I'll have one with blue eyes and blond hair please!

steddyeddy

This isn't a thread about ordering hookers in case you thought that. I'm wondering what people's opinions are on designer babies? For those that dont know; designer babies are babies that are genetically modifed to give a desired appearence e.g blue hair and blond eyes. Personally I'm not against it but I wouldnt do it to a child of mine either. Nor do I think our understanding of genetics is sufficient enough to do it 100% accuratly yet.

What do After hourer's think about designer babies and would you get it done? Here's a link to a article about designer babies from a austrailan newspaper.

HOW do you feel about genetically modified babies?








With technology racing forward, scientists now have techniques that enable us to order a perfect baby, like a fast-food meal.
If we wanted to, we could use genetic testing to ensure our bub has blue eyes, thick curly hair and gorgeous long slim legs.
These days, we almost have the science to work out whether our kid will be a One Direction fan, if they will still be at home at 35 and whether they'll laugh at dad's jokes.
It used to be that mum, dad and baby made three.
But now there are many different ways to make a baby, and science is surging ahead of social norms and creating techno-tots who would have been unthinkable a few years ago.
It's mind-blowing, but scientists have found a way to make a baby with three biological parents.
A child can now be conceived using DNA from a mother, a father and a third "parent" with genetic material to replace disease-carrying DNA.
At this stage, it's about preventing a range of diseases, including heart defects, muscular dystrophy and other hearing and vision problems caused by inherited genes.
But who's to say the goalposts won't change over time, and the same technology won't be used to make kids taller, or whiter, or better at maths?
There are also startling new advances in transplant technology, which enable daughters to give birth using the uterus they were born in.
An Australian woman, Melinda Arnold, has even been selected as the first potential recipient in this country of a donor womb from her mother.
Gee, that's a pretty complicated family tree.
At this stage, it's all about helping infertile women have their own babies, but it's unlikely to stay this way for long.
How far are we willing to go?
Already, 30 genetically manipulated children have been created in the US by Prof Jacques Cohen as part of an infertility program.
Alarm bells should be ringing, because we really don't know long term what the implications are of all of this genetic manipulation.
There are already signs that one of the babies created by Prof Cohen has a "developmental disorder", although doctors maintain their technological tinkering wasn't to blame.
Already we know babies who are born naturally are healthier than those created via IVF and other assisted reproductive techniques.
Doctors from the Murdoch Children's Research Institute have recently linked a rise in the use of infertility treatments, among other things, to an increasing number of premature babies born with a higher risk of lifelong health issues.
Such babies have a rate of mortality that is five times higher than children born at term, and a 4 1/2 times higher rate of respiratory distress.
The risks are still low, but it's a significant issue given that in recent years we have seen a 150 per cent increase in the number of births resulting from assisted reproductive techniques.
There is also the possibility that this science will be used to genetically manipulate babies for vanity purposes.
Already there are signs that our expectations are changing.
There's a new app, for instance, that allows you to work out what genetic traits your baby is likely to inherit from you and your partner.
You just put in characteristics from both of you, and for only $3, you can work out the likelihood of your baby having 23 traits such as curly hair, dimples and even the ability to roll its tongue.
It used to be that we chose partners on whether they'd be a good parent or not.
Now we are being encouraged to choose them on the basis of how our children might look.
Just because we've got the technology, it doesn't necessarily mean we should use it to create designer babies.
The application of such science should be used strictly to eradicate disease and help those who are infertile, rather than self-select certain physical or character traits.
I am even against genetic testing for gender selection unless there's a good medical reason for it.
But not everyone agrees: a British scientist called Prof Julian Savulescu thinks creating designer babies with selected superior characteristics could be seen as a "moral obligation" as it makes them grow up into "ethically better children".
These are not just empty words.
Whether we like it or not, procedures that would have been unthinkable a generation ago are now commonplace.
Few people raised a eyebrow recently when actor Nicole Kidman recently used a surrogate to carry the genetic baby made using her egg and her husband's sperm.

Some scientits justify this by the same methods abortion is justified by. Ie this is a bunch of cells and little more. I wouldnt share that view (Although I support abortion). So what does everyone think?

aaronjumper

Unless it's needed to stop some sort of illness forming then I don't see the point.
Let people be people for fook sake.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

steddyeddy wrote: »

This isn't a thread about ordering hookers in case you thought that. I'm wondering what people's opinions are on designer babies? For those that dont know; designer babies are babies that are genetically modifed to give a desired appearence e.g blue hair and blond eyes. Personally I'm not against it but I wouldnt do it to a child of mine either. Nor do I think our understanding of genetics is sufficient enough to do it 100% accuratly yet.

What do After hourer's think about designer babies and would you get it done? Here's a link to a article about designer babies from a austrailan newspaper.




Some scientits justify this by the same methods abortion is justified by. Ie this is a bunch of cells and little more. I wouldnt share that view (Although I support abortion). So what does everyone think?

Watch Gattaca.
Be afraid.
Be VERY afraid.

Praetorian Saighdiuir

Can I have a selection of abilities too?

My name is URL

Any person wanting a 'designer' baby isn't really fit to be a parent imo.

steddyeddy

benwavner wrote: »

Can I have a selection of abilities too?

Actually yes. Intelligence or athlethic ability for instance.

steddyeddy

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Watch Gattaca.
Be afraid.
Be VERY afraid.

II actually did see that recently enough on the advice of a genetics lecturer. I think we are heading down that road to be honest.

Max Power

This should be merged with the Abercrombie and Fitch thread.

R0ot

Cool, going to go watch Gattaca now.

Praetorian Saighdiuir

steddyeddy wrote: »

Actually yes. Intelligence or athlethic ability for instance.

Ah no thanks. What about mind bullets?

OT: The whole concept is so un natural. Who knows what effects will manifiest themselves further down the life line of the designer baby because of these "improvements".

I don't really mind

Ted_YNWA

tldr.

sounds like a pick'n'mix baby choice ?

Turtyturd

Blonde eyes....WTF??...this is science gone mad.

steddyeddy

Ted_YNWA wrote: »

tldr.

sounds like a pick'n'mix baby choice ?

Yea thats pretty much it.

charlemont

Its playing God.. I'v no problem with any procedures that involve the health of a child or foetus but the rest of it is taking the piss..

charlemont

charlemont wrote: »

Its playing God.. I'v no problem with any procedures that involve the health of a child or foetus but the rest of it is taking the piss..

What does that even mean? Is bringing new life into the world "playing god"? Is curing disease "playing god"? Saving lives, "playing god"? Fertility treatment?

Turtyturd

charlemont wrote: »

Its playing God.. I'v no problem with any procedures that involve the health of a child or foetus but the rest of it is taking the piss..

But after ensuring the child is healthy surely the next most important step is to make sure it isn't ginger.

whatdoicare

Well, in my husbands family there is MS, lung cancer, alcoholism and bipolar and mine there is alzeimers, arthritis, pcos, migrane and depression if I could get rid of the chances of my kids having to deal with any of that then I'd happily sign up for genetic reconfiguring.
I couldn't give a hoot about the looks aspect though as long as they're healthy and of sound mind.

Ficheall

steddyeddy wrote: »

This isn't a thread about ordering hookers in case you thought that.

That would be the "I'll have one with big tits and a penchant for anal, please!" thread...

steddyeddy

Ficheall wrote: »

That would be the "I'll have one with big tits and a penchant for anal, please!" thread...

Ha ha. How did you know?

billybudd

It will just end up as a brand, like Apple, samsung, sony etc etc, also your baby will look a million dollars but you wont have that natural dna physical attachemnt to him/her that you would with a naturally born baby.

Personaly i think regardless of how a physically or mentaly blemished your child is you should just love it with all your heart regardless, infact i love my sons baby like shovel hands although they look like 5 year olds hands on a 11 month old baby.:D

Larianne

Turtyturd wrote: »

But after ensuring the child is healthy surely the next most important step is to make sure it isn't ginger.

Nevermind blue eyes, that is what I thought of first.

wendell borton

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Watch Gattaca.
Be afraid.
Be VERY afraid.

Also watch the Boys From Brazil.

Ronin247

Who will we bully at school if everyone is perfect??

Praetorian Saighdiuir

Ronin247 wrote: »

Who will we bully at school if everyone is perfect??

Ah, they will still have names like Wendell! :P

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

bluewolf wrote: »

I don't really mind

Can I get one with apathy please?

bluewolf wrote: »

What does that even mean? Is bringing new life into the world "playing god"? Is curing disease "playing god"? Saving lives, "playing god"? Fertility treatment?

It's certainly an omnipoteent power to have. Unfortunately, in the hands of man, it's a power that I think will be absued. As per our track record.

Larianne

Ronin247 wrote: »

Who will we bully at school if everyone is perfect??

Oh, yano, the shy people who do well...

Grayson

i have no idea how i feel about it. But I do think that the reaction of irt's natural is kinda like the reaction to planned pregnancies. Does it make any difference if the kid was born as a result of a planned or accidental pregnancy? If so, does it matter if the kid was concieved naturally or if the kid was planned?

In the end it's still a baby.

Ikky Poo2

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Can I get one with apathy please?



It's certainly an omnipoteent power to have. Unfortunately, in the hands of man, it's a power that I think will be absued. As per our track record.

We abuse loads of things, no reason to curb abilities. Imagine a bunch of people engineered to be super intelligent - we could make all sorts of progress more quickly, then.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

bluewolf wrote: »

We abuse loads of things, no reason to curb abilities. Imagine a bunch of people engineered to be super intelligent - we could make all sorts of progress more quickly, then.

How would you prevent them from becoming super corrupt? Or deciding to create a two-tier society, resulting in people who were not given an ability from effectively being enslaved or trapped or a possibility-less life?

And at that point, we're veering towards communism, where people are given a role rather than a life.

4zn76tysfajdxp

bluewolf wrote: »

We abuse loads of things, no reason to curb abilities. Imagine a bunch of people engineered to be super intelligent - we could make all sorts of progress more quickly, then.

Yes but then again, look at what happened when Khan made his way aboard the Enterprise.

Ikky Poo2

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

How would you prevent them from becoming super corrupt? Or deciding to create a two-tier society, resulting in people who were not given an ability from effectively being enslaved or trapped or a possibility-less life?

And at that point, we're veering towards communism, where people are given a role rather than a life.

A role? I don't see any roles - they don't have to go into any particular career, just have more opportunities.
You can make them more intelligent or athletic etc and they can use it if they want to. We have enough families pressuring kids into one job or another that I can't see this being some new massive crisis.
It would also be a choice on the part of the parents if they wanted to, not the govt.


I have no idea who exactly is becoming super corrupt in your scenario? Or how being more athletic would put you in a two tier society? Are we in a two tier society now because there are people out there who are world-renowned sports stars or world-renowned musicians or academics? Are there not famous rich celebrities out there who don't seem to have much talent in any area whatsoever except wandering in front of a tv screen?

Sulla Felix

charlemont wrote: »

Its playing God.. I'v no problem with any procedures that involve the health of a child or foetus but the rest of it is taking the piss..

The church claims divine intervention is a regular occurence for sick people, so should be stop using all modern medicine?

On the OP, I don't see the problem. Provided we're not engineering faults or negatives. Ie: I wouldn't like to see a subrace of dumb but strong people bred.

OneArt

Does this mean I can finally engineer an octopus baby?

Ziphius

What article are you quoting steddyeddie?

It seems to be confusing a lot of different things and lumping them all together as 'genetic engineering'.

People should remember that 'designer babies' in the sense of selecting for eye or hair colour isn't really genetic engineering in the sense of changing the embryos genes or inserting new genes.

You can only select for what is already there. Embryos created via IVF can be tested to see what traits they have and then preferentially implanted into the uterus.

This, I think, is the premise behind Gatacca which was also recommended to me by a genetics lecturer.

shopaholic01

Turtyturd wrote: »

But after ensuring the child is healthy surely the next most important step is to make sure it isn't ginger.

:eek: Noooooooooooo, gingers are hot!!!!!

The blue eyes and blond hair in the thread title reminded me of Hitler.

steddyeddy

Ziphius wrote: »

What article are you quoting steddyeddie?

It seems to be confusing a lot of different things and lumping them all together as 'genetic engineering'.

People should remember that 'designer babies' in the sense of selecting for eye or hair colour isn't really genetic engineering in the sense of changing the embryos genes or inserting new genes.

You can only select for what is already there. Embryos created via IVF can be tested to see what traits they have and then preferentially implanted into the uterus.

This, I think, is the premise behind Gatacca which was also recommended to me by a genetics lecturer.

Its wasnt Dr.Butler was it? Shes not my lecturer but I was talking to her about it?

kowloon

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

How would you prevent them from becoming super corrupt? Or deciding to create a two-tier society, resulting in people who were not given an ability from effectively being enslaved or trapped or a possibility-less life?

And at that point, we're veering towards communism, where people are given a role rather than a life.

That said, in an ideal socialist society everyone would have equal access to enhancement, thereby preventing a two tier society from developing in the first place. Of course, ideal never happens. This stuff is playing with fire.

Gunner Disgusting Iron wrote: »

Yes but then again, look at what happened when Khan made his way aboard the Enterprise.

I stab at thee!

Ziphius

steddyeddy wrote: »

Its wasnt Dr.Butler was it? Shes not my lecturer but I was talking to her about it?

No, can't remember who is was actually. Was few years ago. The science in Gatacca seems to be pretty sound. I know the Science Gallery had a discussion on it a while back.

http://sciencegallery.com/events/2012/05/futureproof-movies

steddyeddy

Ziphius wrote: »

No, can't remember who is was actually. Was few years ago. The science in Gatacca seems to be pretty sound. I know the Science Gallery had a discussion on it a while back.

http://sciencegallery.com/events/2012/05/futureproof-movies

I can see things progressing that far tbh. The only problem I had with the science in Gattacca is that they didnt take into account enviromental effects.

Ziphius

steddyeddy wrote: »

I can see things progressing that far tbh. The only problem I had with the science in Gattacca is that they didnt take into account enviromental effects.

True. Though from the half I saw it is a lot better than other sci-fi films.

steddyeddy

Ziphius wrote: »

True. Though from the half I saw it is a lot better than other sci-fi films.

Dear jesus yes! The science in that film was picked up from the ladybird book of science me thinks!

The Core was the best ever for science.
The best.
:p

Ellis Dee

The problem with designer babies - as with all design I guess - is that fashions are always changing. What is "must have, flavour of the month" now will be "soooo antediluvian" in a few decades" time.;)

aaronjumper

bluewolf wrote: »

The Core was the best ever for science.
The best.
:p

Sarcasm Detector: Beep BEEP BEEEEEEP!!! BOOM!

Yes the science in that movie was. . . well I suppose you would have to watch it.

steddyeddy

Off topic but am I the only one who thinks red heads can be really sexy (In a dirty looking sort of way)?

aaronjumper

steddyeddy wrote: »

Off topic but am I the only one who thinks red heads can be really sexy (In a dirty looking sort of way)?

Not at all. The day walkers can be quite attractive.

Princess Peach

I'd like a blond baby, but my boyfriend doesn't have any blonds in his family

Its a genetic urge us blonds have, pass on the recessive gene type thing. Plus we have nicer looking hair.

steddyeddy

Ellis Dee wrote: »

The problem with designer babies - as with all design I guess - is that fashions are always changing. What is "must have, flavour of the month" now will be "soooo antediluvian" in a few decades" time.;)

Thanks for the new word LCD. "antediluvian" that is! I had to look it up but I will now be using it in every day usage to impress the ladies!

Gran Hermano

Will TK Maxx offer last season's designer babies for 60 percent off list?

KKkitty

The thread title immediately conjured up thoughts of Hitler's Aryan Race for me. It's horrible to think someone could be so shallow as to want a baby to be have certain physical attributes.