than the woman getting pregnant with a baby she would only abort further on.

I do not support the idea of people choosing to have children with blonde hair and blue eyes, or choosing their skills and how tall they are, etc. That is wrong, but to prevent your child from having an illness, yes. Nothing wrong with it.

 

[Kal'Stang]

While this could be a really good thing, it could be a very dangerous thing to. Eventually any parent that wants thier child to be the best possible will have to get designer babies just so that their child doesn't become a second (or third) class citizen. Of course at first only the elite rich will beable to do this once they've got it marketable. After that......who knows....

Anyone ever hear of the movie GATTACA? Look it up if you haven't. With this kind of technology the general situation in the movie could very well become a reality.

 

[winston53660]

While this could be a really good thing, it could be a very dangerous thing to. Eventually any parent that wants thier child to be the best possible will have to get designer babies just so that their child doesn't become a second (or third) class citizen. Of course at first only the elite rich will beable to do this once they've got it marketable. After that......who knows....

Anyone ever hear of the movie GATTACA? Look it up if you haven't. With this kind of technology the general situation in the movie could very well become a reality.

I was just thinking about that flick as i started reading your post

 

[Shewter]

Do you honestly believe that new diseases are created because old diseases are cured? I'm sorry, but that is a ridiculous notion.

Call me ridiculous or silly. But I suppose I believe that nature has its own form of population control. And like Dynamic I have to wonder what else we could see if we start pushing out "perfect" kids.

We have an obligation to our ancestors not only to raise children, but to raise the best possible children we can, to bring honor to those who raised us. In this regard, I see genetic selection as no different than providing them the best education or nutrition; it is merely another factor that helps them to grow healthy and prosperous.

I think I would be wronging my ancestors by pitching out children that could have been.

Just me though?

Yes. Do you believe that this action is better or worse than aborting children for financial reasons, which I also consider acceptable?

I believe in the right to. I just don't personally agree with the practice.

Are you wearing clothes? Do you drive a car? Have you ever eaten an animal that you have not killed with your bare hands?

Messing with Nature is what makes Man stand above the other beasts.

I'll accept that to a point. Being defiant is in our nature, but that doesnt mean I've got to agree with all steps taken.

If we are to come to the point of Cyber-genetics in my lifetime I will glare at the article bringing me such news just as I am at this.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

I think I would be wronging my ancestors by pitching out children that could have been.

There were eleven of them. They could not all have been.

 

[1069]

There were eleven of them. They could not all have been.

Sure they could've. Just ask Michelle Duggar.

(... or Felicity.)


j/k :mrgreen:

 

[Shewter]

There were eleven of them. They could not all have been.

But to decide which one does... I'm just not comfortable with that idea.

Time to start a new bleeding heart liberal group :lol:

People for the Privacy of Embryos

Our chant outside of these facilities could be "Embryos have rights too!" "Embryos want their privacy! And they want it NOW!"

 

[Wessexman]

It is also a view that demands a certain ambition, a drive to accomplish great things and to leave a mark on this world so that the name of your fathers is remembered and respected.



Indeed. I cannot argue this.

But I also believe that it is insufficient to one's ancestral obligations to leave to his descendants only what was given to him. That is laziness and over time leads to a loss of stature, a loss of esteem. Man should always seek to leave his children a better world than the one he has inherited, to give his children the benefits of more wealth than he had as a child, and to honor his father's memory by stepping out of his shadow.

This requires boldness and pride.

Yes a man must invest his talents so to speak not bury them but that does not remove the duty for caution it just means caution should not turn into timidity.