More Couples Seeking Designer Babies.

Boy or girl? Almost half of U.S. fertility clinics that offer embryo
screening say they allow couples to choose the sex of their child,
the most extensive survey of the practice suggests.

Sex selection without any medical reason to warrant it was performed
in about 9 percent of all embryo screenings last year, the survey
found.

For the most part, couples are screening embryos for the right reasons
to avoid passing on dreadful diseases, said Dr. William Gibbons,
who runs a fertility clinic in Baton Rouge, La., and is president of the
Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology, which assisted with
the survey.

“There are thousands of babies born now that we know are going to
be free of lethal and/or devastating genetic diseases.
That's a good thing,'' he said. However, the survey findings also
confirm many ethicists' fears that Americans increasingly are seeking
“designer babies'' not just free of medical defects but also possessing
certain desirable traits.

However, these cases are different from those done purely for gender
preference. A whopping 42 percent of clinics that offer PGD or
pre-implantation genetic diagnosis said they had done so for non-medically
related sex selection. Nearly half of those clinics said they would only
offer sex selection for a second or subsequent child.


SOURCE:
LiveScience.com

Ok, I'm all for selective gene screening when it comes to screening
out diseases and stuff, but no one has the right to create designer
babies.

Doing such takes away from individuality and the persons normal
outcome, thusly violating the childs right to self.


Comments, Opinions?

I believe that designer babies have every right to exist as persons and as procedure.

Many people on this planet are born from unplanned or even unwanted pregancies. If I followed your argument, I could say that in these cases somebody had violated childs' right to a planned future or to a loving parent.

I love my parents very much and look similar to one of them, on the other hand I wouldn't mind if I were a tad taller and with better skin. I also wouldn't mind that I didn't have the genetic code that makes me predisposed to cancer, to the boot.

Heck if parents choose school districts so carefully, how can one argue against them choosing something nearly as important LOL.

Well when it comes to screening out genetic disorders and
diseases, of course it should be used, but to decide if you
want a boy or a girl, or a blond or a brunetter, I don't believe
people have the right to decide that.

Consider this scenario.

Julie has red hair, she's always wished her hair was naturally
brown, well her parents wanted a child with red hair, and if they
had'nt tampered, she would have had brown hair.

You can see how that takes away from a persons rights, and are'nt
the greatest thing to do.


Also, if you make this legal for the public, how long before the
government starts making laws to create a Gattaca like society or
worse, create a society that is literally programmed to obey what
they're told.

[edit on 9/21/2006 by iori_komei]

Originally posted by iori_komei
Well when it comes to screening out genetic disorders and
diseases, of course it should be used, but to decide if you
want a boy or a girl, or a blond or a brunetter, I don't believe
people have the right to decide that.

Why not? People routinely introduce children to the religion
and/or profession they practice. That in fact is more profound
than the eye or hair color. They choose where they dwell, they
often screen books their kid is reading (such as to avoid pr0n,
for example). They often influence what their kid eats ot wears.
So this stuff about kid's rights is quote iffy, imho.

In fact, again, if they don't do selection, the kid is likely to look
just like one of them or a little bit like both. Is this necessarily
good? Does the kid have an obligation to follow the likeness of his
or her parents? You see, your claims just don't work. I say that
the kid is forced to inherit his/her parents' traits and this is equally
a violation of rights.

Originally posted by Aelita
Why not? People routinely introduce children to the religion
and/or profession they practice. That in fact is more profound
than the eye or hair color. They choose where they dwell, they
often screen books their kid is reading (such as to avoid pr0n,
for example). They often influence what their kid eats ot wears.
So this stuff about kid's rights is quote iffy, imho.

That's also something I'm against, about as much as
I am this, but that's something that can't really be
changed now.

In fact, again, if they don't do selection, the kid is likely to look
just like one of them or a little bit like both. Is this necessarily
good? Does the kid have an obligation to follow the likeness of his
or her parents? You see, your claims just don't work. I say that
the kid is forced to inherit his/her parents' traits and this is equally
a violation of rights.

It's not a violation of rights to look how you naturally developed,
since it's your own body that is shapijng you, and thusly you
yourself shaping yourself.

Let them design the babies. What does it matter if the person appears to be perfectly flawless. If everyone is perfect then what will we look for....the only thing that really counts : The mind !

They arent changeing a personality are they ?

Designer babies is a very bad idea.

Point one, I recomend you watch a anime called gundam seed and gundam destiny. It is about a theorectiacal war about genetic enhancments. It shows just how bad of an effect genetic enhancmets may have on society.

Point two, Genetic screening or enheancing also will kill evolution of the human race. Using desired genes for desired designs in the baby will cause the baby to turn out how society wants it, and will ruin its natural design for surviving nauture. Evolution of completly new survivle traits will cease due to chooseing old known genes over new mutations that, could potentiually be a new better trait.

Point three, if there is a screw up that causes a problem to form in the genetics of the next or distant next generations of the designer babies, may then be irreverible and cause devistating effects. Even worst, if the designing babies becomes the norm and these deffects come in later generations. This will cause a major problem over the majority of the populations.

Sum up short, "Designer babies" ARE A VERY BAD IDEA!!!

[edit on 22-9-2006 by halfmask]

Originally posted by R3KR
Let them design the babies. What does it matter if the person appears to be perfectly flawless. If everyone is perfect then what will we look for....the only thing that really counts : The mind !

They arent changeing a personality are they ?

it depends on what camp you come from.

Is personality nature or nurture?

There is, again, a 600+ page book that readily points out that you can test wheter or not the thought is a function of the brain or vice versa. It states, with much wordiness, that you can think without using your brian. If so, the next question is whether or not personality is a function of thought or a function of brain processing. I persoanlly think it's a part of both things....so it's more like you can push the personae into certain directions, but you can't dictate it's full behavior.

When tampering with things we don't know, we're going to make mistakes.

I've got several issues with designing your kids, and I've no interest in pointing it all out. Jsut some basic things: I'd rather embryonic gene therapy, for most cases. The most severe would abort themselves or die shortly after birth, anyway, so I'm not going to judge a woman for refusing to haul around a baby that's not going to be here, whether or not I could just let my own infant die at any stage. There will be some serious repercussions, in a few generations...I'm just wondering what those repercussions will be.

First== of all I dont think that a cartoon about gundam seed is going to teach us about the future. Would they make the same cartoon if the future seemed to be peaceful ? No...the only reason that cartoon exsists is that the future with genetic mutated superhumans running around makes for a good cartoon and video games.

Second== I do not think it is ok to mess around with things until we know what the outcome will be, but in reality we can never know the outcome unless we try. IF it works it becomes the best thing that has ever happened, but we cant not do something just because people are afraid of the outcome that is completly wrong !

If we wait for nature to make a change then we will be sitting here for millions of years while billions of people could have been saved from this type of genetic manipulation. Also nature made us, why would it give us the ability to this ? It will always be in control, we are not going above it, around it or through it. Do you really think we have the ability to mess with her ? Thats like a 2 year old trying to outsmart there mother.

Third== I do believe that a persons personality is 50/50 (nature/nurture), that being the case what is wrong with ridding your child of all known diseases and makeing them physically fit ? The world is tough enough, dont you want to give your kid a better chance at survival ?



[edit on 22-9-2006 by R3KR]

Just to state my opinion on Genetic enhancement, I'm all for it,
as long as the person has consciously made the decision to
have it done.

As, I've said, I'm all for genetic screening to prevent diseases,
but not because you want a boy, or a blond.

Originally posted by iori_komei
but no one has the right to create designer babies.

Says who?

Doing such takes away from individuality and the persons normal
outcome, thusly violating the childs right to self.

What right to genetic self do people have?


A big problem is, in countries where there is a history of sex selection, even post-natal sex selection (ie, infanticide of one sex or the other), there is an imbalance in the sex rations in the populations. You tend to end up with, say, far too many men. IF anyone thinks its difficult find a girl now, imagine when there's literally not enough women to go around!

Of course, thats just a problem for the heterosexuals I suppose. Come to think of it, I suppose that if the sex ratio were skewed to too many men, but there was a high incidence of homosexuality (or lower incidence of heterosexuality, however you want to look at it), that might make up for it all.

Originally posted by Nygdan
Says who?

Well, says me, and a good handful of other people.

What right to genetic self do people have?

Legally, none, since no country seems to have thought about it yet.



But you did make me think of a time when choosing the gender
could be done, and that would be if more than 75% of the population
was one gender, than to even it out, and prevent problems,
it should be done.

But at any other time it should'nt.

Originally posted by R3KR
First== of all I dont think that a cartoon about gundam seed is going to teach us about the future. Would they make the same cartoon if the future seemed to be peaceful ? No...the only reason that cartoon exsists is that the future with genetic mutated superhumans running around makes for a good cartoon and video games.

I am not saying it will teach use about the future. I am saying it's storyline has a good point about the bad possibilties of genetic enhancments. Just because, it is a cartoon don't assume it storys meaning is pointless.