I want my Baby to look like Brad Pitt!

[Anti-Hero]

^ 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]

Oh goodness, this is what I'm discussing in RE. Gene modification is good when it comes to preventing diseases, anything else is wrong.

 

[Honest]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

I support it. I wouldn't want my kid to die alone because he's ugly as hell.

 

[twocows]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.