Should we genetically alter babies?
It's only a matter of time before scientists fine-tune the technolgy to gentically alter babies to give them certain features such as blue eyes, stronger muscles, better looks, smarter brains, or any other myriad of features without any harmful side effects to the child. Is this a good thing or bad thing? What are the potential benefits and/or repercussions?
I think it would be interesting to hear if peoples perspectives on the issue change depending on whether they view it from a theistic or atheistic perspective. So, when you add an argument please include your current perspective on the issue, and your perspective if you were to switch from a theist to an atheist or vice versa.
Please keep the debate friendly and respectful. If you can't make your point without resorting to name calling and personal attacks, then you are just showing your lack of maturity. Think about it, who are you more likely to listen to and take seriously, someone who insults you or someone that explains their point of view in a friendly manner?
Yes
Side Score: 14
|
 |
No
Side Score: 12
|
|
|
|
|
1
point
1
point
I'm all for making alterations that increase intelligence and health. Changing looks is definitely more iffy. On one hand it may make life easier for the child, because they will have a higher self-esteem and won't get teased as much. On the other hand, it could make children whose parents can't afford to have their child genetically altered to have "good" looks get teased more. I think minor changes, such as eye or hair color, are relatively harmless. However, it would be hard to determine where to draw the line, so it's probably best if we let nature take its course as far as looks are concerned. Side: Yes
Its not going to be just through our genetics. In the near future, we will use nanotechnology to inject nanobots into our blood streams that will improve the way our bodies age, move, think, and repair ourselves. We will have all available information not just at our fingertips, but accessible mentally wherever we are. What if your child had to compete with this? What if some other students in your child's class had extra memory installed in their brains? What if they could access an encyclopedia or google something instantly in their brain? If you love your children, you won't allow them to become handicapped by not having these technologies. After school, they will have to complete for jobs with their superhuman peers. If you want your children to be happy and successful, there is a good chance you'll have to install hardware in them at some point. If you put all these technologies together, human potential becomes huge. Technological growth is exponential. Human beings can be improved upon a million fold. What we are now is just the beginning. Those that choose not to embrace this technology, will be left in the dust. They will likely not even be viewed as humans one day, just like the proto humans we evolved from are not considered "human" any longer. There is a choice to make, this is coming. If you love your kids, you will embrace their change into something better than you ever could be. Anyone interested in this should check out Ray Kurzweil and the documentary "transcendent man". (I have blue eyes, but I would not consider that a superior genetic trait) Side: Yes
1
point
Definitely for health reasons like preventing genetic diseases, and possible add traits that would allow for better health. There would be those who can't afford it and those who can, however that is no reason to not allow medical treatment to those who can, and we could possibly allow some compromise. What about intelligence? I'm a bit conflicted here, intelligence can be a big factor on happiness and success. Those who can afford it will have children born with better chances than those with parents who couldn't. What about appearances, we'd all become very lose to equal attractiveness to each other. Those who couldn't afford would be disassociated from those who could. I could definitely see some interesting politics coming out of this, and unless done in a certain way this could very easily divide the different classed greatly. Side: Yes
1
point
|
Everyone is unique in their own way. It doesn't matter how fat, small, strong, stupid, smart, etc you are. No one is meant to be the same in any way. Now, tell me, if you could alter your offspring in any way, what would it be? I can tell you the answer straight up. You would choose just like everyone else, smart, handsome, and strong. Everyone would be the same person. This would lead to a boring life now wouldn't it. In short terms, no. Side: No
2
points
Would everyone really be the 'same' person? Wouldn't they just be healthier and happier that they don't have to deal with societal pressures for being worse off? Wouldn't they actually develop into wildly different people anyway because genetics is such a minor factor in how the person ends up? Side: Yes
I don't think progress is "boring" at all. No, everyone being smart, handsome, strong and healthy is pretty exciting to me. How about your kids living to be 150 years old? You don't want them to have that? How about them living a life with perfect vision and hearing, with healthier organs that last longer and repair themselves better? What about your kids aging without suffering back problems, arthritis, dementia, high blood pressure, balding, joint pain, etc etc? No one is meant to be the same Everyone would be the same person. That's not how it works. We are not talking about cloning people, we're talking about improving your own genes. A genetically improved child would still be your genes, but just the good parts. Anyway, I think these things are coming. Those that do not adapt will go extinct. If you love your kids, you'll say fuck nature and make sure they succeed. If things are changing too fast for evolution to keep up, we need to use technology to move ourselves forward. Side: Yes
The health benefits are obvious and important, but think about how it will limit genetic diversity. The long term effects on the human population may outweigh the benefits for individual people. We need weaker genes in the gene pool to keep evolving. We need to leave room for mutations. Side: No
Nope. I guess, if people are allowed to genetically alter their babies' appearance, then there would be no more unique persons, and look alike babies with their parents. If that would happen, then you will not be able to distinguish the other person from someone. Cause as one of the debaters here said, most people would choose their kids to be strong, handsome.. things like that. Besides, going natural is better than creating something artificial. Thats how it goes. Side: No
Isn't it morally wrong to change a baby's DNA? Isn't this the same as saying to a little kid, "You aren't good enough the way you are."? Can you imagine telling a five year old, "When I was pregnant with you, I didn't like you so I just had you changed a little bit." In addition, it would be incredibly bad for genetic diversity. Say blue eyes becomes the most popular physical trait. Then many people will alter their embryos to have blue eyes and the population of people with blue eyes will soar, possibly letting the other eye colors die out. This may seem insignificant, but think about it on a different scale. Side: No
|
