What is your opinion on creating a genetically perfect baby?

Question

I have a debate for school coming up on this topic, and just wanted to know what everyone else thinks about it.
Our topic is, do you agree or disagree that parents should be able to create the "perfect" baby if they can pay for it?
Our stance on the topic is that we disagree because of the high costs and poor quality of life for the child. What do you think?

A child was born in England with a very rare type of anaemia and his parents chose to have another child born with it to help his older brother by being a blood donor. With the technology they are working on, people will be able to have children with i.e. Down Syndrome, because they chose that for the child.

I, myself, am not saying that I agree with my side. I believe that this enginering has its ups and downs. I chose this topic and side at random out of a hat. It's not something that I totally disagree or agree with. I just wanted input for the sake of winning my argument.

It's not a clone.

Answer 1

I don't agree with creating a genetically perfect baby. It would cost too much to "perfect", meanwhile there are plenty of kids out there who could be adopted. Even if people could afford it, why would they pay so much for a perfect baby, when they could adopt an equally perfect orphan?

Also, what is perfect to one person, may not be perfect to another. So perfection would not exist in the "genetically perfect baby".

Answer 2

I think we need to leave nature to nature. Let's take a small example first!- free radicals.
Natural fats in butter are saturated. They have long chains of fatty acids that are bent because of the bonds in the molecules.
Somebody got the idea that we should use unsaturated fat (oil, instead of cream), and then bend it to become a solid by adding hydrogen atoms (Hydrogenated oil? ever hear of it?) So, basically, we got these things called tranfats now, and some foods still have them, with these extra atoms stuffed inside of them.
These particles will eventually break off of the fat molecules, because the bonds are man-made, and not forced. The molecules start to knock around inside the cell walls in our bodies, BUT they don't kill the cells. The cells become CANCEROUS. These things are also known as free-radicals. This is why we have things called ANTI-OXIDANTS, which are most often natural, but in any case they have become a big seller in the food industries. The antioxidants attach to the free radicals, so they don't destroy so many cells.
So now, if a stupid thing like adding an atom here and there to oil can give us cancer, and that from outside foods, what in the world will we do to our children if we start mixing and matching DNA codes?
The molecules there are SOSOSOSOSO So much more complex!
Mistakes are more than likely to happen, and then we have MUTATED children.
The problem is, what if the DNA doesn't mutate until the baby is a few months old?
Years old?
Will we see more mental illness, cancer, etc?
Do you know that studies have shown that the genes of a father actually do pass through the mother's placenta and become part of her?
Do you know that we can play God with gene therapy, wherein DNA comes in through dead viruses, and changes the DNA in our bodies?
Isn't that scary enough?
Why would we want to have a kid's DNA mutating, because was fake DNA, in one little spot, and ruining the whole life? THe life of the families?
No, natural is best.
Case closed.

Answer 3

First of all I know this question was not written on the religion site, however, being a Christian, I have to say, we cannot play God. However, God creates a child, it is perfect in his eyes. I totally disagree that parents can chose to create a certain baby. You can pay for anything today, but that does not make it morally correct. High costs is the least part of the equation.

Answer 4

Your stance is against your argument. It was already presupposed that the cost was affordable and who is to say that a child will have a poor quality of life?

I'm not necessarily for genetic "tinkering" as there may still be some unknown consequences but if research proves that some maladies that affect humans can be engineered out of our genes, I do not have any problem with researching those efforts.
The argument against would be that a division of people by class for the ability or inability to have this type of procedure done (haves and have-nots if you will).

Answer 5

"poor quality of life for the child", what?

I think paying to enhance your baby just because you can is wrong and should be made illegal when the technology becomes available. But, on the other hand, I am not against genetic manipulation of an unborn embryo. If they could test for things that would be problimatic in children once they are born, if they had the ability to fix that, and ONLY that, I would support it.

Answer 6

Actually I don't think the child would have a poor quality of life
because

The parents really want the child the pregnancy is planned and not a mistake.
The child would be healthy and free of a lot of genetic diseases.
The parents have plenty of cash to educate and clothe and feed the child.
The only down side is that it is elitist, only rich people are able to do it, and their is no class distinction when it comes to diseases, therefore there are people out there with not enough money to do it even though serious illnesses run in their family!

Answer 7

well im against it , just because u have a baby genetically perfect ther can still be learning problems etc , it wont make the child smarter strounger etc , so know im against it 100 percent whay have a child that u have chose the sex , etc , its not right i dont care if u have money or not if there gonna allow pepole to do this when not medically nessary i fill that they should ok stem cell research

Answer 8

what is a perfect baby..are they blond have dark hair. what is the colour of their skin. I think how dare us try and say who is perfect and not, let the natural course of life take over. I don't by any means think that there will be less diseases at all because there are plenty of disease that are non genetically related i think if you can not be happy with what you created you should not have children

Answer 9

A better position to take would be to ask the question "what is perfect" people's genetics have evolved to fill the best abilities from reality. Science always thinks it can do it better. certain traits evolve to combat diseases and others for reasons that we cannot begin to grasp. What may seen perfect on paper isn't always "perfect" in reality.

Answer 10

I agree with it... though i'd have to say I think it should be free. It should be considered a sin when technology like this comes around for your child not to have perfect genetics.