Designer Babies: A Question of Ethics and Morality

There two sides that come into question concerning this debate. One is prevent child being born with horrific diseases or conditions, which in it self is a good thing. It's when you enter into idea I want a red haired child with blue eyes. It's these sorta parameters that begin to bother me intensely. But I'll explain what made me begin this debate.

Thus we enter into another side of this debate, the ethical side, by encouraging ideas like this, aren't we just practising the abhorrent idea of eugenics. It's obvious my thoughts here are far from unbias, but I'd be willing to debate this.

An online dating and community website has launched a virtual sperm and egg bank for people who want beautiful babies.
Beautifulpeople.com is a website with a difference - it only accepts members its other members think are attractive enough to join.
But its new Beautiful Baby Service is now offering its members who cannot have children the opportunity to be matched with potential donors.
The service has been extended to non-members and is based around a forum where users register and talk about what they want their children to look like.
A number of members who are already registered on the forum are married or in a relationship where, for different reasons, an external donor is required
Also many men have been able to register to help infertile couples or single women to conceive healthy, attractive offspring.

The website's owners say every parent would want to have attractive children given the choice.

Founder Robert Hintze said: "Initially, we hesitated to widen the offering to non-beautiful people.

"But everyone - including ugly people - would like to bring good looking children in to the world, and we can't be selfish with our attractive gene pool."

Parissa Mobasher thinks the service is a good idea

Parissa Mobasher is one of the "beautiful people". She told Sky News: "I think it's wonderful to also know that if you find somebody physically attractive then you're giving that child an extra bonus in life.

"You're giving them that extra edge so as a parent I think you owe it to your child to be able to do the best for it before it's born, during the time it's being born and when it's born."

But Dr David King from watchdog group Human Genetics Alert thinks the scheme is at best ethically questionable.
"It's the symptom of a very dangerous tendency in our society, a eugenic tendency I think, that says we can take control of everything to do with reproduction and have it exactly the way we want it.

"I think the outcome of it, if we allow that to go forward, will be very dangerous for our society."
The website's bosses say they haven't created the sperm and egg bank for financial gains, but as a response to demand from users.
Beautifulpeople.com was launched in 2002 and says it has over 600,000 members in 190 countries.

http://news.sky.com/home/world-news/article/15652695

I think the site is stupid, but I don't actually have a problem with the concept of designer babies. For instance, if we develop technology in the near future that allow expectant mothers to selectively choose traits and genes she wants her child to have, I'm all for that. I mean, why not? What's the problem? She wants her child to have blonde hair instead of brown; there's nothing unethical about that. And, like you said, that's a good way to find and prevent physical and mental defects.

Fallacy wrote:I think the site is stupid, but I don't actually have a problem with the concept of designer babies. For instance, if we develop technology in the near future that allow expectant mothers to selectively choose traits and genes she wants her child to have, I'm all for that. I mean, why not? What's the problem? She wants her child to have blonde hair instead of brown; there's nothing unethical about that. And, like you said, that's a good way to find and prevent physical and mental defects.

Agreed. Eugenics is NOT a bad idea. I say that again, for those of you in shock- it ISN'T. Just like physics isn't bad just because its discovery allows nuclear weapons. Racist/Nazi eugenics, though? Yes, that's pretty damn stupid.

Sciamancer wrote:

Fallacy wrote:I think the site is stupid, but I don't actually have a problem with the concept of designer babies. For instance, if we develop technology in the near future that allow expectant mothers to selectively choose traits and genes she wants her child to have, I'm all for that. I mean, why not? What's the problem? She wants her child to have blonde hair instead of brown; there's nothing unethical about that. And, like you said, that's a good way to find and prevent physical and mental defects.

Agreed. Eugenics is NOT a bad idea. I say that again, for those of you in shock- it ISN'T. Just like physics isn't bad just because its discovery allows nuclear weapons. Racist/Nazi eugenics, though? Yes, that's pretty damn stupid.

Note I said eugenics that could help remove conditions people are born with, that I'm fine with. But it's when you change look of child for no good other than you want them to look a certain way.

Sciamancer wrote:Agreed. Eugenics is NOT a bad idea. I say that again, for those of you in shock- it ISN'T. Just like physics isn't bad just because its discovery allows nuclear weapons. Racist/Nazi eugenics, though? Yes, that's pretty damn stupid.

I agree with this, but it's something we have to be very careful with.

Rulke wrote:Note I said eugenics that could help remove conditions people are born with, that I'm fine with. But it's when you change look of child for no good other than you want them to look a certain way.

Why, exactly?

Simple Fallacy, people measurements of beauty are often changing and thus not a good way to design child. Because once you designed them as such, you can't undo it. Essentially you done the thing that worse to naming a child some crazy names like Celebrities give, you made them into what you want, thus removing their freewill and placing them in a box right away.

I'm personally all for it. Think about it: Humans have artificially engineered plants and animals, from the wheat that goes into our bread to racehorses, to be better at what they want them to do for centuries through selective breeding. This is just the next step forward, and although there are a few hiccups, they shouldn't be too hard to overcome.

First, and I brought this up in chat: Cosmetic surgery. It's well understood that with a steady hand, the right equipment and a good bit of know-how, one can transform another into almost any shape desired. What if one of the "beautiful people" that wasn't born that way passes on their genes? However, there would still be a good bit of genetic diversity if the membership is as large as the site claims, so inbreeding wouldn't be too much of a problem.

Second, the moral and ethical questions involved in this activity. This does seem a rather exclusive club, but it's in reality no more exclusive than organizations such as Mensa that require you to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the members that you are indeed worthy of joining their ranks. Also, I am operating under the assumption that the members of the site are of the age of majority in their resident country and are thus free to sign the appropriate waivers with this sort of activity. It might even be included within the terms of service that pop up when one makes a profile on the site.

Finally, the opinion that parents want to have children that are attractive. While the opinions given by members of the site seem grounded in vanity and self-absorption, consider the process you might go through when designing a character for, say, an MMO. You're going to be looking at the same avatar for hours on end, so you might as well design an avatar that is pleasing to look at. Also, consider the typical new parent that goes on and on about their "beautiful baby", and you'll start to see that maybe this argument does have some weight. As an added bonus, studies have been done that suggest that taller people are more likely to ascend to positions of authority in the workplace. ( http://www.marketwatch.com/story/height ... -practices )

Let's face it, you can't control everything about how your child grows up, nor should you try to do so. If I had the option, I'd rather be able to control what my child looks like in order to give him (or her) the best possible chances of finding success and prosperity, and doesn't every parent really want that?

Rulke wrote:Simple Fallacy, people measurements of beauty are often changing and thus not a good way to design child.

This argument actually has some merit, but the same thing can be said for tattoos. I say screw what other people think.

Because once you designed them as such, you can't undo it,

Plastic surgery? (Only (half) joking.)

essentially you done the thing that worse to naming a child some crazy names like Celebrities give, you made them into what you want, thus removing their freewill and placing them in a box right away.

...What? That doesn't really make much any sense to me. How is letting nature take its course preferable to the parents of the child determining a bit of its course? (Wow, that last sentence sucked). By the way, I don't believe free-will exists, so... yeah.

I think its kinda compared to the over controlling parent that tries to force their kid to grow up a certain way, play a certain sport, go to a certan school, or get a certain job. Now parents are decide not just what there children do, but what they look like and majorly who they become. Frankly, I'd be pissed if I new someone messed with my genes to make me grow up and look a certain way. You already get to choose my name, stay the heck away from my genes!

Vain wrote:I think its kinda compared to the over controlling parent that tries to force their kid to grow up a certain way, play a certain sport, go to a certan school, or get a certain job. Now parents are decide not just what there children do, but what they look like and majorly who they become. Frankly, I'd be pissed if I new someone messed with my genes to make me grow up and look a certain way. You already get to choose my name, stay the heck away from my genes!

So, you'd rather be (what probably a lot of people consider) ugly, and/or have some defects?

I'm not talking about birth defects. Preventing those is fine, but no, I don't want ayone changing how I look. I turn out how I turn out. If I end up good looking then that's fine. If I don't then that's fine too. I just don't want someone sculpting me to their idea of their perfect child.

Vain wrote:I'm not talking about birth defects. Preventing those is fine, but no, I don't want ayone changing how I look. I turn out how I turn out. If I end up good looking then that's fine. If I don't then that's fine too. I just don't want someone sculpting me to their idea of their perfect child.

Well, that's a valid opinion, I guess. (Unlike all those invalid opinions.)

You're already getting genes picked by your parents, its just garbled in with a handful of random chance. Your mother chose to breed with your father based on a variety of factors which almost definitely include physical appearance. Basic ideas of beauty are slow to change, so I really don't think the argument is valid. As for celebrities doing stupid things with their children's appearances? It's also illegal to brand your children with tattoos. Ditto should go for genetic alterations that are determined to be obscene, grotesque, or detrimental to the child. Except the punishment should be increased to match the greater difficulty of fixing such a thing. Tattoos? They can be removed, albeit painfully. Making a child look like a troll doll? Not so easy to fix.

I'd be more comfortable leaving nothing up to random chance to increase my likelihood of success. Parents aren't perfect, but the vast majority of parents would make choices that are better than random chance.

Birth defects DO change how you look, at least some do. If, without genetic changes, you would be born looking like a frog, you would want that changed. Yet you want to leave the tiny details like hair color and cheek bone placement up to random chance. I don't see a point. As for free will? Irrelevant. You don't get to decide what you look like, hence it is NOT a free will issue. It's either "my parents decide" or "my parents decide more, leaving a little less up to complete random chance in an attempt to help me succeed."

^I hate how other people are better at making my own arguments. :|

Personally, I just think its a bad idea to mess around with nature. Trying to control life, such a complicated and intricate thing... I think it's arrogant to think that we can control something like that and the whole thing will have negative consequences. And trying to "create" a beautiful baby is just absolutely wrong.

Also, surely there will be some "most popular" men. I find it wrong that there will be so many children running around born of the same father of off some website.

I think life is precious, and that the biological connection between a parent and its offspring shouldn't be trivialized like that. We've turned the miracle of life into shopping. I mean think about it. "Oh, I'll just order a pretty little baby online." There's something wrong there. And it sets us up to stop valuing life. Pretty people can sometimes have ugly babies. What does mommy do when she sees the baby she ordered isn't right? Can she send it back? Will she just order another? It kind of sickens me that people would think to treat a baby like a product you can just customize and buy online.

Next thing you know they'll be shipping the babies to people in the mail.

And with pretty babies or tall babies being more successful... White people are statistically proven to be more successful, too. Are we going to start making all of our babies the same? Are we going to start breeding humans to look like the successful stereotype? Are we really so concerned with looks that we would start to create the "ideal" baby and become a world of tall, white, blonde-haired and blue-eyed babies made fresh from the lab?

We're in serious danger of losing our value of human life, of the creation of life, and of the beauty that is nature. Having a site of "beautiful" people specifically for single people or infertile people looking to conceive? Maybe I could understand that. But the talk in this thread of it being "the next step forward"? That... I can't describe that as anything other than repulsive. What a shame that the human race has been reduced in your eyes to nothing more than a science project.

Queen of Ice wrote:Personally, I just think its a bad idea to mess around with nature. Trying to control life, such a complicated and intricate thing... I think it's arrogant to think that we can control something like that and the whole thing will have negative consequences. And trying to "create" a beautiful baby is just absolutely wrong.

We already do that, with food and technology. To me, this seems like superstition. And why is trying to create a beautiful baby wrong?

Also, surely there will be some "most popular" men. I find it wrong that there will be so many children running around born of the same father of off some website.

Why?

I think life is precious, and that the biological connection between a parent and its offspring shouldn't be trivialized like that.

I don't happen to share those opinions; and your basically giving the middle finder to adopted kids, here.

We've turned the miracle of life into shopping.

"Miracle of life". Yeah.

I mean think about it. "Oh, I'll just order a pretty little baby online." There's something wrong there.

Maybe to you. I don't see anything wrong.

And it sets us up to stop valuing life. Pretty people can sometimes have ugly babies. What does mommy do when she sees the baby she ordered isn't right? Can she send it back? Will she just order another? It kind of sickens me that people would think to treat a baby like a product you can just customize and buy online.

This is actually a valid point.

Next thing you know they'll be shipping the babies to people in the mail.

Again, I don't see anything wrong with that.

And with pretty babies or tall babies being more successful... White people are statistically proven to be more successful, too. Are we going to start making all of our babies the same? Are we going to start breeding humans to look like the successful stereotype? Are we really so concerned with looks that we would start to create the "ideal" baby and become a world of tall, white, blonde-haired and blue-eyed babies made fresh from the lab?

Another valid point.

We're in serious danger of losing our value of human life, of the creation of life, and of the beauty that is nature. Having a site of "beautiful" people specifically for single people or infertile people looking to conceive? Maybe I could understand that. But the talk in this thread of it being "the next step forward"? That... I can't describe that as anything other than repulsive. What a shame that the human race has been reduced in your eyes to nothing more than a science project.

Eh.

That's what people are to you? Like food or technology? These don't compare at all.

Why? It isn't weird to have hundreds of children with the same father and similar genes? It isn't genetically dangerous?

I'm not giving the middle finger to adopted kids. People go and meet kids they are considering adopting. They don't just go and pick the one they think is pretty; they talk to the kid and get to know him or her. They are physically present and looking at the child, not just dreaming one up in their head from behind a monitor. And adoption is a very difficult process in which you really have to prove yourself worthy of being able to adopt the child. Many people are rejected. This, you're free to make a baby as long as you can pay for the sperm or egg.

That you don't see anything wrong with treating a human being as a product you can order online is honestly weird and kind of gross to me.

Rather than "Eh." and "I don't see anything wrong with putting a newborn baby in the mail.", how about you offer some rebuttal to those "valid points"? Adding commentary to my post is not exactly what the debate forum is about... If anything you really just proved my point that there is little value placed on human life, which is a disgusting shame, then said you supported the rest of it.

Well, now someone expressed myh thought better than I could. Thanks Queen of Ice.

Thank you Ice Queen. I'm glad to see there is someone with common sense here.

Fallacy wrote:

Also, surely there will be some "most popular" men. I find it wrong that there will be so many children running around born of the same father of off some website.

Why?

I'm sure you know the meaning behind "survival of the fittest"? Well in case you don't, it is the fit ones survive and the week ones die before they have a chance to reproduce. The fittest isn't always the strongest or the most beautiful, it all depends on the situation. A child in a cold climate is more likely to survive if they have genes fit for a cold climate. One that has the genes from some attractive man or woman from Hawaii is going to have less of a chance of survival.
To increase this chance, animals typically mate to fit these needs. Let's just assume that there is a giant apocalyptic scenario and only the people with this one gene (we will call 'X') to survive. This person who has mated has 100 children doesn't have this X gene, but the guy you have feelings for does. Those 100 babies will not survive, but the baby you had with this person you had feelings for will. Survival of the fittest at it's worst case scenario.
You see Fallacy, survival of the fittest was created by nature for a reason and the more diverse a species, the better. That is why something like that isn't good.

There is another argument that I've been seeing that bothers me too. It is this whole idea of being successful just because you are good looking. It is true that if you look attractive, you will be more likely to do better in life as defined by most of society. This is a joke though. You could be the most attractive person in the world, but you could also be the most unhappy person in the world too. Studies have shown that a $70,000 a year salary is the tapper point for happiness. So you just need an average income job in order to obtain pinnacle happiness from money. (sorry I can't think of how to explain that better)
The people who have unhappy lives are not successful in my eyes. I'm not all too attractive myself. I have terrible acne and am shorter than almost every one of my peers. I'm not all that strong either. I don't care if this causes me to be less 'successful' as defined by society. I'd rather live on the streets and be happy than be the executive manager of a big time company and live an unhappy life. As a matter of fact, I could die right now and feel like I succeeded in life even though I'm only 17.

I think it was Fallacy who said we don't have free will. We don't have that because you are so controlled by society that you have to treat a baby like a simple object of beauty and not appreciate the beauty you should see in every person. I know it sounds cheesy, but it's truly how I feel.

Personally, I just think its a bad idea to mess around with nature. Trying to control life, such a complicated and intricate thing... I think it's arrogant to think that we can control something like that and the whole thing will have negative consequences. And trying to "create" a beautiful baby is just absolutely wrong.

We already control life. Medicine makes us live longer. We breed animals and plants to fit our needs.

Also, surely there will be some "most popular" men. I find it wrong that there will be so many children running around born of the same father of off some website.

There are so many people already that we don't have to worry about lack of genetic diversity just because 100, or even 1000 people are from the same father. Issues of genetic diversity only occur where there is a very small breeding population: 1,000 women choosing the same sperm donor (which is unlikely, anyway) isn't going to somehow cause humanity to go extinct in the next disaster.

The example of 1,000 people without gene X and the one with gene X could also go the other way, btw.

This, you're free to make a baby as long as you can pay for the sperm or egg.

Just like the regular way. Perhaps we should make only people who have been approved as good parents able to have children at all?

Pretty people can sometimes have ugly babies. What does mommy do when she sees the baby she ordered isn't right? Can she send it back? Will she just order another? It kind of sickens me that people would think to treat a baby like a product you can just customize and buy online.

And any good parent will say "oh well, at least I have a healthy, wonderful baby" and be done with it. Any parent that would try to "send it back" doesn't deserve children in the first place, ugly or beautiful.

And with pretty babies or tall babies being more successful... White people are statistically proven to be more successful, too. Are we going to start making all of our babies the same? Are we going to start breeding humans to look like the successful stereotype? Are we really so concerned with looks that we would start to create the "ideal" baby and become a world of tall, white, blonde-haired and blue-eyed babies made fresh from the lab?

This isn't government eugenics. This is each individual's personal choice, and seeing as different people like different skin tones, it seems sort of silly. Besides, blonde hair has achieved such a negative stereotype that they would make everyone brown-haired.