Should Parents be able to design their babies?
I have a debate on tuesday and I'm on the affirmative side, i'de like to see to what I will have to rebut against and I'de like some good arguements to think through. Thanks.
Yes, I agree to this.
Side Score: 26
|
 |
No, I don't agree to this.
Side Score: 32
|
|
|
|
|
Nope. I don't think humans should tamper with natures abilities. Many things can go wrong, and who's to say what a perfect baby is? Blond hair, blue eyes? Skinny and Athletic? Mother Nature creates diversity for a reason! We will never be able to make this world perfect, have your children and focus on raising them right!Who would be able to afford this? Obviously not the poor! This would creat a rigid social class system worse than what it already is. Side: Yes, I agree to this.
I'm not for this in the sense I wouldn't do it, but for the sake of argument, how is it any different than what parents do after the baby is born anyway? They may not have been able to single hand pick the hair color, eye color, skin hue, body form, etc, but they definitely pick what they want them to wear, how they want their hair cut, what things they should own and grow up with, what religion they should breed into, etc. So, really, what is the difference? Side: No, I don't agree to this.
2
points
3
points
Interesting question, one that i too will need to debate against. I can see how this would seem senseless and 'unnatural', but seriously, this can save lives! To design a baby is to design every characteristic, which can be helpful in one particular area, families with a history of obesity or other health related issues coming from birth. If you design your baby, rather than risk its chances of developing these health issues, you will be granting it a healthier life. Also, just to add one more thing, who can say who can and who cannot decide for their own child, especially if its THE RIGHT THING! A parent makes the choices for a child right through to the end of adolescence (often beyond), who is to say these choices shouldn't begin in the womb? Side: Yes, I agree to this.
If it was to escalate into everyone one the face of the earth doing this, then the world would form itself into somewhat of a utopia. A perfect world where no disease and no misshapen children exist. The utopia did, at one time, exist, but has long since vanished and is not to be formed again. True, parents do make a lot of decisions for their children, but these decisions are mainly made to make sure their happy. If you were to choose the gender of your unborn child, then who is to say that it could possibly end up in same sex marriage? I do not agree that it is the right thing, because it is as if we as humans wish to outmaneuver nature itself. If you have not noticed, when we tamper with nature, with cloning for example, nature has a unique way of ridding the world of the misshapen thing that nature did not create. As far as living things go, leave them alone, as it may end up in the destruction of our world. Side: No, I don't agree to this.
3
points
I agree with you, to a certain extent. Here are a few points: "...then the world would form itself into somewhat of a utopia." I wouldn't call the proposed, futuristic world "Utopian", as there is no way that humanity can escape all problems in life. " True, parents do make a lot of decisions for their children, but these decisions are mainly made to make sure their happy." To make the child happy, or themselves...? Are these decisions the correct decisions? Are they ethical? Are they made beyond reasonable doubt? There is obviously a lot to consider about parental decisions in the first place. I'll try to stress a big point here: if a parent is designing their own child in a way that is beneficial to the child (particularly in the long-term), then why does this call for such doubt? Surely, as human beings, we look to improve ourselves for the better world; not a Utopian world.. but a better one. " If you were to choose the gender of your unborn child, then who is to say that it could possibly end up in same sex marriage?" I'll ask a personal question here; do you have an issue with same sex relationships or marriages. I'm not making any wild suggestions here or anything, but this response of yours seems almost like an attack on the whole subject. Nevertheless, getting to the point, this really isn't an issue, after all, the world isn't out to destroy same sex relationships or anything of that sort... " I do not agree that it is the right thing, because it is as if we as humans wish to outmaneuver nature itself." In several specific ways, humanity is already superior to the surrounding natural environment. Above our superior mental abilities, we are highly adaptable creatures and are capable of immense physical abilities. And for the record, do you really think that our number one goal in designing our own children is to try and better nature in some sort of competition? I think not. "If you have not noticed, when we tamper with nature, with cloning for example, nature has a unique way of ridding the world of the misshapen thing that nature did not create." No, apparently I haven't, so please enlighten me. "As far as living things go, leave them alone, as it may end up in the destruction of our world." Sure, with that attitude we would be nowhere near our current technological status in the world at this time. Technology is good and bad, depending on where you look. Would you throw away the good, just to give up the bad? Side: Yes, I agree to this.
3
points
1
point
|
I think I discussed this one before and my ultimate point was "Don't f@#& with nature!" Seriously. Babies were not intended to be designed like that. If you really want to "design" your baby, find a mate with the characteristics you want in your baby and try to get lucky. :) For more arguments go here: http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/ Side: No, I don't agree to this.
1
point
1
point
My immediate reaction to this is repulsion. Designer babies? I was sickened when I heard of designer dogs, and the thought of designer babies is only slightly more horrifying. After parents are able to choose their baby's eye and hair colour, the military will be breeding superhuman soldiers. I don't even know how to make my argument. I just feel that this is wrong, so very wrong. Side: No, I don't agree to this.
1
point
My first reaction to reading this was "wow who asks questions like this". It then dawned on me that if parents could design their children then they would have none better than the other. On the other hand who wants to design their children? Let nature take its course. If they want to change themselves that is what surgery is for. Side: No, I don't agree to this.
1
point
Not at all! What happened to the days where a couple was just ecstatic to have a healthy child? Today they want to know if his testicles are proportionate to his thumb!!! Go design your healthy, happy baby's clothes and room and shut up already! Side: No, I don't agree to this.
Ive noticed that everyone, or most of the ones I looked at, here uses some form of opinion in their arguments. I pose an argument based entirely, for what I predict, off of science. If designer babies are based off of the principle that certain genetic pieces like AGCCFDTKDDERSFFGJ means that your baby will have blue eyes, then fine. However, if Genetic Piece AGCCJROFNNWLCJEPTNDL Means that your baby will naturally be very strong when it grows up, wouldnt that be characteristic favorable to all babies? If designer babies use the same genetic pieces as each other to achieve specific traits, wouldnthat lead into a direct loss of Genetic Diversity, essentially limiting the continued humanity of those humans? If Designer babies were allowed, it would directly affect the future of man and how long that is going to be, correct? Especially if all the babies or even just most were designer. That would be a serious problem. Side: No, I don't agree to this.
2
points
We are actually capable of regulating certain decisions, so as to preserve genetic diversity... It is always an option, and if this ever does happen, we will be able to explore our own options and make decisive and well-thought-out choices. One other point that I'll add here is that each country (assuming that this technology will be available globally, or at least a certain majority) will have its own way of dealing with this system. America may choose to allow no restrictions in choices, while Australia may decide to allow only a small amount of options; these are just examples and may not necessarily reflect actual decisions. So, looking at it that way, the system will change communities around the world. These communities will, however, be categorized as countries, because like I said, each will have its own unique way of handling this technology. Side: Yes, I agree to this.
I didnt think of that. Good Point. HOWEVER... We are actually capable of regulating certain decisions, so as to preserve genetic diversity... Who is We? Secondly, Id like to point out how you said one of your other disputes that this technology or methodology can save lives. I agree. Though it could never stop plagues like Cancer(Dont worry, I got that part), it could, if applied, end all genetic disease that pollutes the Human Genetic Stream. I personally think that, for that reason alone, this sort of Technology should be implimented, but solely for this reason. It would also have to be advertised as such for this reason, as we dont want be people in the future saying "HEY We did it Before! Why not now!-Future YouTube 12 year-old on Designer Babies YES." Im still against the designer babies thing as a whole as I hate the idea of eliminating the Diversity of Humanity that we enjoy today by eliminating their "Bad parts," but the intorduction of this technology in medical terms is a big whopping YES for me. Side: Yes, I agree to this.
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
it is believed by many scientific community members that the mitochondria, the orgenelle resposible for cellular respiration, was not part of the orginal cell template, but was incorperated in the cell over many years. without it, cells would only be get their energy from anaerobic means, such as fermantation, which as anyone who spends a good deal of time at a gym will tell you, can be painful. Side: No, I don't agree to this.
1
point
I dont like it , its wrong,, dont do it ur not god, let nature take its course, be happy for what you have cause some people cant even concieve .Dont take it for granted. Cuz you might not be able to handle what comes next.Just think before you do something crazzy. whose to say u would like what comes out . Side: No, I don't agree to this.
1
point
its stupid. my religion is christianity and thats why i say wat im about to f!@#ing say. you so called loving parents are supposed to love your baby for who the hell they are not for what they look like because most in favor are like this. god gave our baby a look for a reason so dont f!@# ing mess with it stupid a!@es. love the baby no matter what and this comming from a f!@#ing 12 year old. YOU F!@#ING PEOPLE ARE F!@#ING RETARTED A!@ PEOPLE FOR WANTING TO CHANGE THE APPEARANCE OF THE BABY! thats what i think Side: No, I don't agree to this.
1
point
OK for one God does not exist two who in there right mind would take advice from a 12 yr old 3 Changeing the babies features does not change there personality, you can still love your baby 4 this whole baby changing thing can be benificial because you can chrage people for sritain triat so if you cant afford or dont wnt them then you dont have to have them. Side: No, I don't agree to this.
1
point
|
