Long before Watson and Crick famously uncovered the structure of DNA in 1953, people envisioned with both horror and hope a day when babies could be custom designed — free of inherited disease, yet equipped with superior genes for good looks, intelligence, athleticism, and more. Now the beginnings of the day of designer babies have finally come.
 Designer Babies - here they come! |
The Fertility Institutes recently stunned the fertility community by being the first company to boldly offer couples the opportunity to screen their embryos not only for diseases and gender, but also for completely benign characteristics such as eye color, hair color, and complexion. The Fertility Institutes proudly claims this is just the tip of the iceberg, and plans to offer almost any conceivable customization as science makes them available. Even as couples from across the globe are flocking in droves to pay the company their life’s savings for a custom baby, opponents are vilifying the company for shattering moral and ethical boundaries. Like it or not, the era of designer babies is officially here and there is no going back.
For decades now a technology called preimplantation genetic diagnosis, or PGD, has enabled In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) clinics to screen embryos for more than 100 potentially debilitating and often deadly diseases before the embryo is implanted into the mother. A medical revolution has thus unfolded, enabling literally tens of thousands of couples and their babies to sidestep some of the world’s most terrifying diseases.
Take the case of Cindy and John Whitley. Their first child died at the age of 9 months from a deadly genetic disorder called spinal muscular atrophy. Genetic analysis uncovered that the Whitley’s statistically had a 1 in 4 chance of creating a child with spinal muscular atrophy each time they conceived. Unwilling to risk having another child with the deadly disorder, the Whitley’s used PGD to conceive three children, all healthy.
Yet PGD allows scientists to screen embryos for much more than just genetic diseases, and therein lies the promise – and the peril – of designer babies.
Gender was the first major genetic trait beyond genetic disease to be widely manipulated through PGD. The Fertility Institutes is a leader in the field, claiming nearly 100% success in providing couples with a baby of a predetermined gender. Completely healthy and fertile couples from all over the world are coming to The Fertility Institutes everyday to confront the risk, the expense, and the discomfort of conceiving their baby in a test tube, all for the ability to choose the sex of their baby.
Gender selection is a big business. Dr. Steinberg, Director at The Fertility Institutes, claims that they are performing on the order of 10 gender selection fertilizations every week, each for a fee of $18,400. Although In Vitro Fertilizations were originally designed to help parents that were unable to conceive children naturally, Steinberg says that a staggering 70% of their clients have absolutely no difficulty conceiving children, coming to the Institute purely for opportunity to choose the sex of their baby.
Now, in the latest twist in the march towards designer babies, The Fertility Institutes says they will soon be able to offer couples the ability to screen their embryos for eye color, hair color, and complexion. The Institute cannot change the DNA of the donating couple — if neither the mother nor the father has genes for green eyes, for example, then the Institute cannot give them a baby with green eyes. Yet within the constraints inherent in the DNA of the donating couple, The Fertility Institute is willing to screen embryos for these traits. The Fertility Institute wants to offer several other customizations, and many more are sure to be released in the coming years as the science behind screening for them is developed.
In many countries around the world PGD is heavily regulated and designer babies are strictly out of the question. Yet in a strange paradox, even as the United States is one of the world’s most regulated nations in several areas of medical research and development, PGD is completely legal and unregulated in the United States. Hence, even as the United States is hindered by regulation in areas such as stem cell research, the country seems poised to be a world leader in the designer baby revolution.
At the moment, The Fertility Institutes carries the mantle as the company at the forefront of this revolution, and as such they are a lightning rod for the praise and adoration, but also the bitter and severe anger, of those on both sides of this great moral debate.
The genie is officially out of the bottle, in fact it probably has been for a long time. There is no stopping the designer baby revolution. Even as some countries try to clamp down on it, others will allow it. Progress, if we call it that, will continue unabated. A similar phenomenon has unfolded with embryonic stem cell research in recent years. Even as the Bush administration almost completely strangled US investment and research in this promising field, other countries invested heavily and advances continued.
A new generation of genetically enhanced designer babies is inevitable in the coming decades. Yet for those of us that are merely “normal”, do not despair. Even as we are outmatched by the next generation genetically, a host of new technologies from chip implants to gene therapy may allow us to keep up, allowing us to enhance ourselves in equally transformative ways. The future will indeed be interesting.
Want to know more? Below are some excellent videos and articles that served as much of the source for this story:
60 Minutes Story Focused on The Fertility Institutes:
 |
The Wall Street Journal: A Baby, Please. Blond, Freckles — Hold the Colic
Image: source
Tags: designer babies, designer baby, genetics
Share
This is fantastic,
I want my future children to stay far away from skincancer prone skin.
Where can I reverse the truck of money?
I have a question for Derek:
While I don’t fully agree with your abomination reference, you raise a perfectly respectable point regarding an embryo, that it’s a fully complete human from a DNA standpoint. However, so is a skin cell, billions of which slough off of us every day. Let’s take the point one step further – given the trajectory of genetic science, with new breakthroughs such as being able to reverse adult differentiated cells back into stem cells, it is entirely possible that some time soon scientists will be able to turn almost any living cell from a human into an embryo. In that event, does destruction of any cell in the body become an abomination?
Like it or not, new technology changes our perspective on the world and the dogmatic “letter” of our morality. It always has. We need to concede this while not surrendering to amorality.
Such “custom-designed” persons should be banned from sport, they’re still human beings but not created entirely by nature.
Lukasz, well actually they are natural. It’s only the selection of one of many possible children you might have. In the movie Gattaca with dealt the issue had a good quote. “Your child is still you, just the best part of you”
Lukasz: You are one of the first proponents of the new racism.
Racist? That’s a bit of an extreme reaction – which race did Lukasz express any hate? Oversensitive and prejudiced, yes; racist no. I don’t see how you can apply the word ‘racism’ to an issue of genetic prejudice, especially when you don’t know the particular ‘race’ of the being involved.
The rich get richer, the poor get poorer.
This service is only geared towards people with high income – and better genes will have better chances of success, both in surviving, and in the business world.
This science is an abomination of human dignity. An embryo is a fertilized egg, i.e. it is a fully-complete human from a DNA standpoint, all the pieces are there.
The decision to “screen” embryos is the decision to allow one human life to continue, while the rest are destroyed. That is, some human life is more valuable than others.
Gattaca
To Derek:
Have you noticed that the world is massively overpopulated? Far better for potential parents to screen for characteristics they want and have one or two children with those characteristics than the “keep trying until we get a girl/boy” crap from the irresponsible idiots with 3, 4 or more children.
I have had this debate for many years with friends and family. The crux of the argument always comes down to the following:
Does the good outweigh the bad?
And to be honest that is the question whenever any new technology comes about. Many people will have a first thought of “superior” beings and “creating a master race” due to the various political and ideological bents out there. If, it becomes possible to eliminate the predication for disease etc. then I can understand it. However, it is rather conceited that someone would pay large sums of money.. simply to make sure their child “looks normal” or “looks perfect”. That is a slippery slope that has a very dangerous end.
Isn’t there a possibility of inadvertently bypassing natural selection and thus creating a whole race of humans who are predisposed to some virus or something that will wipe them all out?
Sort of like we’ve bred hip displacea into Labrador Retrievers?
@Mike – exactly. Aesthetically pleasing is not a survival trait. Our best efforts at this in dogs have lead to fractious, psychotic, deaf, and lame offspring (look at Dalmations). Don’t even get me started on the “more likely to have double recessive genes”. See how well that works for the Amish or Ashkenazi jews (I was going to make the obligatory hillbilly reference, but I just couldn’t bear to do it!). Mother nature knows something that we don’t. Give me the mutt any day. Then again, maybe I stacked the deck by marrying a smart, talented, athletic woman?
/B
The basic point of this piece is repeated several times. This is not about desirability – it’s is about inevitability once the technology becomes available, just as pre-natal tests made gender-based abortion decisions inevitable in certain social conditions given abortion as an option.
@bachroxx – thanks for making my point more intelligently. In questions such as these, its easy to slip into a “Brave New World” type of fear and moral outrage. Thus, we forget that there are actual, logical reasons why this is a bad idea – not just that it “seems creepy”.
You’re right- we’ve managed to f*$% up the animal kingdom quite adeptly with our genetic meddling. Well, on to our own species! I suppose it was just a matter of time…
(By the way, I live in South Carolina…no need to tell me about the inbred redneck hillbilly example!)
You must have missed the memo: Some in the Obama administration are complaining that there’s not *enough* regulation of stem cell and reproductive technology:
http://www.lifeethics.org/www.lifeethics.org/2009/02/us-behind-on-regulation-of-reproductive.html
Rob, have you heard that several of the European nations are paying women to have children, since the current reproduction rate is less than replacement rate?
I seem to remember this horrific idea from years ago that had unbelievable consequences for people deemed ‘less than’ based on arbitrary traits. For years it was discussed as an abomination yet here we are a few years later looking into something that could potentially lead us down the same path.
It’s eugenics, just in nicer packaging.
My two cents: if you don’t trust nature’s cruel fate and your own genes, don’t have kids. How about we approach life, children, and consequences bravely, instead of as cheap made-to-order accessories?
Like some posters above me implied, welcome to devolution.
It’s obvious from some of the comments that a few of you missed the part where it states they aren’t manipulating the genome, only scanning it.
I think this is the best, safest way to eliminate genetic disease. If we can scan for eye color and sex along with other genetic diseases like Huntington’s Chorea, what’s the big deal?
I must say, I’m a bit surprised at the reactions here, the ones that point the finger at eugenics and quote Gattaca with a negative slant.
De-selecting a gene for Duschene’s Muscular Dystrophy, Down’s Syndrome, CF or any number of genetic diseases is an obligation to humanity. By de-selecting them we reduce the risk of these diseases in much the same way that vaccinating against smallpox eradicated the disease.
As for bypassing ‘Mother Nature’ and creating a race susceptible to a virus which could/would kill us all, that’s a different issue, it’s cloning. Not a danger using this example, the differences are too great.
And as for the comparison with pedigree dogs, look at the european royal families, that’s about as redneck as it gets for inbreeding. Yet haemophilia was bred out of Queen Victoria’s line by choice. Just an example.
Now to the meat of the objections; Eugenics.
The word is hated, and rightly so, as used by Hitler, but not by its definition “Eugenics is the self-direction of human evolution”. we’ve been doing it for millenia.
The reason we hate the word and the idea is their context. We think of Nazis, ethnic cleansing, racism, sexism.. insert any bad idea here…
Eugenics, from a political point-of-view, was Hitler’s stepping stone to creating the master race (and here comes the important bit) for his Reich. A dominant race to rule over others.
Now, imagine if so-called eugenics (remember;self-determination of human evolution) were to eradicate, possibly in one generation, all the understood genetic diseases now known to man. Maybe not cancer, possibly Altzheimers, certainly Down’s, and all other sex-linked conditions. Would you still say no?
Then there is the larger potential benefit.
If (and I know this is a big if…) genetic screening/change became an everyday event, maybe we would create a master race, but not a political or national one. Maybe a global race of disease resistant humans. How does that sound now?
Then there’s the moral/ethical dilemma; should we tinker with what god has given us as our lot?
Well, that really depends on your beliefs doesn’t it?
If you belive in a god, then you’re probably against any tinkering. But, as I’m trained as a scientist, and don’t take supernatural forces to be a fact, I’d advocate trying to improve our species. Let’s try with an IQ boost just for a start. See how many people with a higher IQ actually think there is a god of any kind.
and finally, let’s have a look at cultural biases, like the prevalence in some societies to prefer male children. China? Islamic countires? Again, this is a cultural meme that is prevalent. If all these people cjose only male children, their cultures would disappear within 2 generations. And, to be honest, I’d rather there were a too few women in any society than mass graves of female abortions or female only orphanages.
So, let’s have another little think shall we? Maybe not do the knee-jerk thing and actually think.
I wonder what the deaf community thinks about the potential for embryos with genetic characteristics that cause deafness to be systematically discarded.
This won’t be possible. Yes, people will be able to prevent diseases and cancer on a genetical level, but designer babies (custom eye color, gender, skin color, etc…) ARE and WILL BE FORBIDDEN. Read this – http://portal.unesco.org/shs/en/ev.php-URL_ID=1881&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html,
Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights:
Article 2
(a) Everyone has a right to respect for their dignity and for their rights regardless of their genetic characteristics.
(b) That dignity makes it imperative not to reduce individuals to their genetic characteristics and to respect their uniqueness and diversity.
As you see this is FORBIDDEN by the law WORLDWIDE.
@Lukasz – “banned from”…. setting a dangerous precedent there. What would be
worse – reassessing what we understand to be sport, and letting everyone do what
he or she wants in total freedom…? Or start treating a minority in a very
different, and very dubious manner. Not a nice statement you made there.
@Derek – correct – just societies should work to reduce disparities in affluence;
by making all the poor richer but ALSO by capping certain undesirably extreme
high levels of income. Everyone should have the right to gove their offspring
the best chances in life.
@Karen – who in their right mind makes a comparison between healing people
and killing people. YOU JUST DID!!! – these treatments are about looking at
procreative cells, on a voluntary basis, removing features smaller than moles
you have lasered away on a routine basis, and saving future babies from suffering
afflictions that cost societies hundreds of billions per year. You actually have
the nerve to suggest society take steps that will cause millions of human beings
be born with horrible ailments. You protest when we can lift disease and increase
wellbeing, productivity and happyness. Who is the evil one here?
@Gort – we will scan tomorrow, we will adjust next week, we will engineer
next month and we will synthesize next year. Who is going to stop us? What
judge will persecute a couple who return home after a vacation to an undisclosed
tropical location with a healthy baby?
@gennytte – What do YOU think of a deaf couple who want their children to be
deaf “to enrich deaf culture”. Insane? >> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1916462.stm
@Truth – are you sure it is impossible? Or are you stomping you feet in fierce
denial?
You mention dignity – so what if genetic modification is used to make
sure a child does not have a undignifying disease? You might say – the child
didn’t exist before it was subjected to the indignity of modification. Likewise,
I suffer from a disease, most likely one with a genetic component and this
disease causes me unspeakable pain on an almost weekly basis. Look it up -
“clusters headaches”. Do you have the moral authority to have denied me to have
been born without this scourge? Then go and look in the eyes of a born cripple
and say to him – this is what g-d (fate, nature etc) intended.
…Furthermore if GM on human subjects is outlawed, what exactly would impair
the emergence of (
yet another) highly profitable black market? And if a black
market emerges, how happy should be be – career criminals making profits and
dictating ethics in the use of GM on designer babies. If there ever was an
atrocity waiting to happen, that would be it.
BUT even worse – say, if we did have GM capability on human offspring (an ability
which we have today, since we already produce loads of mammals with mods, and
have done so for years) and everyone said, fine we dont use it – but one day
China does use it, and starts producing ten million designer babies a year –
and lo and behold, ten years later a generation of super-healthy, low medical
cost producing, high emotional stability, physically appealing, olympic record
shattering and all IQ clear over 120 children grow up. You suggest the US would
stick to its guns and not adopt the same technologies, tripping over its
shoelaces to do so?
“The rich get richer, the poor get poorer.
This service is only geared towards people with high income – and better genes will have better chances of success, both in surviving, and in the business world.”
It is the Wealthy that SHOULD be producing more offspring as they show a genically superior ability to compete in the modern world.
You may say this creates an unfair advantage – but when was evolution ever fair?
Some mutations allow one genetic group within a species to survive whilst the rest die out when faced with a disease.
And in the past, it may not have been the best or the brightest genetic group that survived.
But in the interest of humanity and the continual evolution of our species, we should ensure it is the best and the brightest that take our future forward.
Money can finally provide a way to facilitate genetic competitiveness within the species where it has not been possible in the past.
Some bum in a trailer park can have 10 kids because they have nothing better to do whilst Mr Genius sitting on the board of Company X has none because he has no time.
At least by choosing the best of his offspring he can somehow try to balance out the negative contribution to the genetic pool from the trailer park.
I have to say there is a high probability modern society will breed OUT intelligence, due to the fact that the best of us have the least offspring.
If what we compete for (money) can now also contribute to our genetic competitiveness, then this is to the advantage of human evolution.
And further to the above, since when has “Geek” ever had sex appeal? Modern society SHOULD want its Geeks to be sexy. That will be good for evolution.
Take a Geek here, and a Geek there and then create a super sexy Geek! Kindof hard to fit that one into social norms…
I for one would rather talk about science with a super hot chick than the latest fashion trends.
It would certainly be much better for society if sex appeal was more correlated with intelligence than with stupidity.
Unfortunately society’s idea of genetic competitiveness still has the mentality of millions of years of evolution – that is, that physical appearance is all that counts when selecting a genetic partner. Just look at peacocks!
But modern humans should certainly be aware by now that is it intelligence, rather than physical appearance that leads to development in society.
Though we may know this intellectually, it seems or genes do not know it yet. When did a picture of Albert Einstein ever turn a girl on? So how do we fool these genes into thinking that intelligence has sex appeal? Well simply, we can’t. But what we can do is make sure intelligence and sexy go hand in hand through genetic screening.
The bottom line is this: people will do anything, including pre-selecting the best genes available for their offspring, to get them the best possible survival skills in life.
If one country tries to ban this, there will be ten other countries that will not ban it, and people will go to those countries to have their babies.
You can’t stop this technology from happening.
What the hell does natural mean anyhow…people spew this word out as if they knew what it meant…Last I checked we are all nature incarnate. By most narrow minded definitions natural would mean placing us back to a cave like luddite existance.
I have an IQ of 138, believe in God and think that God allowed us to evolve a mind which has the power to tinker. Not all Theists are moronic luddites.
Agree with the Dennis above. i’ll take this version of “Intelligent design” over a random role of the dice. Whats wrong with that ?
It’s frightening. They want to choose the color of their baby like they would chose the color of a fashion accessory !
The so-called opponents would not have had a voice in this if their parents had had the opportunity to select for intelligence.
I wanted to say that it will be POSSIBLE, but choosing based on sex, race or visual features is FORBIDDEN BY LAW. Read it in the treaty I mentioned earlier. Besides I am also for less children, but of higher quality. We do not want overpopulation as peoples lives will expand drastically in the future. We want to have less children, but older people in general. Older equals more knowledge, more skills, better for whole society. If there are more kids, you have to spend more money on educational system and to be honest they are almost useless until around 18 years, they are living off parents and government.
Yes, eugenics = dictatorship
I also want to note that people who believe in intelligent design and god are deluded and if they still believe it after educating themselves on the matter, they are fools.
It doesn’t have to be eugenics. Eugenics is basically discrimination of genes. Hitler supported eugenics, so there are only blue eyed aryans, but if we allow all people to become blue eyed aryans or make them blue eyed aryans from birth but DO NOT eradicate other eye colored people, it is not EUGENICS.
no, it’s just superficial.
(and nowadays, there are colored contact lens)
I say, if you take the rejuvination treatment, you have to leave the planet. Space development will solve all population pressures.
As far as designer babies are concerned, making sure their genomes are clear of all genetic disorders is terrific. It’ll save so many so much pain and suffering during their lives.
And if genetic engineering is used to modify melanin levels in the skin, so much the better. Less skin cancer for darker babies of European descent. Fewer cases of rickets for lighter babies of African descent. Not to mention creating a fully permeable color line. Racism? Where is thy sting?
MY COMMENT TO ONE OF YOU SAYING, THAT THE RICH, GETTING RICHER AND THE POOR GETTING POORER. WAKE UP PEOPLE , THE RICH WORK. AND THE POOR DON’T WORK. THEY JUST WANTED A HAND OUT. THAT’S WHY THE RICH GET RICHER. BECAUSE NOT MATTER HOW MUCH MONEY THEY HAVE. THE STILL HAVE TIME TO WORK. AND THE POOR SEEMS TO BE NOT WELLING TO WORK. BECAUSE OF COURSE THEY JUST APPLY FOR FOOD STAMPS. FOR MY OPENION, A PERSON THAT KNOWS HOW TO SMOKE, DRINK, AND HAVE SEX AND BABYS’ THEREFORE THEY CAN GO TO WORK AS WELL. WHY WE, SOME RICH PEOPLE WORK AND PAY HIGHER TAXES , SO THE GOVERNMENT GIVE TI TO , SOME POOR PEOPLE , THAT DON’T KNOW HOW TO GO OUT AND WORK. LIKE MOST OF US. SAD FOR THIS COUNTRY. TO MANY LAZY PEOPLE. GOOD DAY TO ALL
Now kids can actually blame everything on their parents. Even how ugly they are.
Let’s be clear, the issue isn’t illness it’s the ability to select traits that are purely superficial. There is no intellectual advantage to having blonde hair. And even if there was, so what! having an high IQ doesn’t make you a better person or even more successful in life, it just makes you a person with a high IQ. We tread dangerously close to Hitler’s ideals when we speak of a “master” race and “inferior” genetics! But that’s not even the point; the problem with humans is that when we get together and try to create the best we don’t expect the unforeseen worst. We never account for potential. The idea that you can be born in the worst conditions and of “inferior” genetic attributes and still be one the most fascinating and intelligent people while contributing hugely to the world is still an idea that’s surprisingly absent for the majority’s thinking! Life isn’t an exact science! People change and grow. Some of the richest most educated people have been some of the most crooked,hateful, destructive, and perverted people that have ever existed. Speaking as person born of a culture and race of people who much of the world and western society considered was “inferior” and better off non-existent, I thank God we had people that accepted the beauty of who they were and changed the world (and history in the process) by not accepting the ideals of society but instead forced the world to change how they viewed race and value in human beings. See that’s just the thing….people never expect the low to rise to the top…and the trailer park residents to own fortune 500 companies but they do… people beat the odds and rise above pre-determined expectations all the time…..and that’s why we can’t be trusted to “play god”.
Last comment sucks. You know – we aren’t close to hitlers ideas. You know why? Because basically every treaty on earth there is is AGAINST it. All the principles of human rights are basically based on forbiddance of discrimination and genocide and so on…Nobody says that there will be a master race. Yes, some people will be “better”, but that doesn’t mean the others will be discriminated.
To SpottedMarley – I am not quite sure about the ugly part. I am not sure the scientists can precisely predict what bone structure will look like, at least, not yet. The height is still an issue here. I mean – there is still discrimination due to height although all of us say there isn’t one. So should people allow parents to choose the cell with more height potential?
dude your a self righteous ass. it just comes down to personal beliefs. if you as a parent think that your baby will have a better life if you get to pick the traits then it is the parents choice. as for the elimination of genetic diseases, having the chance to stop your child from having down syndrome, or any other disease, and not doing it is condemning your child to a harder life or even death. Take the case of Cindy and John Whitley. Their first child died at the age of 9 months from a deadly genetic disorder called spinal muscular atrophy. Genetic analysis uncovered that the Whitley’s statistically had a 1 in 4 chance of creating a child with spinal muscular atrophy each time they conceived. Unwilling to risk having another child with the deadly disorder, the Whitley’s used PGD to conceive three children, all healthy.
I think this is excellent technology for being able to keep an eye on diseases but where do you draw the line? There isn’t a way to keep tabs on this kind of technology and there will always be someone out there willing to place ethics on the shelf to push the technology. I saw this vid about the situation here, http://www.newsy.com/videos/babies_made_to_order/
Hmm..I didn’t realize we had a room of Neo-Luddites here. This technology is not eugenics, because it is not mandated by the state or any other organized group, it is entirely by free choice. People all have different tastes, so who is to say that all the children will turn out blonde and blue? Some people like red hair, some people like green eyes, some like curly black hair, it’s all random. Furthermore, the slippery slope argument is entirely old and cliche. Slippery slope into what? The parents are choosing genes from within their own pool; it’s their genes, therefore it’s their reproductive rights. Unless we want a state where the government owns people’s DNA? Lastly, hair and eye color don’t disadvantage or advantage a child. In today’s society, they are neutral traits, especially because Western governments have enforced a multicultural ideal, so therefore it shouldn’t matter what color hair a child has. So there shouldn’t be regulation on pre-screening hair or eye color, if it doesn’t matter. Regulating it would mean that the government believes certain colors, like blonde hair, grants an advantage, which is admitting, implicitly, blonde superiority. So, I don’t see the case for regulation unless you think certain hair colors are superior. I don’t, so why regulate?
Hmm…also, carla, you sound like an extremist to me. What is so fearful? The idea that people might choose to select for a few recessive genes in terms of hair and eye color? Wow, the world is ending. Also, if diseases can be pre-screened, think of how much health care costs this could save the state. How much time and money it could save parents. Perhaps it’s why even though states like Japan and China have banned gender selection, they certainly don’t ban pre-screening for diseases. Why is gender selection banned? Because it takes two to continue reproduction, so it’s necessary for them, to ensure the country doesn’t go extinct. But, does hair color affect ability to reproduce? No, so it hasn’t been regulated, and shouldn’t be either.
There is a big difference, between screening for diseases, (both life threatening and medically expensive life long conditions) and superficial crap such as eye, hair and skin colour. The impact of children born with life threatening disease or long term medical conditions can have a devastating impact not only on families but also on society as a whole. The cost of supporting such children is astronomically high and their quality of life is sadly quite poor. I don’t think there is a parent out there who knowing that they were predisposed to having a child with such conditions, would knowingly choose to create such a child, I am positive they would choose to create a healthy child, and they should have that opportunity.
But to knowingly choose traits based on looks is sadly shallow and not a concept that I think we should encourage, what message does it send to our children. We are saying your looks are chosen because they are better than other peoples looks. Please, there is enough of that superficial crap in the media without families portraying the same concepts through their children, let us let nature take control of our looks, not be so superficial and be proud of the people we are and the differences we have.
Has it ever occurred to you, MissCM, or should I say, carla, that people who choose from their own genes aren’t implying certain looks are better but rather are attracted to the rare. Think about it. What is so special about blond hair? It doesn’t have any physical or intelligence advantages. The only reason people care is because it’s rare, simply and only because it’s recessive. Thus, when parents choose to give a chance to recessive genes, they are actually increasing world diversity. So, if people did choose for a few more recessive genes, this would at most increase world light-colored hair population by 2-3%. Whereas 95% of the rest of the world is still black haired, dark eyed. Now is that such a big deal? Really, people, this is totally different from the Nazis, who killed parents who didn’t have blonde hair blue eyes. In this case, two brown-haired parents can select for a blonde child. Thus, such technology actually destroys the Nazi ideal that recessive genes are limited to people with certain features, or that it defines a race. With this technology, we are acknowledging the fact that each human possesses a diverse array of genes to be selected for, and thus there is no point in death or war as we are all interconnected and share genes. If anything, people who fear this technology also believe, implicitly, that looks actually matter, because they fear breeding inequality or too many children who look similar. If looks don’t matter, then it shouldn’t matter if they’re selected for, right? Great job dismantling your own argument. And “MissCM,” such technology can actually override superficial fixation on hair or eye color, because it is no longer rare, it is easily selected for, and thus holds no exclusive value. If you complain about this technology, then I believe you will keep seeing the rare ideals (blonde, blue eyes) be perpetuated in the media, as they are hard to attain. Only this technology will allow us to transcend a fixation on hair/eye/skin color; you can tell people to “love who you are” a billion times, but it will never work until people truly are able to look however they want, and at that point, looks won’t matter.
i dont think this right because God created us and wants us to be who we are. We aren’t supposed to be designed by scintist. I mean it still is our gentics but this has gone to far. i mean there are bible verses that prove it.
This is a very interesting topic. It really makes my think.
There are reports buzzing around right now that in the US, India, China, and others that choosing gender has been going on for years.
As for the poor, they will have as many kids as they can, and possibly demand free fertility treatments- it is a statistical fact that African women have 5.2+ children per woman vs. US women who have 2.5+ children per woman. It is how the poor can rise up against intelligentsia – by numbers. In 1995, I met a woman on welfare in the USA who personally told me she gets pregnant to collect more welfare checks.
Look at the octomom in California….I bet she would have genetically engineered her kids to look like Angelina Jolie if she could.
i have read a few comment on this page and there are some strong words being thrown about, it is a personal choice to have baby any type of baby no body has the right to judge anybody else god made us yes but he gave us our brains i have been looking in to this as i have 3 boys 1 whom is servily disabled i love my boys but i only ever wanted 2 kids i had the 3rd in hope it would be a girl i feel i will not be complete with out a daughter in my life, should i just keep trying is that fair on my other kids to just have more then i can cope with or even pay for is that what the goverment is there for i think not or stop at 4 with a little help yes maybe i am selfish in wanting this but i can`t help how i feel i am greatfull for the babys i would nerver be without them but again this doesnot change my feelings