38 replies to this topic

[FullmetalNinja25]

Hell no, that is freaking weird.

[RyrineaHaruno]

Hell no it just to wearied and takes the surprise out of live. I am doing an NaruSaku Fan fiction on this Idea and it got me think about and it just to weird for my tastes.


What gives man the right to do that to the human race anyway and why would you want to do it? :

[Sora no Kitsune]

well, I say in certain extents it is ethical, but also not. I know my child was screened for certain genetic diseases like downs syndrome. So on that side, making sure your child is healthy and such is always a good thing. Now if your going to go out and go pick and choose feature ya want, then that isn't so kosher. I can see it turning out like Gundam SEED with its Coordinators. People with money picking to have their children stronger, faster, and smarter. Whereas the poor and ethical would have natural children that maybe couldn't even compete.

Exactly what i was thinking. Preventing things like diseases and impairments, making sure the child is healthy is completely fine, but once you start messing with the cosmetics of the baby, then it's going over the line. Once you pass health, then it's just not your baby anymore and makes it less unique then it would have been without the parents selfish wants for the "perfect baby".

Edited by zman170, 07 April 2009 - 02:11 AM.

[Kyuudaime]

Hell no it just to wearied and takes the surprise out of live. I am doing an NaruSaku Fan fiction on this Idea and it got me think about and it just to weird for my tastes.


What gives man the right to do that to the human race anyway and why would you want to do it? :

Who has to give man the "right" to do it?

[RyrineaHaruno]

Who has to give man the "right" to do it?

I was just saying what gives us the right to do that to a child? because if you ask me it wrong.

[Kyuudaime]

I don't like the idea of it either, just asking...

[RyrineaHaruno]

I don't like the idea of it either, just asking...

Oh sorry misunderstood you.

[Unknown Entity]

So... this topic is back. I'm one of the three that decided to vote "Yes" on the poll... and I would like to ask the rest of you some questions.

I'm just curious... what's your position on the use of hybrid cells (i.e. human nucleus + animal egg) in stem cell research? Or stem cell research in general?

How about cloning?

There are 2 main things I would like you to think about:

1. Where does the "ethical line" get drawn? Which side is more ethical? Why are so many advancements in science considered "unethical" if they could save millions of people from their suffering?

2. Natural versus unnatural. What is too unnatural? Aren't humans mostly unnatural anyways?

[Cloud]

So... this topic is back. I'm one of the three that decided to vote "Yes" on the poll... and I would like to ask the rest of you some questions.

I'm just curious... what's your position on the use of hybrid cells (i.e. human nucleus + animal egg) in stem cell research? Or stem cell research in general?

How about cloning?

There are 2 main things I would like you to think about:

1. Where does the "ethical line" get drawn? Which side is more ethical? Why are so many advancements in science considered "unethical" if they could save millions of people from their suffering?

2. Natural versus unnatural. What is too unnatural? Aren't humans mostly unnatural anyways?

Cloning I am against... you're basically playing God by creating life that should have never been recreated. Life should be natural and let it take its course.

Stem cell research I am for. We're advancing so fast in medical miracles thanks to it, that we should be able to find the cure for AIDS, cancer, etc... with enough time. This saves humans from suffering and we extend the overall longevity of the human race.

Now, unnatural would cloning a dead family member or an animal that was extinct a long time ago. Let the deceased stay deceased... I'm pretty sure I don't want a zombie outbreak thanks to cloning...

But as for the animals, Mother Nature chose them for extinction, bringing them back would have unnatural effects on the environment.

Just my 2 cents.

[Unknown Entity]

Cloning I am against... you're basically playing God by creating life that should have never been recreated. Life should be natural and let it take its course.

Stem cell research I am for. We're advancing so fast in medical miracles thanks to it, that we should be able to find the cure for AIDS, cancer, etc... with enough time. This saves humans from suffering and we extend the overall longevity of the human race.

Now, unnatural would cloning a dead family member or an animal that was extinct a long time ago. Let the deceased stay deceased... I'm pretty sure I don't want a zombie outbreak thanks to cloning...

But as for the animals, Mother Nature chose them for extinction, bringing them back would have unnatural effects on the environment.

Just my 2 cents.

You say "Life should be natural and let it take its course"... but humans are always fighting this. Whether it be with that daily medication you might be taking or that shot you get every once in awhile to immune yourself to certain diseases. In hospitals, babies that are born that would otherwise die are saved by unnatural machines. Where do we stop "playing God"? By researching cloning we could learn how to clone body parts and organs that would obviously be helpful in saving lives.

What of the use of hybrid cells (human nucleus + animal egg) in stem cell research? Is this going to far? Even if it helps "[save] humans from suffering and [extend] the overall longevity of the human race"?

"Let the deceased stay deceased..." So can I assume that you're fine with designer babies? It's not like you're messing with the deceased... so it's natural enough right?

[Cloud]

Hmmmmmmmm.

You has me thinking nao.

I'll get back to you on this.

[Sakura Blossoms]

You say "Life should be natural and let it take its course"... but humans are always fighting this. Whether it be with that daily medication you might be taking or that shot you get every once in awhile to immune yourself to certain diseases. In hospitals, babies that are born that would otherwise die are saved by unnatural machines. Where do we stop "playing God"? By researching cloning we could learn how to clone body parts and organs that would obviously be helpful in saving lives.

What of the use of hybrid cells (human nucleus + animal egg) in stem cell research? Is this going to far? Even if it helps "[save] humans from suffering and [extend] the overall longevity of the human race"?

"Let the deceased stay deceased..." So can I assume that you're fine with designer babies? It's not like you're messing with the deceased... so it's natural enough right?

So... this topic is back. I'm one of the three that decided to vote "Yes" on the poll... and I would like to ask the rest of you some questions.

I'm just curious... what's your position on the use of hybrid cells (i.e. human nucleus + animal egg) in stem cell research? Or stem cell research in general?

How about cloning?

There are 2 main things I would like you to think about:

1. Where does the "ethical line" get drawn? Which side is more ethical? Why are so many advancements in science considered "unethical" if they could save millions of people from their suffering?

2. Natural versus unnatural. What is too unnatural? Aren't humans mostly unnatural anyways?

I'm also one of the 3 who voted yes, and you have so clearly stated my own opinions on nature vs science

I'm all for nature as that's obviously where we all came from. But I am also very much for human ingenuity and advancement. We were given the most powerful tool in nature...our brain...and if we can use that brain to improve upon what nature has given us the base for, then I say why hold human nature back

[BlackLightning]

Stem cell research is just fine. It is solely used to help us, and it does not involve creating a new life (although the process is similar).

Cloning is more problematic. If you mean humans, then no. If you're cloning another person expecting him/her and hoping to it to turn out exactly like the predecessor, you're in for a disappointment. Sadly, I don't think enough people will make that distinction. Plus, if we keep cloning one person, is that person the example of humanity and everyone else is garbage? Also, if everybody kept cloning themselves, that would endanger our own genetic diversity, which is necessary to combat disease and infertility. With animals, cloning would be okay with endangered species or for preserving ideal traits in livestock, but genetic variation would still be at risk.

Advancements in science themselves are not unethical, it's the application that matters. For example, the discovery of uranium can be used by us as an energy source. And it could also kill millions of people in an instant. I'm not against discovering what you could do with something, but like any tool, there's a right way and a wrong way to use it. In my opinion, screening for genetic diseases is excellent and should be pursued. But why in the world would you like to determine what your child would be like beyond that? To me, it's like preforming plastic surgery on someone against their will. There's also the fact that we may not fully understand exactly what we're tampering with; whenever money is involved, these things are rushed before they can find out all problems. For example, there was once an arthritis medicine that relieved you of pain by killing you. The Green Revolution gave us more food than we could ever hope for, but that food is also more vulnerable to disease. Antibiotics help us combat disease, but the microbes they repel only come back stronger. By all means, we should learn what we are able to do, but there are certain things you shouldn't do just because you could.

Humans are not as unnatural as many people would like to believe. Many of the things we do...build shelters, form communities, our sexual relationships, using tools...are found in other living things to, just not at our level. People also think that we either only harm the natural world or behave in a manner that has no impact on it. But the ancient Native Americans played a big role in their land's ecosystem, and the way we live now determines our planet's health. Life is a series of relationships, after all.

For the few of you who have voted yes, I've got some questions for you:

1) If your parents determined what you would look like, how would it make you feel? Would it make you insecure that they wouldn't have you any other way? Would you ever wonder how they would react if you did not turn out the way they had anticipated?

2) Suppose I'm married to a non-white person (I'm white, fyi) and we're expecting a baby. Most kids from interracial couples look more like one parent than the other. Let's say I suggest determining the kid's traits; how are we going to go about this? Am I suggesting my traits are better because I'm white, or her's are better because she's not? Wouldn't this essentially be practicing eugenics?

3) In your opinion, what is the ethical way of going about this? Would most people be inclined to engineer one trait over others? Would it send the message that people who do not have this trait or traits are inferior? Do you foresee any problems coming from this, and if so, how would you go about minimizing the negative impacts?

Spoken like a true Ethical Issue lecturer in College/Uni XDD

Gotta agree on most points though. The thing with engineering babies are how they parents will expect the babies to be. Like... say... you want a baby with blonde hair but you get brunette instead, will you still love them as much? I'm sure lot of you will say yes but in practice? I won't put it past the parents to be disappointed with the baby, heck some will even hate them for it. Its just not fair for the children.

1 of the joy in parenting is how you will never know how your kids will look like until they are actually born, it allows you to love them as it is as you don't have any expectation on how they will look like and their quality, be it intelligence, or anything along the line. Don't get me wrong, You will speculate how they will turn out to be but when your speculation doesn't met you won't be disappointed about it and still be able to love them no matter how they turn out to be.

The moment people start designing babies is the moment that they will have certain expectations on their babies and they will start to hate certain traits and treat other traits as a godsend. when that happens, racial difference will be the least of your concern, the discrimination will be which trait does the kids have and they will hate each other deeper than any racial discrimination ever written in history: the people with certain trait will think other who doesn't have em to be inferior while those that don't have the trait will hate those who have it out of jealousy. If that doesn't spell World War 3, I don't know what is.

Some of you argue that designing babies are for preventing disease but I find that in the video it never said anything about it. Heck, the first sentence is about how you would like your babies to look like, not how your babies' HEALTH will be.

Edited by BlackLightning, 10 April 2009 - 01:32 AM.

[Unknown Entity]

Advancements in science themselves are not unethical, it's the application that matters. For example, the discovery of uranium can be used by us as an energy source. And it could also kill millions of people in an instant. I'm not against discovering what you could do with something, but like any tool, there's a right way and a wrong way to use it. In my opinion, screening for genetic diseases is excellent and should be pursued. But why in the world would you like to determine what your child would be like beyond that? To me, it's like preforming plastic surgery on someone against their will. There's also the fact that we may not fully understand exactly what we're tampering with; whenever money is involved, these things are rushed before they can find out all problems. For example, there was once an arthritis medicine that relieved you of pain by killing you. The Green Revolution gave us more food than we could ever hope for, but that food is also more vulnerable to disease. Antibiotics help us combat disease, but the microbes they repel only come back stronger. By all means, we should learn what we are able to do, but there are certain things you shouldn't do just because you could.

Bad examples. They only show that advancements in science should be thoroughly tested & analyzed before being applied.

Humans are not as unnatural as many people would like to believe. Many of the things we do...build shelters, form communities, our sexual relationships, using tools...are found in other living things to, just not at our level. People also think that we either only harm the natural world or behave in a manner that has no impact on it. But the ancient Native Americans played a big role in their land's ecosystem, and the way we live now determines our planet's health. Life is a series of relationships, after all.

Of course humans are natural. However, they're also unnatural. When do they become too unnatural? When we start designing babies?

For the few of you who have voted yes, I've got some questions for you:

1) If your parents determined what you would look like, how would it make you feel? Would it make you insecure that they wouldn't have you any other way? Would you ever wonder how they would react if you did not turn out the way they had anticipated?

Gotta agree on most points though. The thing with engineering babies are how they parents will expect the babies to be. Like... say... you want a baby with blonde hair but you get brunette instead, will you still love them as much? I'm sure lot of you will say yes but in practice? I won't put it past the parents to be disappointed with the baby, heck some will even hate them for it. Its just not fair for the children.

1 of the joy in parenting is how you will never know how your kids will look like until they are actually born, it allows you to love them as it is as you don't have any expectation on how they will look like and their quality, be it intelligence, or anything along the line. Don't get me wrong, You will speculate how they will turn out to be but when your speculation doesn't met you won't be disappointed about it and still be able to love them no matter how they turn out to be.

The moment people start designing babies is the moment that they will have certain expectations on their babies and they will start to hate certain traits and treat other traits as a godsend. when that happens, racial difference will be the least of your concern, the discrimination will be which trait does the kids have and they will hate each other deeper than any racial discrimination ever written in history: the people with certain trait will think other who doesn't have em to be inferior while those that don't have the trait will hate those who have it out of jealousy. If that doesn't spell World War 3, I don't know what is.

Parents already do have expectations of their child. They control the environment as best they can so that their child grows up in so that they can try and make sure that the child meets those expectations.

You're just adding in genetics to help now.

2) Suppose I'm married to a non-white person (I'm white, fyi) and we're expecting a baby. Most kids from interracial couples look more like one parent than the other. Let's say I suggest determining the kid's traits; how are we going to go about this? Am I suggesting my traits are better because I'm white, or her's are better because she's not? Wouldn't this essentially be practicing eugenics?

To others (the community) it may seem like eugenics.. but it's not. You're not doing it to better humanity. You're not classifying humanity into certain rankings. You're not really suggesting that one trait is better than another. All you're doing is picking the traits that satisfy both you and your partner.

I guess it may start falling into eugenics once the process becomes common-place and society starts playing a bigger role into what you pick. I'm not denying it... this is a valid argument.

3) In your opinion, what is the ethical way of going about this? Would most people be inclined to engineer one trait over others? Would it send the message that people who do not have this trait or traits are inferior? Do you foresee any problems coming from this, and if so, how would you go about minimizing the negative impacts?

In my opinion, there is no right answer to which way is the ethical way since people will always disagree and I'm not someone that likes to say that "I'm right and you're wrong". Most people may incline to pick one trait over another since people are highly influenced by whatever is popular in society. This would probably lead to traits that are already considered inferior into becoming even more inferior... otherwise... I don't see much problem in it.

The moment people start designing babies is the moment that they will have certain expectations on their babies and they will start to hate certain traits and treat other traits as a godsend. when that happens, racial difference will be the least of your concern, the discrimination will be which trait does the kids have and they will hate each other deeper than any racial discrimination ever written in history: the people with certain trait will think other who doesn't have em to be inferior while those that don't have the trait will hate those who have it out of jealousy. If that doesn't spell World War 3, I don't know what is.

The tension that designer babies would create could eventually be resolved.

Sorry for the quick (and delayed) reply... I'm studying for finals right now and don't really have time to give a better one.

Honestly, this isn't my area of expertise... so you probably know more than me when it comes to human sociology. These are just my opinions.

[Kirby]

That is freakin' messed up. It would never be the same to have a customized kid....

[BlackLightning]

The tension that designer babies would create could eventually be resolved.

Sorry for the quick (and delayed) reply... I'm studying for finals right now and don't really have time to give a better one.

Honestly, this isn't my area of expertise... so you probably know more than me when it comes to human sociology. These are just my opinions.

And this is an optimistic point of view: That everything will be resolved by time. Real life is NOT that easy, especially when it comes to racial/personal differences. Jealousy is a trait in every human, and that is a fact that no one can ever deny no matter how they try. When 1 person have something that others don't they will be subjected to jealousy and it WILL escalate from there into something much more dangerous.