TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › It's not cloning, but...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

It's not cloning, but...

post #1 of 24
3/3/09 at 7:13pm
Thread Starter 
This sounds to be right on the verge of genetic engineering. Does anyone else find this to be a wee bit creepy?

Fertility Doctor Will Let Parents Build Their Own Baby
Reply
post #2 of 24
3/3/09 at 9:37pm
I wonder if they'll put up one of those websites like they have for cars, where you can click on your choices and it shows a picture of what the finished vehicle would look like with your choice of colors, styles, and options. I wonder if the baby options will be sold a la carte or in packages. Like if you want a baby with an automatic, you have to take the sun roof to get it.
Reply
post #3 of 24
3/3/09 at 9:43pm
I Don't think it's creepy; I do think it is dangerous... The last person who tried to do this (with other methods, of course) was Hitler, when trying to create a white, blonde-haired, blue-eyed superior Nordic race.
I think this technology is valid when you are talking about reducing the chances of serious genetic disorders, but anything beyond that should be against the law.
Reply
post #4 of 24
3/3/09 at 9:46pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by carolinalima View Post
I Don't think it's creepy; I do think it is dangerous... The last person who tried to do this (with other methods, of course) was Hitler, when trying to create a white, blonde-haired, blue-eyed superior Nordic race.
I think this technology is valid when you are talking about reducing the chances of serious genetic disorders, but anything beyond that should be against the law.
That about says it.
Reply
post #5 of 24
3/4/09 at 1:06am
Reading about it makes my head and stomach turn.
Reply
post #6 of 24
3/4/09 at 7:21am
Well, OK, basically I agree, but how is choosing physical characteristics any different, except in degree, of choosing the gender of your baby? Something that is being done today, and apparently without much controversy?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in611618.shtml
Reply
post #7 of 24
3/4/09 at 7:28am
The impression I got from listening to this story on the news last night was that it's only the eyes and hair, not all physical characteristics. But, come on who in their right mind would think that having a baby with physical characteristics of their choice would be a better child than what would come naturally? I think people who would do that have serious issues, possibly some kind of OCD about appearance, etc and maybe shouldn't be allowed to have a child in the first place because they couldn't raise it properly. My two cents- unfortunately I know a lot of people would think this is cool and would want to do it..I guess our entire culture is obsessed with appearance, which is sad, that's why we have eating disorders and all kinds of self esteem issues that people develop on the rise.
Reply
post #8 of 24
3/4/09 at 7:41am
I think it is creepy, disgusting and totally wrong. I didn't even like when Calgene used a flounder gene in tomatoes in the '90's.
Reply
post #9 of 24
3/4/09 at 11:37am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by coaster View Post
Well, OK, basically I agree, but how is choosing physical characteristics any different, except in degree, of choosing the gender of your baby? Something that is being done today, and apparently without much controversy?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in611618.shtml
IMO, there is no difference. The issue being that it apparently has been going on rather quietly, because I didn't know that much was possible. I knew that tests could determine the sex of the baby while in the womb, but I had no idea that it could be influenced or manipulated. I would imagine that the people taking advantage of such services aren't being very vocal about it. It goes back to my saying that people in a postition to gain something from a procedure will support it; the "what's in it for me?" concept.
Reply
post #10 of 24
3/4/09 at 12:39pm
I'm okay with choosing the sex of the baby..Nothing weird about that.
Reply
post #11 of 24
3/4/09 at 12:51pm
"I want a tall one."
"I want a strong one."
"I want a blonde one."
"I want a smart one."
"Me too! I want a smart one with blue eyes and black hair. A girl! She will be a model and win a scholarship to the university of her choice!"
" I want a boy who will be good at sports. He will be the best football player ever and win the Superbowl!"

Where will it end?
Reply
post #12 of 24
3/4/09 at 1:19pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rockcat View Post
"I want a tall one."
"I want a strong one."
"I want a blonde one."
"I want a smart one."
"Me too! I want a smart one with blue eyes and black hair. A girl! She will be a model and win a scholarship to the university of her choice!"
" I want a boy who will be good at sports. He will be the best football player ever and win the Superbowl!"

Where will it end?
Actually, I was thinking along the lines of the patients that will start showing up later simply saying, "I want my baby to be better than 'so n' so's' baby!"
Reply
post #13 of 24
3/4/09 at 8:54pm
kind of reminds me of the 'Stepford Wives' movie except they're starting as babies. well, i guess before that. i think it's very wrong.
Reply
post #14 of 24
3/7/09 at 10:37am
I think it creepy, unnatural, and should, imo, be illegal. Do they know if it will be dangerous for the baby? What side effects could there be? It's a very dangerous game to play, imo. It makes no sense to me.
Reply
post #15 of 24
3/7/09 at 12:14pm
Don't most parents want kids that look like them?

Though I wouldn't want to see something like this banned, it could very easily stop scientific progress in eradication of diseases. That is unless everyone against that wants to force every single person to go through genetic screening to check if it's safe for them to reproduce - 'Opps sorry, you have an harmful autosomal dominant genetic disorder, no kids for you!'
Reply
post #16 of 24
3/7/09 at 6:18pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by strange_wings View Post
Don't most parents want kids that look like them?

Though I wouldn't want to see something like this banned, it could very easily stop scientific progress in eradication of diseases. That is unless everyone against that wants to force every single person to go through genetic screening to check if it's safe for them to reproduce - 'Opps sorry, you have an harmful autosomal dominant genetic disorder, no kids for you!'
I'm confused how exactly is it going to stop scientific progress in eradication of diseases? Do you mean banning it would stop scientific progress? By the way, in some countries, it's the law to go through some genetic screening for some diseases before issuing a marriage certificate, and this has been in place for a really long time...I forgot exactly what kind of testing is done though...i see that as very positive.
Reply
post #17 of 24
3/8/09 at 4:41am
^Screening and actually going in and modifying genes to prevent them from being expressed are different. If there were anything to be put in place to prevent one from stopping one type of gene being expressed that would only affect how a child would physically looks what's to say it won't ban turning off genes that would cause a person to be born with a horrible disease? It would be the exact same thing being done only with specific genes and different outcomes from those modifications. The only other way to prevent these diseases is to tell or even prevent those who carry those genes (especially when it will be certain that the child will be born with it) that they cannot have children. Same thing I just said, but simplified. If anyone is still lost they may want to brush up on at least some very basic biology before assuming that such technology would only have use in changing hair, eye color, etc.
Reply
post #18 of 24
3/8/09 at 7:59am
Oh okay, I know what you mean now, at first I thought you were saying that if this genetic modifying goes on, THEN it will stop progress towards eradicating diseases, that's why I was confused. I am sure that many people feel like this is wrong even when it's used to modify genes that cause diseases....Some people dont want any of their children's genes modified, and would prefer the children to have the diseases. And some people have problems with genetic screening. I know there was a documentary about people who know they are both carriers of cystic fibrosis, because their first child was born with it, and still take their chances to have more children..I am sure those people would not be happy if genetic screening was mandatory for all and those who are carriers of certain diseases are not allowed to have children. To me, by all means this needs to happen because the parents may feel like they are okay with their kids having a certain disease, yes they can love them just the same, but taken from the child's perspective, I know I would rather not exist than have a debilitating condition and know I'm sure to die from it before I turn 30-40...
Reply
post #19 of 24
3/8/09 at 8:44am
We really don't understand how the genes interact with one another so we don't know how manipulating gene "A" will affect the effectiveness of gene "B". Look at the history of dog breeding and how many breeds now suffer from unintended consequences. What are these parents going to do if their tinkering results in a child who develops a genetically induced disability.
Reply
post #20 of 24
3/8/09 at 10:23am
Quote:
Originally Posted by ut0pia View Post
I know there was a documentary about people who know they are both carriers of cystic fibrosis, because their first child was born with it, and still take their chances to have more children..
I find this sort of thing rather cruel. Most people and cultures make incest taboo because of how it can set up the children for genetic problems, I don't see how this should be any different.


katachtig - Nobody can control the genetic expression on the sort of level being proposed by breeding alone. Using "history" where there isn't one and an example where most people doing the breeding didn't/don't even know or care about basic genetics doesn't make for a very good analogy either.
As for tinkering, people do that already when they have kids. I do believe this is something that they need to be more careful with, so letting parents choose which physical traits will be expressed now may be a bit ahead of themselves.

Hopefully it won't be hindered by those who morally object out of ignorance. Lack of understanding of science tends to make it scare a lot of people unnecessarily.
Reply
post #21 of 24
3/8/09 at 10:42am
Quote:
Originally Posted by strange_wings View Post
I find this sort of thing rather cruel. Most people and cultures make incest taboo because of how it can set up the children for genetic problems, I don't see how this should be any different.


katachtig - Nobody can control the genetic expression on the sort of level being proposed by breeding alone. Using "history" where there isn't one and an example where most people doing the breeding didn't/don't even know or care about basic genetics doesn't make for a very good analogy either.
As for tinkering, people do that already when they have kids. I do believe this is something that they need to be more careful with, so letting parents choose which physical traits will be expressed now may be a bit ahead of themselves.

Hopefully it won't be hindered by those who morally object out of ignorance. Lack of understanding of science tends to make it scare a lot of people unnecessarily.
True, breeding doesn't affect it at the level they are talking about. But I do not have the faith in our current science that you do. I don't believe they know how the genes interact with one another. Cancer studies are finding that genes turn themselves on and off due to a unknown set of factors. You fiddle with one gene and that may seriously affect how another operates 20 years later.

And then we will as a society have to bear the consequences of a genetically introduced disability.
Reply
post #22 of 24
3/8/09 at 10:47am
^ I said we need more time and research on this, which is why I think offering it now as a nifty way to change eye color isn't good. But who can say exactly what advances will be made in the next 10 or even 20 years? Provided that it isn't completely banned I foresee this as something that will eventually happen as well as other gene therapies. By eventually, I mean by 2050 or such.
Reply
post #23 of 24
3/8/09 at 12:03pm
In the past, when people have forecast something, they may have gotten the forecast right, but almost inevitably the timing is off. And the directions it's off is that they happen much sooner.
Reply
post #24 of 24
3/8/09 at 2:37pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by coaster View Post
And the directions it's off is that they happen much sooner.
I meant common place practice that's regularly done, not just a novelty for those with large amounts of money.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › It's not cloning, but...