'Designer' Babies.

I didn’t expect that this would happen so soon.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7918296.stm

Article wrote:A US clinic has sparked controversy by offering would-be parents the chance to select traits like the eye and hair colour of their offspring.

The LA Fertility Institutes run by Dr Jeff Steinberg, a pioneer of IVF in the 1970s, expects a trait-selected baby to be born next year.

Article wrote:This involves testing a cell taken from a very early embryo before it is put into the mother's womb.

Doctors then select an embryo free from rogue genes - or in this case an embryo with the desired physical traits such as blonde hair and blue eyes - to continue the pregnancy, and discard any others.

Very fascinating.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2009/03/03/2009-03-03_designakid_clinic_puts_offer_on_hold.html

Now (because of all the outrage and drama, I think) he's retracted it.

Curiouser and curiouser...

I don't know that I'd be comfortable changing my childs appearance- but I'd like to think this technology could be used to "fix" (for want of a better word) damaging mutations/ impairments en-utero (I think that's the word for "still in the womb)

Yeah, I can understand that. I, too, think the idea of preventing heinous genetic disorders should definitely be a standard (or compulsory) medical practice. But the cosmetic changes seem a little less justifiable, though I can't really think of a good reason against them...

How about- the kid has rights too, why should they look like a parents idea of perfect?

(not particularily worried- but thought this was a fun topic to debate)

Yeah, good suggested question for opening of debate.

But to that I would feel compelled to say,

Sure, the kid has rights... but how does that relate? Kids already don’t decide what genes they get. At least this method (potentially) puts some ‘rationality’ behind it.

But it's someone else's idea of good looking- at least if it isn't affected by a surgeon (or however it's done) they look like their own family- a fact that surely adds to their sense of identity, belonging, etc.

Yeah, but at least it is someone's... rather than random lottery like it is now (even though, sure, I think we shouldn’t place such emphasis on physical appearance, but we manifestly do).

I guess looking like your parents could be an argument. I don’t know how much of an important one it is though. I mean, what about adopted kids and sperm donors and what not, not to mention that a lot of kids don’t necessarily look much like either parent. Why would you need that as your source of identity? I don't, for what it's worth.

But many people do- i reckon if you took a poll of kids who look like members of their families, and ones who don't- which ones end up with psyche issues... hmm, a bit of a reach. try this: if we do start messing with kids looks before they come out of the womb, how long before someone creates (or re-creates) the idea of the supreme race?

Glenjamin wrote:hmm, a bit of a reach.

Ha, nice. I like that. Nah, I do get your point that people do associate with that kind of thing. But maybe that’s just because we’re used to it? I dunno. I mean, seriously, how different can you look from your parents... and how bad can that be?

The point about the ‘supreme race’ I don’t like. Sure, I guess it’s a serious one, and someone may suggest it, but all we have to do is reject them like we do now. I don’t see why this technology will make their idea any more legitimate.

It's already happening in places like India- people with lighter skin are given a higher status within the Caste system (or so is my limited understanding )- how long before we get Albino Indians as the norm? How long before a parents idea of perfect produces children who cannot step out into the sunlight and live lives without the ability to go out and enjoy God's creation in it's fullness?

Are you taking the piss?

No just presenting part of my view- and to bring back an earlier point, that looks are a random lottery- that i just don't believe, kids always have distinguishing features from their parents.

Yeah, okay, my fault—I did say “random lottery.” That can be misleading. Yes, genetics obviously plays a role, and so offspring inherit looks. But my point was that from the child’s perspective it might as well be a random lottery, because they don’t get to decide which parents they come from. It is essentially random, for all intents and purposes, that I have the specific looks that I do, despite me looking exactly like my dad; I didn’t choose what parent I would have....

But that's a whole different idea- who would choose their parents? I love mine, but if'd a choice- it'd be all Brangelina baby- Lokks AND Money! Or perhaps Warren Buffet, so i could look at the vast fortune i'm set to inherit and sigh, and think "What nation would i purchase today?"... but i think we have a different idea of random, Children (biological) will always inherit their looks from their forebears- this is a natural and sequential thing. The idea of a parent deciding their kid(s) should have none of their own features speaks of a society where looks count for more than anything (we lean that way already, but i don't think we're as far as this would inevitably take us), a society where the poor will be even further separated from the rich and eventually (it's possible guy) to a species which will separate itself racially to the point where genocide becomes natural- think nazi!