It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Like it or not, designer babies are here!

page: 1

log in


posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 05:47 PM
I am on the fence about this issue, but I am leaning towards the belief that this is ultimately going to be a bad road to go down.

The furore over "designer babies" has re-ignited in the UK with the birth of a tissue-matched baby to a couple banned from using the technique by UK authorities.

Baby James Whitaker was born in Sheffield on Monday, and is 98 per cent likely to provide a tissue-match for his seriously ill brother Charlie.

Parents Michelle and Jayson Whitaker travelled to the US in 2002 to conceive a baby with the same immune system genes as four-year-old Charlie, who suffers from a rare disorder called Diamond Blackfan anaemia

The Whitakers were refused permission to create a matched baby by the UK Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority in August 2002. The procedure would be "unlawful and unethical", said the HFEA, because it involved some risk to the embryo but the only benefit would be to Charlie.

Another major milestone in embryo screening in the UK was announced on Tuesday, with the first pregnancy of a woman using the technique to reduce the risk of having a Down's Syndrome baby. "Aneuploidy screening" was licensed in the UK by the HFEA in November 2002.

Since the success of the Whitakers "saviour child", the UK has reversed it's ban on "designer babies", and has decided to allow parents to use tissue typing technology in order to have a child to save the life of their sick child.

Suzi Leather, head of the HFEA, said the authority was pleased with the decision. "Clearly clinicians cannot always prevent disease, but if they are able to and also save the life of a sibling, then this is a legitimate use of new techniques." The British Medical Association also welcomed the appeal verdict.

My biggest concern with this issue is for the new child being born, essentially for parts. I wonder how they are going to be treated after they have done their job and their, now healthy, sibling is out of danger. Undoubtedly, many parents will love them and treat them like any other child, and the siblings will likely have a special bond because the younger saved the life of the older. What about the other babies, whose parents didn't really want any more kids, but this was their only option if they wanted to save the one(s) they already had? How many of these kids are going to end up in orphanages or shunned by their parents after they served their purpose?

Hopefully, this won't be the case, but with all of the horrific things I have seen happen to kids, that I never would have thought parents were capable of doing, I feel it would be naive to think it won't be.

posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 06:07 PM
I dont think people should "design" babies. I think they should only step in if the baby has a disease or disorder they have a chance to cure before the baby is born. period.


posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 06:18 PM
Give me a Labron James that will be ready to earn millions in the NBA in 16 short years or so. The hell with a pension or 401k, I'll take one of those retirement babies. This is a parents dream come true.

Just kidding, but I can see some people thinking this way...

posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 10:41 PM
I can see trying to cure a disease or disorder- especially things like down syndrome, autism, etc.

but i'm sure many people would see it as a financial gain, with the so called "retirement babies".

what a world we live in...

posted on Jul, 28 2004 @ 07:00 AM
We're going to live in a world with two human species. Those with access to this technology will evolve to become the master race by means of genetic engineering, the rest will be the slave or servant race. As already mentioned the slaves will be designed for many purposes including harvesting of organic materials. Kinda sick, hope I dont live to see it. Greed is worse especially when you wave the extension of life in front of someone.

I hate being a pessimist.

posted on Sep, 10 2004 @ 11:48 PM
Evolution has run it's course, we are as far as we are going to get, a global society allows no isolationism, isolationism is a requirement for evolution. This is a scientific fact.

No Entering The Devil's Advicate Zone:

The next logical step, is manual manipulation, or genetic programming or alteration.

I personally see no ethical reason to say no. God made humans, God gave humans intellect. God gave humans intellect to improve their lives, we developed community, and tool building with God's Blessing of Intelligence.

God blessed us with intelligence to improve ourselves, every baby born at least from a religious perspective has a soul. A baby would be born altered physically, at the hands of the intellectual's God Created. Gid gives that baby a soul, the soul is not tampered with by man, only the flesh is.

I don't see it as a Religious issue. God would have never allowed for us to be smart enough to figure out how to advance our own evolution, unless he didn't want that.

Now Exiting The Devil's Advocate Zone, We now resume our original programming:


posted on Sep, 10 2004 @ 11:51 PM
On the Flip-Side of the coin. To see the dangers inherent with gene alteration and man, rent the movie GATACA.

This is a fantastic movie...


new topics

top topics


log in