What is the philosophical objection to "designer babies" ?

2,827 Views | 55 Replies | Last: 5 yr ago by jkag89
amercer
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
So a Dr in China may or may not have just created the first engineered humans. The idea of "designer babies" is generally seen as a Frankenstein like inflection point for humanity. It's always reported in hushed tones as some grave threat, and at first blush I agree that it seems like a bad idea.

But what are the actual philosophical or religious (from any tradition) arguments against it? People have always looked askance at "messing with nature " , but humans have been doing it continuously since the dawn of civilization. Modern science has only accelerated that, and so far the good has greatly outweighed the bad.
schmendeler
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I think if you don't believe in the concept of a soul, these developments seem less "scary".
Aggrad08
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Besides the obvious threat of accidentally doing harm/ be careful what you change when you don't really understand the whole arguments at an individual level. Were you to make a mistake in editing a germline you could adversely affect generations of people.

Then there is the issue that if we ever got so good at this we could edit non local traits like strength or intelligence we would potentially create permanent genetic classes of rich super people and poor regular people. A sort of red rising scenario.- I don't think we are anywhere close to being able to do this so not a huge concern for me.

Overall I think we end up limiting it to genetic disease repair and such.

Woody2006
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
It's gonna be like Gattaca.
zwingli
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Seems to me a violation of God's sovereignty. Treating a wound or administering medicine is one thing its reactive in nature. But changing DNA before a baby is born is playing God.
Aggiefan#1
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
zwingli said:

Seems to me a violation of God's sovereignty. Treating a wound or administering medicine is one thing its reactive in nature. But changing DNA before a baby is born is playing God.



I dont see it that way at all. Any revolutionary new medical advancements have always been called "playing God".

The upeoar is in regards to creating two obvious divisions in Humans. Health, longevity and intelligence etc... Presumably along financial lines.

Then there is the concern of an biological "arms race"
schmendeler
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
How about vaccinating your child to protect them from diseases God might be trying to send their way?
zwingli
How long do you want to ignore this user?
There is a difference between vaccination and changing DNA. There is a difference between boarding up a house when a hurricane is coming as opposed to changing the blueprints of the house. There is a difference between treating organ failure with an organ transplant and creating humans. One is merely trying to preserve the organism in existence and the other is not preserving anything at all.

I understand if some believe we are all sentient meat slabs then it makes no difference. But let's not degrade simple logic. Comparing Vaccines and designer babies is embarrassing.
Post removed:
by user
Dad-O-Lot
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Gattaca

I also believe that an understanding of Pope John Paul IIs teaching on the "Theology of the Body" will also reveal many philosophical and theological issues with genetic engineering of humans.
People of integrity expect to be believed, when they're not, they let time prove them right.
schmendeler
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
zwingli said:

There is a difference between vaccination and changing DNA. There is a difference between boarding up a house when a hurricane is coming as opposed to changing the blueprints of the house. There is a difference between treating organ failure with an organ transplant and creating humans. One is merely trying to preserve the organism in existence and the other is not preserving anything at all.

I understand if some believe we are all sentient meat slabs then it makes no difference. But let's not degrade simple logic. Comparing Vaccines and designer babies is embarrassing.
you are the one that said that things that are reactionary are ok. vaccines are preventative, not reactionary.
Martin Q. Blank
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Husband and wife are to come together and unite in marital sex to, with God's blessing, create life. Any other relationship, mechanism, human scheme, etc. is outside of the natural order.

This is simply the next step after IVF. If we can create babies in a lab, why not remove this gene while in the lab so that they are resistant to HIV?

I can't see how an atheist, agnostic or anyone who has no regard for "natural law" would be against this (assuming it's proven safe and no long term health detriments). And yes, I realize plenty of Christians have used IVF. I'm sure we all had these ethical conversations about IVF 50 years ago.
FTAggies
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Gattaca was not a good thing imo
Gig'em
amercer
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
FTAggies said:

Gattaca was not a good thing imo


The part with the twelve fingered piano player and the hot chick, or the part where the guy incinerates himself? Cause I have different feelings on those parts.
tehmackdaddy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
From a purely secular perspective, the biggest issue is not knowing if the desired primary effect will, in fact, occur as well as having no idea if and how secondary and tertiary effects will occur. For example, we design a person who is resistant to disease and cancer, is naturally lean and muscular, and has perfect eyesight, but his blood vessels dissolve by age 25. Or he becomes a host for some super-virus capable of wiping out all of mankind. Etc., etc.
amercer
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Martin Q. Blank said:

Husband and wife are to come together and unite in marital sex to, with God's blessing, create life. Any other relationship, mechanism, human scheme, etc. is outside of the natural order.

This is simply the next step after IVF. If we can create babies in a lab, why not remove this gene while in the lab so that they are resistant to HIV?

I can't see how an atheist, agnostic or anyone who has no regard for "natural law" would be against this (assuming it's proven safe and no long term health detriments). And yes, I realize plenty of Christians have used IVF. I'm sure we all had these ethical conversations about IVF 50 years ago.


What if the modification is to the sperm progenitor cells prior to holy matrimony sexy time? No embroys in lab, no IVF, just designer babies.
zwingli
How long do you want to ignore this user?
schmendeler said:

zwingli said:

There is a difference between vaccination and changing DNA. There is a difference between boarding up a house when a hurricane is coming as opposed to changing the blueprints of the house. There is a difference between treating organ failure with an organ transplant and creating humans. One is merely trying to preserve the organism in existence and the other is not preserving anything at all.

I understand if some believe we are all sentient meat slabs then it makes no difference. But let's not degrade simple logic. Comparing Vaccines and designer babies is embarrassing.
you are the one that said that things that are reactionary are ok. vaccines are preventative, not reactionary.
Im not sure how you don't understand. I never said vaccines were reactionary. And reactionary acts are fine. Preventative acts are fine. Messing with the DNA (the blueprints) is not fine.

Martin Q. Blank
How long do you want to ignore this user?
amercer said:

Martin Q. Blank said:

Husband and wife are to come together and unite in marital sex to, with God's blessing, create life. Any other relationship, mechanism, human scheme, etc. is outside of the natural order.

This is simply the next step after IVF. If we can create babies in a lab, why not remove this gene while in the lab so that they are resistant to HIV?

I can't see how an atheist, agnostic or anyone who has no regard for "natural law" would be against this (assuming it's proven safe and no long term health detriments). And yes, I realize plenty of Christians have used IVF. I'm sure we all had these ethical conversations about IVF 50 years ago.


What if the modification is to the sperm progenitor cells prior to holy matrimony sexy time? No embroys in lab, no IVF, just designer babies.
By your response, I take it you're all for this (assuming it's safe)?
Frok
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
"Made in China"

No thanks
FightinTexasAggie08
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Trump better slap a tariff on those kids
chimpanzee
How long do you want to ignore this user?
We are a ways off the beaten path of the natural order of creating and modifying life as it was understood for millennia over the past couple of centuries. There have been a ton of unintended consequences, both good and bad, all subjective.

This seems like a step change and it makes me queasy. If it's Gattaca or the polio vaccine is anyone's guess. Theologically, I don't know if you will find anything that addresses it head on, but likely through inferences and analogies. It would be interesting to read what people find.
schmendeler
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
how do "we" feel about GMOs (like crops)? is that playing god, or ok?
BusterAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I keep thinking about Bioshock splicers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BioShock

People editing genes of their kids to make sure that they are rich, future generations be damned. The incentives to get ahead might lead to decisions that are bad for the human race overall.
In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense -George Orwell, 1984, Part 1, Chapter 7
zwingli
How long do you want to ignore this user?
schmendeler said:

how do "we" feel about GMOs (like crops)? is that playing god, or ok?

For the atheist, corn and humans are the same. Lumps of cells. If atheist were true atheists, they would sacrifice themselves for the greater DNA profile if they were a drain on resources. Life is merely the will to continue the DNA profile. But there are no real atheists. They do not really believe what they say. If they did, then there would be a lot more death.
Post removed:
by user
Martin Q. Blank
How long do you want to ignore this user?
We penalize parents who don't vaccinate their kids. Should we penalize parents in the future who don't change their kids' genes to prevent down syndrome, HIV, etc?
tehmackdaddy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Martin Q. Blank said:

We penalize parents who don't vaccinate their kids. Should we penalize parents in the future who don't change their kids' genes to prevent down syndrome, HIV, etc?
amercer
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Martin Q. Blank said:

amercer said:

Martin Q. Blank said:

Husband and wife are to come together and unite in marital sex to, with God's blessing, create life. Any other relationship, mechanism, human scheme, etc. is outside of the natural order.

This is simply the next step after IVF. If we can create babies in a lab, why not remove this gene while in the lab so that they are resistant to HIV?

I can't see how an atheist, agnostic or anyone who has no regard for "natural law" would be against this (assuming it's proven safe and no long term health detriments). And yes, I realize plenty of Christians have used IVF. I'm sure we all had these ethical conversations about IVF 50 years ago.


What if the modification is to the sperm progenitor cells prior to holy matrimony sexy time? No embroys in lab, no IVF, just designer babies.
By your response, I take it you're all for this (assuming it's safe)?


That's an odd reply
kurt vonnegut
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Martin Q. Blank said:

We penalize parents who don't vaccinate their kids. Should we penalize parents in the future who don't change their kids' genes to prevent down syndrome, HIV, etc?

I think that this is a very good question. But I think it is a different question than the vaccination question.
Post removed:
by user
amercer
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
AstroAg17 said:

There are many, many diseases caused by genetic abnormalities that result in impaired or nonexistent protein function and synthesis. Many result in nonviability or severely impair development. These are the obvious targets of embryonic gene editing and similar things.

I think the cosmetic/enhancement side of it is a really interesting topic, but the post I replied to was about the health aspect. I think that's an uninteresting topic because it's so obviously a good thing. The only reasons I can see to be against it are personal religious hangups.


I work on gene therapies for lysosomal storage diseases. I don't think anyone would object to that, but for now none of the things in the clinic would alter the germline. So an interesting twist to that is that we could come up with a treatment that would save a baby's life, but when they grew up they would still be able to pass on the deadly mutation to thier kids.
Post removed:
by user
Page 1 of 2
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.