Would you genetically engineer your unborn child?

[Ðanisty]

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.

I agree. I was going to suggest watching it as an argument against genetic engineering.

One big problem I see is that we're talking about something optional. That will more than likely mean you'll have to pay lots and lots of money to have this engineering done. Children from poor families shouldn't be at such a disadvantage. I mean, they shouldn't be at a disadvantage at all, but what you're suggesting would mean that children who's parents couldn't afford engineering would basically not succeed at anything.

 

[mthomas1lssu]

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..

so if you dont trust science enough, why would you do this to your child??

 

[linwood]

Most definately.

My genes are a risk for numerous dangerous conditions.

I alter that in order to make her life more secure and healthy in a heartbeat.

 

[rojse]

so if you dont trust science enough, why would you do this to your child??

I think you sort of missed the point. There is an acceptance of scientific methodology, but you'd want to be sure the procedure worked properly first.

 

[whereismynotecard]

I wouldn't, because you probably have to pay, but if it was free, I'd take out some traits that suck, like acne and vision problems. Why wouldn't I? I don't think I'd mess with eye, skin, and hair colour, because I'd really want what my baby looks like to be a surprise and would be happy if he or she looked kind of like me and kind of like the father, but I don't see why I wouldn't want to take out some negative traits.

 

[Nothing]

Absolutely not.

 

[rojse]

I wouldn't, because you probably have to pay...

Price would be a consideration, certainly, but if you supported such a scheme, wouldn't you want to pay the money (if you could afford it) to ensure your child has the best possible start in life?

 

[Kerr]

The only case I would maybe genetically manipulate a child of mine would be to take away a genetic disorder that would make their life a living hell. Other then that, no. Now this is assuming it is safe and that I could afford it and such, and would be for purely medical reasons, I would never use that to change what traits or affect what personality they would have, or use it to change how they look, or anything like that. Would accept and love them just the way they are.

 

[Venatoris]

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?

This begs some interesting questions for me. Will science ever advance to the point where it can actually produce the optimum result for all of these traits or will it continue to advance, effectively making last months child obsolete? Can we determine that the alteration we put in place is superior to the results that would be generated from random convergence of DNA? Would altering memory, IQ, and emotional stability have a negative impact on a persons creativity? Will we, as a society, benefit from creating children in this fashion or do we run the risk of missing out on the next Einstein/Helen Keller/Beethoven/Stephen Hawking? These are just off the top of my head.

 

[rojse]

In the hypothetical example, provided such procedures were accepted by society, and were of a cost I could reasonably afford, I'd have my proto-child genetically engineered as much as I was allowed, to allow them the best possible start in life. I wouldn't change the looks of the child too much, just the physical and mental abilities.

 

[whereismynotecard]

Price would be a consideration, certainly, but if you supported such a scheme, wouldn't you want to pay the money (if you could afford it) to ensure your child has the best possible start in life?

Maybe, but I can't afford it. I'm not going to have a child anyway though. Just Baggins.

 

[Bloomdido]

God certainly doesn't get it right every time. I would hope that one day science will take away the uncertainty and danger and provide several choices. It could be like pokemon or dungeons and dragons where we get to choose between stealth and strength or wisdom and good looks. Someone could make a fortune out of this.

 

[whereismynotecard]

Too bad poor people will be stuck having ugly and weak kids.

 

[Evee]

^That's one of my principal objections to the whole situation! I think if society ever evolved to the point where my child would be one of a very few unmodified-from-conception children in his class, I'd be one of the hippies living off-grid in Children of Men. I'm sort of kidding, but not really.

Maybe I'm just not up to the task of "keeping up with the times", but I think it's important to teach kids that there are things they can't control--and there always will be things they can't control--and that's OK. What kind of example do we set if we've controlled their eye colour, sex, or other superficial genetic traits? Genetic modification to eliminate genetic disorders that would leave everything else to chance is another story, though. To eliminate a genetic disorder that would diminish quality or length of life isn't a cosmetic decision. It has real bearing on the child's life. Having acne doesn't. I've been there; I know.

And let's not forget that no medical procedure is entirely without risks. Why have one just to make sure that your kid has freckles? You can paint them on every day if you really want her to have them.

The "playing G-d" argument is a bit dicey. I mean, just by having kids, we're kind of "playing G-d", aren't we? We're CREATING a life. Should we just not have kids anymore because if G-d wanted us to, he'd pull an immaculate conception on us? That line's too tough to draw, for me, anyway.

 

[Herr Heinrich]

No. We are the way we are for a reason generally. We would be cheating the children in a way. I don't know, it just feels wrong. Also everyone would start to be the same. Parents would want the best for their child so everyone would try to make this perfect person resulting in very similar people.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I don't see what the point of handicapping your child by not doing this would be, if it were available. You have a responsibility to your offspring to ensure that they have a chance to compete and succeed in the world into which you bring them.

 

[MissAlice]

Depends on how and what society views as handicapped and what may be considered beautiful.

As someone who has apsergers, it is not easy to sit and say no because I personally know what it feels like to struggle with the system. I seem to be extremely high in some areas and extremely low in others. My main concern however would be the risks and DNA strands that would be terminated. In other words if our environment/culture or whatever were to slowly take a change would we be prepared? Some of those genetic mutations may be there for a good reason and if we were to get rid of most of these mutations then we would lose what might have benefited or helped us adapt to various changed that would take place.

If some of this makes any sense....

 

[TheKnight]

I would. If I could prevent my child from having certain genetic disease, then I would in a heartbeat. Religiously, I think I would be obligated to, but I can't say that conclusively.

 

[TurkeyOnRye]

I would very likely not have any engineering done on my child.

 

[Humanistheart]

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?

As long as it was a safe practice studies over the course of 60-80 years I would. Since I wont live that long, or if I do wont be fathering any children at that point, I can't really say I would. But if those criteria were already met today I would certainly do it. I have a disorder which could be inhereted by my children. As such, I do not plan on fathering any as I feel it would simply be unethical. But this theoritical option would change that. I'd totally do it.