Designer Children

[Jen]

A Los Angeles clinic says it will soon help couples select both gender and physical traits in a baby when they undergo a form of fertility treatment. The clinic, Fertility Institutes, says it has received "half a dozen" requests for the service, which is based on a procedure called pre-implantation genetic diagnosis, or PGD.

While PGD has long been used for the medical purpose of averting life-threatening diseases in children, the science behind it has quietly progressed to the point that it could potentially be used to create designer babies. It isn't clear that Fertility Institutes can yet deliver on its claims of trait selection.

What do you guys think? Is this okay? Is it not okay? Is harmless? Or should it be regulated immediately.

I think it needs to be regulated tomorrow. If there has ever been cause for an executive order, this is it. It will lead to the rich being able to "afford" perfect children and the poor being stuck with random chance. It will make life worse for the kids born by "chance," and, if you disagree with abortion think about all of the imperfect embryos that will be destroyed in the process. The gender selection is also particularly troubling because if one gender is preferred, it leads to a large number of deaths of embryos of the other gender.

But even if you don't disagree with killing embryos, think about your flaws which you may pass down to your children--do you really want yourself or your children to be considered inferior because you or your parents couldn't afford genetic selection?

Quote from here. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123439771603075099.html)

[jimmy]

I think it's only a matter of time before this becomes commonplace. We've already taken most of the steps in that direction, with gene therapy, stem cell research, cloning research, and so on. Is there something inherently wrong with tweaking genes, or even just selecting the best out of a batch of embryos to implant?

Although it's a little disturbing, I don't think my gut feeling--or anyone else's--should be the basis for outlawing it.

[Jen]

Do you believe that all men are created equal? I believe this sort of thing goes against that.

Are blond-haired, blue-eyed, skinny girls really superior to the rest of us?

Gene therapy for exisisting people for actual disabilities and defects seems like a good step to take. This cosmetic stuff does not. And it's more than me being "uncomfortable" with it. I'm not uncomfortable with the understanding and the ability to do this and think it has good, useful, practical uses.

But if we're going to continue to be a society where you're judged on what you accomplish, rather than where you came from, this is a bad idea. For instance, can you see the courts in ten years. "He came from a good family, your honor. They even genetically selected for his mental ability, lack of criminal disposition, and striking blue eyes. His co-defendant, on the other hand, did not." We already hear these arguments in socialist countries--the "good family" part, not the genetic predisposition. Is this a direction America should go?

There's also the fact that, in selecting for cosmetic traits, we ignore anything that might be underlying. What if the pale skin is prone to cancer or the particular shade of blond hair we're selecting for is linked to liver defects?

And I know this argument won't sway any of you pro-aborts, but what about the "imperfect" people who are thrown away in this process because their embryos weren't "selected?"

[jimmy]

I think these are all very complex issues that do not have easy answers, and will have to be dealt with as they come. Despite the amount of science fiction that exists on this subject, the real world will play out differently, and the best we can do is try to find the best path through it as we can.

[Jen]

Okay, but this clinic claims it will be taking orders soon and I haven't heard anything from the Obama administration about it.

[jimmy]

They can claim anything they want. Doesn't mean squat until they do it. They're probably fishing for venture capital.

[Jen]

Which they shouldn't be allowed to get for something that should be illegal.

[jimmy]

But it isn't illegal and it shouldn't be restrained prematurely. Let the legal system do its job and work out the ramifications.

[Jen]

People should get to vote on this sort of thing.

[jimmy]

But what you're against is so broad a subject there is no way it could be outlawed without impeding genuine medical research. And this is not something people should get to vote on, as it is extremely unlikely most people voting on it would have the foggiest fucking clue what they're voting for/against, which is why I dislike the whole Proposition/Referendum thing. It works on simple, straightforward matters--should we increase property taxes 2%? Much less effective on complex social issues, where most people are grossly un- or misinformed.

[Jen]

It's the legislators' jobs to write decent legislation that distinguishes between medical and commercial use.

It's our job to inform ourselves and vote. What exactly about genetically selecting for cosmetic traits and discarding embryos that don't have them is so difficult for people to understand?

[jimmy]

Why shouldn't people be allowed to do it? Other than you finding it morally outrageous you haven't really come up with a good answer for that.

So rich people can pick and choose to have beautiful children. Whoop dee do. That has dystopia written all over it.

This sort of genetic engineering can only go one of two ways: be so rarely done as to be marginal, meaningless, statistically aberrant; or, become so commonplace as to not make a damn difference at all.

[Jen]

Do you really believe looks aren't everything, especially for females?

It figures--you're in a line of work that is absolutely essential these days and you have a very specialized, very useful set of skills.

For the rest of us, there could be a dozen people with our same qualification and skills (teaching, counselling, serving the Grand Slam Breakfast) that are extremely subjective. It has been shown in scientific trials that a pretty teacher with no subject knowledge and mediocre presentation will receive higher ratings from her employers than an ugly teacher with extensive knowledge and excellent presentation. Unless you have a splinter talent like fixing computers or fixing cars, you're competing on looks, like it or not.

Making it so the rich can choose the appearances of their children gives them an advantage in life that poor people don't have, and this one is a genetic advantage. This isn't just a moral outrage, it's cause for class warfare, and I think more people would agree with me than disagree.

It's a shame nobody else will participate in this thread.

[Dan]

Once it becomes interesting, I'll consider it.

[jimmy]

Do you really believe looks aren't everything, especially for females?

It figures--you're in a line of work that is absolutely essential these days and you have a very specialized, very useful set of skills.

For the rest of us, there could be a dozen people with our same qualification and skills (teaching, counselling, serving the Grand Slam Breakfast) that are extremely subjective. It has been shown in scientific trials that a pretty teacher with no subject knowledge and mediocre presentation will receive higher ratings from her employers than an ugly teacher with extensive knowledge and excellent presentation. Unless you have a splinter talent like fixing computers or fixing cars, you're competing on looks, like it or not.

You're the one who always makes such a big deal about looks. You seem to think everything in life revolves around it. I can't relate to this, probably because I'm not a female.

I think this all boils down to you believing your current position in life is the result of your appearance.

Making it so the rich can choose the appearances of their children gives them an advantage in life that poor people don't have, and this one is a genetic advantage. This isn't just a moral outrage, it's cause for class warfare, and I think more people would agree with me than disagree.

It's a shame nobody else will participate in this thread.

Okay, for one thing, we are nowhere near the sort of customization I think you are imagining. Getting to see a 3D rendering of your baby and saying "oh, i want to touch up that part, and that part, and that part" or "I want him to look like George Clooney." Genetics doesn't work that way, and besides, it wouldn't be cost effective compared to something like cosmetic surgery.

Speaking of which, rich people can already advantage themselves by going under the knife. So, if you want to outlaw this sort of thing, you should outlaw elective cosmetic surgery, too. No more nose jobs, tummy tucks, breast implants, face lifts, etc. etc. etc.

[Jen]

I've met men who understand. You've just not been exposed to it, apparently. I guess you're the "sheltered" one in this case. I'm not in my current situation entirely because I'm ugly, but I'm almost certain I would be in a different situation if I had been born supermodel gorgeous and kept the metabolism I had when I was 9.

Cosmetic surgery is different. There's a stigma associated with having surgery done, even among the rich. Some people are brazen about it, but most want you to believe they were born pretty. And poor people aren't barred from getting it, they just have to save up for longer. Unless some sort of gene therapy is developed that you can have to become pretty later in life, it depends on the money your parents were able to invest before your birth. You have no control over it.

Genetic selection for cosmetic reasons is simply something that needs to be nipped in the bud. It's not to the point where we can look at an ultrasound and do touch-ups, no, but say we become complacent with keeping the blond embryos and throwing out the dark-haired ones, when we do end up with Photoshop for Ultrasounds, it may be accepted with open arms.