Comments on: Are “Designer Babies” on the Horizon?

By: Mesodel

Mesodel — Fri, 14 May 2010 00:28:00 +0000

In “My Sister’s Keeper” a mother and father make the tough decision to have another child who is going to be made in a lab to be a perfect match for the family’s eldest child. The oldest child, Kate, is suffering from leukemia and they are having this third child to donate anything from his/her body to help Kate. When the third child, Anna, is ten she decides that she doesn’t want to be just a designer child but her own person, and make her own decisions. Having another “designer” child to save a sibling’s life is not right, and should not be done.
Anna was a designer baby born to keep Kate alive. A designer baby is one who was made in a lab and was made to have the “perfect” genes. The reason people might have a designer baby “made” would to help a sibling or any other human being. An example is if you were a mother and had a screening of the fetus and you found out that he/she was going to have down syndrome then you could later in life have another baby, but design it to be a match to your firstborn. You could design the baby with the perfect genes to give the child with down syndrome new stem cells to help repair anything in his/her body. Designer babies are like a universal donor for the person that you designed him/her after. Anna was designed to have the same blood type as Kate so that she could then give the blood to her older sister even when she was just a newborn. The designer baby can help the acceptor in a major way, but what about the one who is giving everything to the other human? If that one person is giving everything they have to another human what will the donor end up with? Another example from “ My Sister’s Keeper” is near the middle of the movie the mother wants Anna to give Kate her kidney. Anna and her lawyer realize that if Anna does give up her kidney then she will have to be very careful the rest of her life, remember Anna is only ten. Even though the giving of the kidney might help Kate Anna will surely be affected and have to be careful the rest of her life. So the choices are possibly help Kate and defiantly hurt Anna, or keep Anna and Kate in the same condition they are now. What would you choose to do?
Designer babies are a bad idea. Nature should take its course and you shouldn’t tamper with the nature‘s circle of life. When people are born that was God’s plan for that child to be born from the mother because they planned for the child. God did not want children want to be made by a scientist, but to be made by Him. Whatever happens with the child is what God placed before you. We should not alter His plan for us and His children.

By: KC

KC — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 20:30:29 +0000

I’m doing this topic as research for Biology Homework and I think that the whole Idea is a bit odd, Yes its good for its own benefit to check if your baby will have any diseases but to change the colour of their eyes for you own preference? I disagree with that, Although it IS up to the parents to do what they feel is best for the baby, I think that you should accept any child no matter their Eye or Hair colour.

By: Some bewildered 16 year old

Some bewildered 16 year old — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 12:47:42 +0000

This is all in my opinion, remember that; firstly “Designer Babies” can be split into two categories: medical (perhaps modifying or removing a disease such as parkinsons or whatever) and non-medical (choosing an embryos sex or hair colour or whatever.) Both seem to be years, decades or centuries away, however if they are to be judged morally, it needs to be in context. I have no quarrel with any medical gene therapy, as I am thankful I was born without any inherit disease, I will not stand against a couple who wishes their child to be born without an inherit mental or physical illness, whether it goes against God, Nature or whatever! I do however, have an issue with “elective” genetic alteration or therapy, not that it matters or my opinion will change another. This is where it gets a little outrageous, I believe that as soon as man (or woman) can change his unborn child’s eye, hair or skin colour (examples), the genetic potential will become endless. To the point where every child will be born with “ideal” traits, both mental and physical, and where everyone will look to have their very own perfect children. Now I’m no genius nor extremist, but when I hear “Perfect Race,” the name Adolf Hitler comes to mind. I’m not saying that there will be a war between Perfect Children and the “Flawed” (Plausible?) )Or even that humankind may come to an abrupt halt, however maybe we should have a look at where we are headed before we jump right in? I’m no expert and I’m probably not old enough to comprehend the extent of the technology or whether this comment will even be published. But people screaming affirmative or negative for “designer babies” should think about it first… That’s just my opinion

By: 15 year old girl

15 year old girl — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 22:22:28 +0000

well i think it is a good thing cause it can stop a lot of disease and u dont have to change anything else…right?

By: some 14 year old

some 14 year old — Sat, 02 May 2009 19:52:14 +0000

I think that this only the first step in human evaluation and we are only helping the process. Imagine a world with people who could be as smart as someone like Steven Hawking or as athletic as an Olympic sprinter. Also we could take traits form people in the world who have become immune to certain parasites and infections. This could help humanity beat diseases like cancer or other problems like autism. it could also allow us to take traits form people like savant that allow us to read a page it 5 seconds or learn a language in 2 weeks. I as a 14 year old see that it is only speeding up the inevitable because the way evaluation is going it will happen but its just a matter of time, all we are doing is speeding up the process. so by the time it takes us just by normal evaluation to get us there we will be able be super human like if we start now and it is simply a choice and we should have the choice to have a genetically modified child if we wont.

By: Morgan

Morgan — Sun, 05 Apr 2009 17:28:21 +0000

whats the difference in having a child with brown hair and brown eyes when you wanted a child with blonde hair and blue eyes…there is no difference except in appearence. who ever gets a designer baby just for that reason is stupid! you will love that child no matter what and having a designer baby is like having a child thats not really yours! i hate the process and i think it is just for someone to say that they designed their child. well i think God should design your child and give you the heart to love it unconditionally!!!

By: Morgan

Morgan — Sun, 05 Apr 2009 17:22:34 +0000

Okay you will not love the baby anymore than just having one naturally. It’s wrong and i can’t stand to see that it can happen. If i had child naturally and then my child had a designer baby, yes i would love the baby but i would be extremely resentful of my child for doing that even when it is wrong!

By: Varu

Varu — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 06:53:46 +0000

This is your opinion, but I believe that it doesn’t matter. If we raise such a fuss over hair and eye color, aren’t we showing that we as a society do believe that certain hair or eye colors have an advantage? Or why else are you so worried about people choosing a certain hair color…
Or, maybe you believe that hair and eye color defines a child’s intangible qualities? That blonde people are necessarily with a certain personality, and black-haired people are all the same. If not, then why are you worried about selection of hair or eye coloring on individuality?
Lastly, how does this affect race? This only destroys the notion that certain hair colors only belong to the Caucasian race. For example, a mixed minority couple who have white genes could possibly select for a blonde, blue-eyed child and raise said child in the traditional customs, of say, Hinduism. Is that what everyone is so fearful of? That your race will no longer define how you think? Or that race won’t be easily discernible from facial features? I think it’s a step forward, if we can no longer classify someone’s race by how they look. Why do we even feel such a need to classify people, to fit them into neat little boxes? Can’t we just learn to deal with them on an individual basis? This PGD tech, in my opinion, won’t hurt or scare anyone except those who already have implicit biases toward certain hair or eye colors.

By: nick

nick — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 13:48:18 +0000

im doing a project on this, and i think that designer babies are ok do this. if you dont like to be the suprised type, than do this and you will have your dream baby. but this will cost a lot of money, and the baby might carry a desiese.

By: Shay nay nay

Shay nay nay — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 13:47:45 +0000

I like designer babies cuz then they can be beutiful n pretty

By: mike.SIUC

mike.SIUC — Sun, 01 Mar 2009 03:01:33 +0000

decades ago, people were convinced that we would be commuting to and from work on our own personal jet packs, living in dome cities, and enjoying our interactive television. Our technological predictions have a pretty spotty track record if i must say so myself. What makes people believe that science and technology will even allow designer babies to exist as something more than science fiction? I’d like to find a science professor in the field of genetics to tell me that they have found the “single gene” that contains the ability to: play jazz flute, be the next champion Olympic distance runner, or even just to have more confidence. These traits that people assume are just so easy to add to a fetus are impossible to determine. Each gene in our body is linked to thousands and thousands of others. How will technology ever be great enough to allow us to manipulate these genes without effecting any others in a positive manner?

By: kelsey

kelsey — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 20:44:04 +0000

designer babies, is just plain wrong. Whatever happens with the child is what God placed before you. We should not tamper with His plan. We choose who we want to be with so that’s sorta of like choosing our kid. Yeah, it might help disease, but how about they spend time looking for a cure to those diseases and forget the cloning-like things that they are doing.

By: Kemos

Kemos — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 08:19:04 +0000

We already “design” our offspring by choosing a particular mate.

This technology is just more accurate method.

Imagine developing a fatal cancer when you know your parents could have prevented it.

I hope that parents in the future are responsible enough to ensure the genetic integrity of their children.

By: Regina1993

Regina1993 — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 03:17:04 +0000

well i honsestly think that genetically altering an embryo is a step towards the future
well my opinion obviously doesnt matter but ever, if parents want to this i think they should definitely go for it and if they dont then, all they have to do is not do it for their children
the research that the scientist are doing is not only for themselves but obviously for the well being of the future generations to come
i did a term paper on genetic engineering and i found that(in my opinion) the pros definitely outweigh the cons, like if a mother or father has a certain disease they wouldnt want to pass it along to their children, it would let their children live longer, healthier lives
and to those who are against it and believe its tampering with what nature, please also consider that if a person is dieing from tuberculosis or sickle cell anemia, nature also intended them to die that way but many take medicine, which scientists found the cure for, to let them go about their lives and not die when nature intended
although my reasoning my be out of place and incorrect in others opinions i believe that even if the US, UK and other regulated countries discontinue this research, it will only be picked up by other countries such as china or india or other places that have no objection to advances that will obviously come in the future
if your against it please give it a thought!

By: tom

tom — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 20:41:03 +0000

this is stupid. we do not need atrificial babies!! they will ruin sports

By: maddy

maddy — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 01:53:33 +0000

I just want to know if designer babies are possible now? Can anybody help me please?

By: simmi mehra

simmi mehra — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 13:19:49 +0000

i’m simply not convinced with the idea that designer babies is a bad idea.
The main reason being that if parents know that their child may inherit any disease from then which may prove dangerous to their life & if they know that just by the alteration of some genes they can get their child a safer life.
Then Why not??????????????????

By: PinkKitteh

PinkKitteh — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 02:23:06 +0000

I’m just SO tired of the “social scientists” telling everyone else what they can, and cannot do. You’re basically the same, afraid, moralists that are screaming “designer babies” and “slippery slope”: with a degree or two. If you say it enough times in print, does it come true? I’m tired of reading it, yet it still sounds absurd.
We need to be cleaning up a few of the obvious messes in human DNA. It needs to be inheritable. A rising tide lifts all boats. Eventually. Yes, it can be unequally distributed at first. That is the way everything works, so no one will be surprised. The Devil’s Advocate is just that; you don’t get to make the decisions, too. Society appreciates you looking at every little thing that could possibly go wrong, in minute detail; enough already. Please sit down and shut up now, because the world is sick of your moralizing and fear-mongering.

By: Milya

Milya — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 18:21:27 +0000

I think if someone wants a designer they should be able to get one. If someone doesnt want a designer baby they dont have to get one. It isnt really everybody elses decision..

By: Felecia

Felecia — Thu, 29 May 2008 20:40:29 +0000

I also think that this type of advance in research calls for both public discourse and regulation, albeit it might be hard to say whose input should count the most. It seems that many critics of genetic engineering are worried about abuses and “immoral” uses of this technology and feel like there needs to be a line drawn somewhere along the course of this research. While strict regulation seems to be the most logical solution to qualm everyone’s fears, the inescapable issue is that not all possibilities for loopholes and unforeseen consequences can be predetermined. Plus I think there will always be the counterargument of “messing with capital-N Nature.” The definition of a “designer baby” could also be applied to embryos who are selected based on sex, and couples who undergo IVF may have an option to undergo preimplantation genetic diagnosis. So while the government seemingly has the authority to regulate such practices, there’s a lot of gray area when dealing with the ethics of using such procedures.

Some of the same ethical arguments come up in the British Parliament’s debate on allowing research on human-animal embryos: the slippery slope, designer babies, over-promising the medical impact of this technology. If this practice is allowed, however, the current laws that govern stem cell research in the U.K. would have to be revised. It will be interesting to watch for the results of the final vote and if it this practice is allowed, how it is regulated and what the consequences will be.

By: Rachael

Rachael — Wed, 21 May 2008 08:41:12 +0000

Desinger Babies Are A Bad Idea. Nature Should Take Its Course And You Shouldnt Tempure With The Nature Of The World