Would you genetically engineer your unborn child?

[Faint]

Suppose science advances to the level where you can select (or leave out) certain traits (physical and mental) for your new baby. Imagine you walk into your doctor's office for prenatal care and you are given a sort of informational/brochure packet and a checklist.

You have have two initial choices:
__ No, I'd rather not genetically enhance my child.
__ Yes, I'd like to genetically enhance my child. Please see the checklist below.

The checklist for the latter choice includes such physical options as... eye color, hair color, skin color, height, optimal metabolism, acne protection, general health/disease resistance, vision (20/20 or better), ambidexterity, agility, stamina, endurance, etc. Mental options could be things like...memory enhancement, increased IQ, improved creativity, emotional stability, and so forth.

What would you choose. If you choose not to alter your child, would you worry that s/he would probably not perform/succeed as well as his/her enhanced classmates? Would not enhancing a child become a voluntary form of handicapping and possible child abuse?

 

[finalfrogo]

I would probably genetically engineer my child. My morals don't conflict with such a practice. You should see the movie Gattaca if you haven't yet.

 

[Bishka]

Nope, never would.

I don't want to play God thank you very much.

If my child didn't succeed as well as enhanced clasmated, well whoop-de-do, at least my child wasn't 'cheated-on' and can do things naturally without enhancements.

Personally, I think it is a ridiculous idea, but whatever floats your boat, I'm not going to physically stop you from doing it, but I'm not going to vote for the idea either.

 

[DeadVegas]

If the genetic engineering could fix a birth defect or keep them from being disabled in some way then sure, but I'm not going to do it just so I can choose what my child looks like.

 

[standing_on_one_foot]

Hmm. You think Gattaca is an argument for engineering? If anything I'd say it's against. But no, I'd rather not engineer my kid, all things considered.

Now, were we talking genetic engineering to prevent a major disease or something like that, I would be more willing.

 

[sahra-t]

I have no real reason for it but I can't help thinking of genetically 'enhanced' children like Sims characters, and that if you choose for them to have certain characteristics they are limited in other factors. If that makes sense. (Edit: just to clarify, when you make a Sims character you have like 40 chips to distribute among 8 desirable characteristics, each on a 1-10 scale. So, someone who is really generous and really neat can't be all that friendly, for e.g.)

Some personality traits come from being different, or having perceived 'flaws'. The struggle that comes from working towards and achieving a skill rather than having it from birth would make somebody a more interesting person to know, IMO.

Although as above, my views may change if it was preventing a disability/illness. I think that'd have to be presented to me for me to really know what I'd do.

 

[BucephalusBB]

Somehow I asume that if you don't while everybody else does, your child will have a hard time living in the future.

Yes, let me play God please. Give my child everything good!

 

[Mystic-als]

Yes I would. I would want my child to have the best possible start and tools in life.

 

[sahra-t]

Somehow I asume that if you don't while everybody else does, your child will have a hard time living in the future.

Yes, let me play God please. Give my child everything good!

I see your point about not wanting to be the only one not doing it. So, would you do it if it was only you that had been given the opportunity?

 

[BucephalusBB]

I see your point about not wanting to be the only one not doing it. So, would you do it if it was only you that had been given the opportunity?

No, if I'd be the only one, I'd probably be one of the first ones. I don't trust science enough to let my child be a beta-child..

 

[sahra-t]

Heh, okay, ignoring the assumption that your child would be BBB Jr v1.0, my question was really: would you be happy having an enhanced child if you knew he/she would be surrounded by unenhanced children? Would you be happy allowing him/her to have a better start than the others?

 

[BucephalusBB]

Heh, okay, ignoring the assumption that your child would be BBB Jr v1.0, my question was really: would you be happy having an enhanced child if you knew he/she would be surrounded by unenhanced children? Would you be happy allowing him/her to have a better start than the others?

Yes. I would do everything to give my child a better start. the better compared to others, the better.. ehr,... you get it..

I would make sure that I wouldn't overdo it ofcourse. so that he has a headstart, but won't be so different that the others leave him no options anymore.

He can be she too ofcourse

 

[stemann]

Imagine that you have decided to have a child. Doctors tell you that if you have it completely naturally there is a 99.999% chance that s/he will have a severe physical handicap that will cause her/him much lifelong physical pain.

They also tell you that they can, through genetic engineering, remove this defect whilst keeping all other facets of the child random.

What would you do? Is this still "playing God" and therefore unjustified? Does it not count as preventing suffering, and therefore advocating kindness?

 

[Faint]

Is this still "playing God" and therefore unjustified? Does it not count as preventing suffering, and therefore advocating kindness?

I agree with this. And what IS not "playing god"? Is anything science creates to improve the health and happiness of the human race "playing god"? Vitamins for example? Antiseptic? Medicine? Do you know how long the average lifespan would be without the "enhancements" we already take for granted?

 

[Mathematician]

Yeah, the phrase "playing God" is pretty ambiguous.

I would support having my child "free" of any possible problems.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I would if it were safe, affordable, and effective.

 

[stemann]

I agree with this. And what IS not "playing god"? Is anything science creates to improve the health and happiness of the human race "playing god"? Vitamins for example? Antiseptic? Medicine? Do you know how long the average lifespan would be without the "enhancements" we already take for granted?

Exactly, what if you saw somebody falling off a cliff, and saved them? Nature would have them die, but you subverted nature ("playing God") and changed things.

 

[BrandonE]

I would not.

Though it wasn't in this thread, Mike182 made a great point in a similar thread that I thought went overlooked, but certainly deserves attention here.

every parent has expectations of their child, and with all due respect to the parents of the forum, tend to get frustrated when these expectations are not fulfilled.

a parent who is able to pick their childs genetic makeup will be creating a stronger idea of what their child will be, and if those expectations are not met, it will do more damage to a family than homosexuality

obviously some parents will be more frustrated than others, so the cases would be better or worse depending upon the parent

Setting up "made to order" babies is a step in the wrong direction because of the above reasons. There are already enough expectations placed on children. Learning to love them as they are is a growing experience for both parent and child.

 

[dawny0826]

Suppose science advances to the level where you can select (or leave out) certain traits (physical and mental) for your new baby. Imagine you walk into your doctor's office for prenatal care and you are given a sort of informational/brochure packet and a checklist.

You have have two initial choices:
__ No, I'd rather not genetically enhance my child.
__ Yes, I'd like to genetically enhance my child. Please see the checklist below.

The checklist for the latter choice includes such physical options as... eye color, hair color, skin color, height, optimal metabolism, acne protection, general health/disease resistance, vision (20/20 or better), ambidexterity, agility, stamina, endurance, etc. Mental options could be things like...memory enhancement, increased IQ, improved creativity, emotional stability, and so forth.

What would you choose. If you choose not to alter your child, would you worry that s/he would probably not perform/succeed as well as his/her enhanced classmates? Would not enhancing a child become a voluntary form of handicapping and possible child abuse?

I would never. I've been blessed with two beautiful little girls that I couldn't possibly genetically engineer to be any more special, precious and spirited.

I agree with Becky...I won't play God.

And I don't think that anything or anyone genetically engineered could, no matter how enhanced, be as lovely as what God creates naturally.

I wouldn't change my children for the world...flaws and all. I think we're meant to be flawed...as we learn from and build strength and character from our flaws and mishaps.

 

[Green Gaia]

I've been blessed with two beautiful little girls that I couldn't possibly genetically engineer to be any more special, precious and spirited.

My thoughts exactly, except I have a boy and a girl.

But if there was a way I could save them from a horrible disease, I would.