.

God its impossible to convince people to vaccinate, imagine pitching gene tailoring.

I think that in the future it will be a widespread practice. It will certainly open up a few ethical dilemmas, similar to some we currently have in the abortion and vaccination debate but at a much earlier age.

I really don't like the idea of parents choosing traits for kids. Like choosing their gender or their eye color or skin color. I'm really proud I have my dad's Native American looks and not my mom's fair skinned caucasian looks. But if it helps prevent diseases, I'm all for it.

It is going to be a long while before the design your own baby kit is practical. Genetics and gene expression aren't as cut and dry as people sometimes think and that dosen't even take into account the things we are learning about epigenetics.

If it were practical though, and people did want to design their own babies, I don't think I'd have a particular problem with it.

I feel like that would be a huge violation of the personal identity of the kid. I love my parents and I think they're better at most at being parents, but I don't trust them with certain things because of their personalities. Thinking about them having a choice on how I physically am by their whims is chilling imo. I'm their son, not their project or experiment.

Edit: I never even liked them dressing me.

God its impossible to convince people to vaccinate, imagine pitching gene tailoring.

Forgot to ^ this though. People just never listen with the vaccines.

<Snipped quote by Penny>

Forgot to ^ this though. People just never listen with the vaccines.

Poliomyelitis is a compelling argument, but a little too late.

I feel like that would be a huge violation of the personal identity of the kid. I love my parents and I think they're better at most at being parents, but I don't trust them with certain things because of their personalities. Thinking about them having a choice on how I physically am by their whims is chilling imo. I'm their son, not their project or experiment.

Edit: I never even liked them dressing me.

Parents make dramatic life altering decisions for kids all the time. This is just starting a little earlier. You wouldn't be any less your parents son if they decided you should be a red head.

.

Parents make dramatic life altering decisions for kids all the time. This is just starting a little earlier. You wouldn't be any less your parents son if they decided you should be a red head.

True, but most decisions aren't as permanent as that. Choosing whether your kid gets certain medications or if they go to a certain school is what the parent thinks is best, not what the parent exactly feels like they want. To me it's like they're treating a baby like a cheese burger. "Oh, no pickles. Lots of lettuce. And yes, ketchup. But not TOO much ketchup."

Still, the idea of parents being able to design their kids to simultaneously have oligodactylism, pygmyism, methemoglobinemia, and naturally white hair is bound to make lots of people uncomfortable.

Obviously there would be bright future for medical ethicists, but all medical advances bring new ethical debate. Still fighting some people because jesus hates blood transfusions.

because jesus hates blood transfusions.

And then God spake, do not get a blood transfusion, for it is not cool with me.

<Snipped quote by Penny>
True, but most decisions aren't as permanent as that. Choosing whether your kid gets certain medications or if they go to a certain school is what the parent thinks is best, not what the parent exactly feels like they want. To me it's like they're treating a baby like a cheese burger. "Oh, no pickles. Lots of lettuce. And yes, ketchup. But not TOO much ketchup."

Currently its like taking a few handfuls of ingredients and tossing them together at random. I don't see how intentional choice is going to be any worse than random distribution.

Because I think randomness is far more fair, and humans deciding it on their tastes seem unethical to me. If you're randomly made, you just are that way. If you're tailor made by your mom and dad, it might make you resent them because you don't like their choices, or they in turn might think they can control you far more in other areas of life if they can control you there. It could easily become a cultural thing.

And I also feel like, if there is a future with that in it, then eventually kids who were born naturally like we all are will be treated by others and possibly their parents as kids who are unplanned 'accidents' are today, and in extreme cases, might be called unwanted, to continue with the cultural aspect of it.

But then again, this could all be false and it is my personal opinion on it being unethical. We wouldn't know unless it happened for the other things as well.

<Snipped quote by Penny>
True, but most decisions aren't as permanent as that. Choosing whether your kid gets certain medications or if they go to a certain school is what the parent thinks is best, not what the parent exactly feels like they want. To me it's like they're treating a baby like a cheese burger. "Oh, no pickles. Lots of lettuce. And yes, ketchup. But not TOO much ketchup."

And it's taking some of the LIFE out of, well, life, isn't it? Someday I wanna look my lesbian intersexual daughterson in the mismatched eyes and tell shim "I'd love you even if you were straight."

....and I'm only joking about the offensive part, like, that unconditional love between a parent and a child is about as fundamental to the human story as anything else. When we start picking our kids' traits out of a brochure, we're introducing contionality to it. Like "Look, I love you kid, but they fucked up your nose, it's too big, that's not what I paid for and frankly I feel like I should get some of my money back. I mean not all of it, you're still mostly cool, but come on though."

.

@POOHEAD189

'Fair' according to what standard?

Kids often resent their parents choices in a wide vareity of situations. Parents can be controlling already, people already treat others differently due to accidents of birth and genetics.

The technology isn't responsible for engineering societies and citizens that aren't heartless assholes.

<Snipped quote by POOHEAD189>

And it's taking some of the LIFE out of, well, life, isn't it? Someday I wanna look my lesbian intersexual daughterson in the mismatched eyes and tell shim "I'd love you even if you were straight."

....and I'm only joking about the offensive part, like, that unconditional love between a parent and a child is about as fundamental to the human story as anything else. When we start picking our kids' traits out of a brochure, we're introducing contionality to it. Like "Look, I love you kid, but they fucked up your nose, it's too big, that's not what I paid for and frankly I feel like I should get some of my money back. I mean not all of it, you're still mostly cool, but come on though."

Lmao. I have to agree. I suppose I couldn't put that part into words as well.

@POOHEAD189

'Fair' according to what standard?

Kids often resent their parents choices in a wide vareity of situations. Parents can be controlling already, people already treat others differently due to accidents of birth and genetics.

The technology isn't responsible for engineering societies and citizens that aren't heartless assholes.

There's very few choices parents can make that permanently effect their children. So why make another? Yes parents can be controlling already. Why add to that? (They make a lot of choices that do effect their kids, but most of them are not to that extreme).

Fair to the fact that no fallible human decides your looks based on their tastes.

The cultural thing was me just thinking aloud. Though technology does engineer societies. Now, it doesn't make people assholes. But why give assholes more opportunities when there is very little benefit to it other than "I like them this way."

Fair to the fact that no fallible human decides your looks based on their tastes.

Rather than a random grab bag from nature? Nature is not some abstract good that ought always be respected. Polio is natural and seriously fuck polio. I can understand how it might make you personally uncomfortable but I don't think that is a sufficient reason to not develop a technology.

Any technology has potential abuses by assholes, it isn't a reason to stay in the paleolithic.

<Snipped quote by Penny>
How can anyone objectively claim that tailoring a child to potentially be taller than their peers is ethical, while they claim that tailoring a child to practically be a smurf is unethical? Aren't ethics fundamentally subjective, as they're based on culture?

Ethics are subjective of course but that dosen't preclude the existence of ethical arguments for or against something within the norms of society. For example is engineering a child to have a higher likelyhood of Parkinson's disease medical malpractice, or child abuse, or both.

@PennyI never said nature was all good (in fact I purposefully didn't because I figured you might use your above point). I said randomness is fair. But to tackle your point, drugs and vaccines are preventative to diseases to increase your chances of surviving. Changing a humans physical traits to suit your whims is simply giving control to those who shouldn't have it.

Most people would agree that a good parent raises their kids, and a poor or overbearing parent controls them. In nearly every case (at least in western society), a parent has a responsibility for their kids life, not a domination over their kids life. Changing physical traits goes beyond the nurturing and teaching, and it simply makes the kid into another tool to suit their tastes. Yes, it's my opinion and in the end I can't prove how it would make the world worse. We'd just need to wait and see. I just cannot see what benefits it would it have other than making a kid easy on the eyes to a (likely) high maintenance parent.