Should children be designed?

This is kinda funny that you asked this today. I was looking at an old co-workers facebook page at her kid’s pictures. They are in their late 20’s and early 30’s. Not to be mean, but the co-worker and her husband are pretty plain people. Their children are all drop dead gorgeous! Who is to say what is designer and who can create pretty children? I think it would be wrong.

I’m really on the fence about this one. I think there is a lot to be said about becoming comfortable in one’s own skin. So if I was to have children, I would probably not do this.

I’d be fine with preventing diseases in children if we get to that point, but anything more is just unnecessary and would probably lead to health problems and poor genes just as we’ve done with pure-bred dogs.

Parents are forcing children to be as close to their visions as possible. From setting high expectation to banning them from what they want to do in life…

That’s one way of designing children.

Is it ethical?

It is a slippery slope.

It should definitely be allowed to prevent disease and disability.
But if you outlaw other applications all you do is restrict designer babies to the very rich who can have it done in a lawless country or private clinic.

I watched GATTACA . Slippery slope.

I totally would. I was a massive nerd in school and was abused and if I could make some sort of awesome kid that would never suffer what I dealt with I would be fine with that.

I’m like Hitler except I am cool with Jews.

To prevent genetic disease yes, to create a Barbi & Ken kid, hell no.
Part of the joy and fun of having a child is the surprise element. Who do they look like, take after, mom or dad or great, great, great, Aunt Hilda. I didn’t want to know my daughters sex in utero either. I wanted to be surprised.

I’d love to edit out the genetic predisposition to alcoholism, gallbladder disease, asthma, and nearsightedness.

Attractiveness is basically luck of the draw and maintenance anyway. No need to fiddle with that stuff.

You can’t improve on perfection.

Yeah. The problems are obvious. Once you prevent disease (mental and physical ) it’s kind of up in the air. Why stop there? Make them bigger,stronger, smarter.

But what of those naturally born?

We’d have to have some sort of affirmative action, or ‘real’ people would have no chance in life.

But eventually all people would be….....perfect….So the civil rights thing would solve itself.

Attractiveness is basically luck of the draw and maintenance anyway. No need to fiddle with that stuff.

This is the best answer so far. I don’t think we’re anywhere near the ability to make them, “bigger, smarter, stronger.” Tribalism hasn’t died in tens of thousands of years—people would still find reasons for bigotry and suspicion.

It shouldn’t be allowed in the first place.

The ethics of this can be debated, but people being people it’s going to happen & in a BIG way.

Pretty good discussion here if you’re interested.

I’m fearful of unexpected consequences, meaning side effects, of playing with stuff like this. Right now we can terminate a growing embryo in a Petrie dish, or a fetus growing in a mother if it has a disease we can detect, or is a gender more likely to carry a disease. This is already a sort of genetic selection. This has nothing to do with terminating for reasons usually discussed in politics, which is basically about a woman’s right to choose to become a mother or not. People every day choose to terminate pregnancies when they were excited and looking forward to becoming a parent of their growing baby.

Now, back to the Q. If there were no risk of negative side effects I would get rid of the thalassemia my husband’s side carries, get rid of any possibility of schizophrenia from my side if I am a carrier, and avoid the child’s thyroid from going haywire later in life.

I’d want my kid to have skin closer to my husband’s shade (he is father than me) with the same quality his skin has that he doesn’t burn easily, and barely has a wrinkle at age 49 even though he spends twice as much time in the sun as me. Thicker hair! My husband’s hair. The rest of the details on physical looks I wouldn’t be inclined to play with. I base my answer with the idea that my husband and I are the biological parents.

Thanks @canidmajor. I should have assumed that a similar question was already discussed.

The pill was more important than design options. Deep down, most people don’t want kids, and those that do want to get them out of a vending machine.

@SmartAZ: Just FYI, the use of a tilde ~ to indicate sarcasm is pretty standard here.
If that wasn’t sarcasm, do please provide some substantiation for such an (on the face of it) asinine remark.

@MrGrimm888 that was a year and a half ago, it’s an ongoing discussion, always a good thing to get new perspectives!

@canidmajor If you have a thought to contribute, please do so. If you only have insults you can shove them where the sun don’t shine.

Of course not, fucking terrible idea
Kids, like the rest of us, come in all different shapes & sizes & that should be celebrated for what it is because it makes us unique.
Besides, any kid who lacks confidence or feels pressured into a certain body type or look, should use it as a character building exercise, roll with the knocks, dust yourself off & say ”fuck you” to judgemental voices

I contributed a thought, an entire thread full of thoughts in fact.
Your unsubstantiated opinion is insulting. Are you going to follow your own directive?

To some degree, we design our own kids by deciding with whom to create them. I think that’s part of the attraction people feel for each other—wanting to see those qualities reproduced.

The only slippery thing about it IMO is if the kid didn’t turn out the way they wanted.

Most people do want kids @SmartAZ. It’s a biological imperative.

@Dutchess_III Well now, that is entirely a matter of opinion, isn’t it? You and I have not observed the same group of people. Here in this border town a kid is not really a person and it’s a crime to be a teenager. Perhaps your observations are in a gentler neighborhood.

This is like, the antithesis of abortion: I don’t want a kid, I want a kid to these specs. And as such, it should be left up to the woman.

Interested to see the responses of the religious on this.

The question is beyond whether children should or shouldn’t be designed. The question should be ” WILL children be designed?” And since everyone knows the answer, that question too is a waste of time. The topic reminds me of pointless discussions on eliminating premarital sex.

If a child is designed, then that is just one more step in someone’s personal evolutionary history which results in a particular, very unique individual. That individual wouldn’t exist under any other circumstances, just like we wouldn’t exist if there had been one tiny thing that went differently over the millions of years it took to get to us, like if the rape hadn’t happened, if the parents anywhere along the line had sex on a different day or even a different time.

I am with @ibstubro about it being a slippery slope. Where do you draw the line between eliminating deficiencies and adding enhancements? Every parent wants the best for their children. In a competitive world, why not give them every intellectual and athletic advantage? I fear that such an attitude changes our view of children. They become products. It is truly a brave new world that we will be entering.

There are plenty of people who already think of their kids as products.

Here’s the rub: Nature vs. nurture. I know plenty of kids who hit 6 feet tall when they were eleven who hated basketball with every fibre of their being. I knew this one kid – we called him “House” because that’s how big and strong he was, who wouldn’t join a single sport because he thought organized sports were stupid. He’d rather be coding. And there are plenty of really smart people who for one reason or another don’t become Mensans with a Ph.D.

You can’t program a person with DNA, you can only give them a list of physical attributes.

I mean, I can think of a bunch of actors who, if you were picking things off a shelf, should have been attractive, but the puzzle just didn’t work out: Ron Perlman, for instance. Good bone structure, strong jaw, nice eyes, full head of hair, and the guy looks like a damn gorilla.

“Smart” is a verb. It means “to hurt”.

That is a fantastic screenshot to use later. Thank you.

^^Why do you want to hurt Arizona?