PDA

View Full Version : I want my Baby to look like Brad Pitt!


curiousnathan
March 15th, 2010, 12:57 AM
Gene modification is the latest thing for mother and fatheres in this day and age. Basically you can plan what your child looks like, WHO is looks like. Mothers and fathers have the opportunity for scientists and medical staff to scientificallty modify a babies Genes to change its appearence, behavior and other perosnal characteristics.

What do you think of it? Good or Bad?

In my opinion it is not natural, god or whoever you believe in created things to be natural not modified or edited. Babies are just another thing people are modifying to suit themselves and they are not thinking about how the Child would feel.
It is simply not natural. That is my opnion on this topic.

Wings Don't Cry
March 15th, 2010, 02:41 AM
Yes it's not natural, to me it's also ethnically wrong. As far as I'm concerned this goes against human rights(well actually until the baby is born it has no rights). But nonetheless it is wrong for parents to do such things.

Jubilation
March 15th, 2010, 02:52 AM
I see both sides of this. It goes against nature, humans should not be doing such things. But then, I also see that parents want their child to be the best, to be able to do anything they want in life.

Throat
March 15th, 2010, 03:53 AM
If god didn't want us to manipulate genes, it wouldn't allow Mendel to be born, heh.

C'mon, it's not easy at all to select genes. Don't take it as a futility, many genes that are related to diseases and bad behaviour (which can be considered a disease in some particular cases) can be avoided.

And, please, leave behind the thought someday you can have a perfect kid through genetic manipulation, not to mention more than 50% of what you are is related to the way you've been raised.

Okami Chi
March 15th, 2010, 04:00 AM
Are we really asking this question? Wow, just wow. This is what life has come to? Manipulating genes? What's next? Gender changes at birth?

Guillermo
March 15th, 2010, 04:04 AM
This is sickening, and really shows how we've lost our connection to nature and what's meant to be. How can someone modify their baby? It's disgusting just thinking about it. If it has been toyed with and changed, you don't have the right to call it your child.

Throat
March 15th, 2010, 04:24 AM
This is sickening, and really shows how we've lost our connection to nature and what's meant to be. How can someone modify their baby? It's disgusting just thinking about it. If it has been toyed with and changed, you don't have the right to call it your child.
Nature has been selecting the best genes since the first lives in this world. Also, life isn't easy for the ones with unfit genotype.

Timbjerr
March 15th, 2010, 04:55 AM
This sounds like something straight out of a sci-fi movie where the moral is "don't play God or else"

I don't see why parents would be so insecure with their genetic information that they'd try to change their unborn child in any way whatsoever. >_<

Guillermo
March 15th, 2010, 04:58 AM
Nature has been selecting the best genes since the first lives in this world. Also, life isn't easy for the ones with unfit genotype.
Life isn't easy for anyone, regardless of their genes. Modifying them to look and act like someone else won't change anything. For god knows how long, people have evolved. People have changed. Everyone is different. Everyone looks different, their personality is different and their views and opinions are different. How much longer is that going to last if this continues?

Throat
March 15th, 2010, 06:02 AM
Don't tell me you think everyone is going to look like Brad Pitt. For god's sake, I didn't say it was convenient to create children with perfect body and mind (not that I consider anyone so), but drop out the possibility of a genetic disorder doesn't sound that bad, does it?

Everyone would still look different, we aren't talking about clones, buddy.

Daeva Okami-Luca
March 15th, 2010, 06:34 AM
In my opinion, if you and your partner are ugly, it would be better to make the child look better. Let's face it; society worships beauty. I had an ex who was so good looking, we would get discounts in gamestop and at restaurants.

Talli
March 15th, 2010, 07:49 AM
that is just wrong if you ask me, you should just be happy with a baby. Not make it look like Zac effon

Dawson
March 15th, 2010, 10:18 AM
I'd give my baby four arms and cancer-inducing fists of doom for fighting crime when he is older. He'll also like like Sloth from The Goonies to really freak the crap out of them damn evil-doers.

Jordan
March 15th, 2010, 10:58 AM
A slippery-slope to humans becoming property again in my opinion. Parents should love their child and care for them regardless of how they turn out to be.

Galukxy
March 15th, 2010, 11:20 AM
This really sounds like there will be alot of debates, arguments, disagreement and will lead down hill somewhere on this subject O_O

Daeva Okami-Luca
March 15th, 2010, 11:22 AM
Referring to my post, I didn't make it clear: It is for the child's best interests, not my eyes'.

Esper
March 15th, 2010, 12:59 PM
I'm reminded of a movie called Gattaca (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gattaca).

What's with all this talk about nature? Who cares if it's natural or not? We already do so many things with our bodies which aren't "natural" that we couldn't live without. Modern medicine is based on the idea that we do "unnatural" things to keep us alive and healthy. Does anyone here think organ transplants are bad?

No, the real problem with playing with genes is this: who gets to do it and who doesn't? The whole idea stinks of eugenics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics).

curiousnathan
March 15th, 2010, 01:07 PM
Don't tell me you think everyone is going to look like Brad Pitt. For god's sake, I didn't say it was convenient to create children with perfect body and mind (not that I consider anyone so), but drop out the possibility of a genetic disorder doesn't sound that bad, does it?

Everyone would still look different, we aren't talking about clones, buddy.
I didn't say I want my baby to be Brad Pitt. I said I want my baby to look like Brad Pitt, pretty big difference there. Glad to here everyones view on this.

.little monster
March 15th, 2010, 01:42 PM
I don't really care. The real question to me is, "Why do you even want to modify a healthy baby? You shouldn't care what it looks like, you shallow idiot."

Melody
March 15th, 2010, 01:53 PM
I dont really oppose genetic modification to snip out genenetically inherited diseases and traits such as allergies, birth defects and traits that negatively impact health in life.

As far as selecting certain traits such as appearance...I think it should be ok. The prohibition should be on behavioral modification genes. Those should not be tampered with.

It is not wrong to correct incorrect genes, it's wrong to abuse genetic modification to inhibit free will in any way.

Anti-Hero
March 15th, 2010, 02:24 PM
^ I agree. There are many good reasons as to why you genes should be/need to be changed. On the opposite side, there are bad reasons, which are what should be illegal or whatever.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with any of this, except behavior. Also, what do you mean by unnatural? Think of everything we do in human life, it is ALL unnatural, more or less.

Bluerang1
March 15th, 2010, 02:34 PM
Oh goodness, this is what I'm discussing in RE. Gene modification is good when it comes to preventing diseases, anything else is wrong.

Dakota
March 15th, 2010, 02:36 PM
Haha, first thing that came to my mind when I saw the thread was Fail troll. xD

Gene modification? Wow, this reminds me of my English HW which I still have to do... gotta read Brave New World I find it a really unique discovery, but I don't like how it's used to alter the next generation, if you will. Seems sort of wrong, and I don't think kids would like to know when therre old enough that they were experimented upon to fit there parents needs.

Rich Boy Rob
March 15th, 2010, 02:48 PM
The thing with "baby modification" if that's what you want to call it is that you wouldn't be changing what it looks like (the environment it grew up in would affect that anyway),but you would be able to "fix" disease inducing genes or those that increase the likelihood that you would contract certain illnesses. I mean if you were having a child and were told that it would be born with downs syndrome, wouldn't you want to... cure(?) it?

A Pixy
March 15th, 2010, 05:19 PM
Sweet, I've got some more ideas.

-Adding animal genes.
-Being brought back from the dead.
-Multiple genitalia.
-New genders.
-Human/animal cross-breeding.
-Being a real-life Frankenstein monster.
-Gene changing to look like FICTIONAL characters.
-Changing humans into animals

Kleinchen
March 15th, 2010, 05:45 PM
As someone who has hereditary problems and diseases and such running in my family, I would fully support the usage of genetic engineering in disease prevention and making sure the baby is healthy.

I can see why appearance modifications may be used too, because honestly, no one wants an ugly child, and no one -wants- to be ugly. And maybe you have several sons and want a daughter so you use genetic engineering to control the gender of your baby, which I think is acceptable. However, I also think that just making your baby pretty because you want a pretty baby is kind of shallow. I can see both sides here.

As for behavioral modifications, this can be a double-edged sword. I can understand that a parent would want to get rid of "bad" behaviors in their child, because no one wants to be the parent of a gangster or a thief or a murderer and behavioral modifications can help prevent behaviors that would develop into these kinds of mindsets. However, changing behaviors because you want your child in real life to be exactly how you imagine it to be... While I can understand this desire to have children with personalities and such that you would enjoy being around and be able to get along with, that would be where I draw the line. As someone said before, this brings up issues of free will, etc., which shouldn't be dabbled in.

Bottom line: it would probably be better if genetic engineering went untouched, but that is an impossibility now, so rules need to be set in place, and soon, to prevent its abuse and a world like the movie Gattaca, which someone linked to.

reyzn
March 15th, 2010, 09:20 PM
I'm not opposed to it if it's for the use of disease prevention.. but I must admit I would be rather tempted with gender selection.

curiousnathan
March 15th, 2010, 09:23 PM
I don't really care. The real question to me is, "Why do you even want to modify a healthy baby? You shouldn't care what it looks like, you shallow idiot."
Is that directed to me? If it is..

Vyro
March 15th, 2010, 09:41 PM
I support it. I wouldn't want my kid to die alone because he's ugly as hell.

twocows
March 15th, 2010, 10:41 PM
I'm fine with it. I find it perfectly acceptable (even desirable) within the scope of my morality. It might be "wrong" for some people, and I'd be fine with them not genetically modifying their children, so long as they don't try to push their moral views on me. I'm really excited about what genetic research could mean for eliminating genetic diseases. Imagine a world where MS didn't exist, for example; I think that would be a great goal to work toward!

I do think there should be limits, though. People shouldn't be experiments; I don't like the idea of modifying genetics past the point of what is necessary to ensure a normal life.

Guillermo
March 16th, 2010, 01:02 AM
Don't tell me you think everyone is going to look like Brad Pitt. For god's sake, I didn't say it was convenient to create children with perfect body and mind (not that I consider anyone so), but drop out the possibility of a genetic disorder doesn't sound that bad, does it?

Everyone would still look different, we aren't talking about clones, buddy.
That really does not change the fact that you're screwing with things that shouldn't be screwed with.

curiousnathan
March 16th, 2010, 01:04 AM
That really does not change the fact that you're screwing with things that shouldn't be screwed up.
Exactly what I am trying to say, but some people take it the wrong way.

dc_united
March 16th, 2010, 08:04 AM
It's bad enough that today, parents airbrush and 'touch up' their kid's elementary school photos. But now you can alter your kids genes to make them look like widdle angels or crack babies, or make them disease ridden cesspools? If you want your kids to look however you want, why don't we just dispense with pregnancy altogether and just grow kids in vats like clone troopers? Or better yet, why don't you just deal with the fact that we're different- some of us are hideous, disease ridden, and will likely never reproduce, but that's the way we were built, and it's generally not a good idea to mess with a good thing that we've been using for hundreds of thousands of years.

The only positive side of this would be making your kid look like John Connor and spoon-feeding him all the 'You gotta save the world from the machines!' crap.

For the health nuts, I can see why this appeals to you, since we could pretty much control and contain heart disease and genetic diseases, but is that really good? My family genes contain heart disease, alcoholism, and who knows what else, but I wouldn't trade my own genes for some most likely BS 'cure'.

A Pixy
March 16th, 2010, 09:06 AM
OOH. I thought we were talking about gene changing to change appearance.

If it's to kill diseases then I am perfectly fine with that. If my baby had a problem that could be fixed with gene changes I would TOTALLY go for it. I wouldn't want my kid to go through that trauma alive and the medication would be painful too. But since it's still in the womb, it can't feel any form of trauma. As long as it's perfectly safe. If it's not, I am out like no crappy batter has been out before.

twocows
March 16th, 2010, 09:26 AM
For the health nuts, I can see why this appeals to you, since we could pretty much control and contain heart disease and genetic diseases, but is that really good? My family genes contain heart disease, alcoholism, and who knows what else, but I wouldn't trade my own genes for some most likely BS 'cure'.
Yes. It is really good. You're implying that (a) genes control who you are (debatable), and (b) that, given there are genes that determine who you are, those genes are the same as the ones that cause genetic problems, which is nonsense. Genetics doesn't work like that.

curiousnathan
March 16th, 2010, 12:18 PM
OOH. I thought we were talking about gene changing to change appearance.

If it's to kill diseases then I am perfectly fine with that. If my baby had a problem that could be fixed with gene changes I would TOTALLY go for it. I wouldn't want my kid to go through that trauma alive and the medication would be painful too. But since it's still in the womb, it can't feel any form of trauma. As long as it's perfectly safe. If it's not, I am out like no crappy batter has been out before.
Yeah, were talking about both concepts, appearence and health issues. If the baby has any comfimable health issues then go right ahead but if it is normal then.. just leave it to mother nature to do it's course.