Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

Designer children? Ethical or


Recommended Posts

  • Members

I came accross this article on google news and thought I would pass it on for discussion.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/03/ ... 0346.shtml

"A recent U.S. survey suggests most people support the notion of building a better baby when it comes to eliminating serious diseases. But Dr. Steinberg says using technology for cosmetic reasons shouldn't scare people away.

"Of course, once I've got this science, am I not to provide this to my patients? I'm a physician. I want to provide everything science gives me to my patients," Dr. Steinberg said.

"But is that a good thing?" Early Show co-anchor Maggie Rodriguez asked Dr. Arthur Caplan, Ph.D, director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania.

"Let me quote Dr. Steinberg. He just said he predicts we will have determined sex with 100 percent accuracy and eye color with 80 percent accuracy in the next year. Does that give you pause at all?" Rodriguez asked."


It certainly gives me pause, will a child one day look at his parents and say "why did you make me this way"? Wow, what a question that would be.

orvals

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Isn't this what the early 20th century American eugenics movement as well as the Nazi pure race idea all about?

Both sought to use various breeding methods to weed out "undesirable" traits and groups while purposefully increasing that which they considered desireable.

Of course this goes much deeper for the Christian as we must consider just whether God is to select the eye and hair color of children or that's something parents should take upon themselves?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

My question is this: why would parents want to pay big-time money to determine what their child looks like? My concern is not as much with the practice itself (manipulating genes) as with the motivation for the practice. The slippery slope is something to be concerned about as well. I personally could not make an airtight biblical case against the actual practice of gene manipulation, but again, it's the motivation I'm questioning.

We do things all the time to change our appearance. There are colored contacts for those who don't like their eye color, dye for those who desire a different shade of hair, scissors to style hair becomingly, cosmetics to cover blemishes, jewerly to enhance beauty, etc. All of these are unnatural ways of enhancing physical appearance. So, I'm not sure the concept of "choosing blue eyes for your child" is any more sinful, in and of itself, than having your baby girl's ears pierced, although it would be nicer if the child had a say (which is impossible anyway, in the case of manipulated genes). That's why the motivation--not necessarily the practice--is what matters, IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Gen 6:5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

Is man any different today than he was back them? The ungenerated man surely isn't.

The ungenerated man will not be happy until he feel he is in compete control of everythings. The more he can contol the more he will think he is in control and the more He will think that he can push God out of his life.

I sure this is something all the sports fans will love, they can design a great football, basketball player & such before he has been born.

I heard them discussing this the other day, makes me sick at how low man will stoop, he has no shame at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest

[if they are able to manipulate hair,eye and complexion color then really what most people paying for "this service" would want is Mensa IQ"s, musically gifted, or perhaps science and mathmatically gifted children. The competition is so great for this class already. I think that is what they would value. Pixiedust :sad quote="Annie"]My question is this: why would parents want to pay big-time money to determine what their child looks like? My concern is not as much with the practice itself (manipulating genes) as with the motivation for the practice. The slippery slope is something to be concerned about as well. I personally could not make an airtight biblical case against the actual practice of gene manipulation, but again, it's the motivation I'm questioning.

We do things all the time to change our appearance. There are colored contacts for those who don't like their eye color, dye for those who desire a different shade of hair, scissors to style hair becomingly, cosmetics to cover blemishes, jewerly to enhance beauty, etc. All of these are unnatural ways of enhancing physical appearance. So, I'm not sure the concept of "choosing blue eyes for your child" is any more sinful, in and of itself, than having your baby girl's ears pierced, although it would be nicer if the child had a say (which is impossible anyway, in the case of manipulated genes). That's why the motivation--not necessarily the practice--is what matters, IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
I personally could not make an airtight biblical case against the actual practice of gene manipulation, but again, it's the motivation I'm questioning.


I could. What are they doing with all the unwanted embryos?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
I could. What are they doing with all the unwanted embryos?

I am not familiar enough with the procedure to know that unwanted embryos are involved. (Are they, necessarily?) Obviously, there are moral/biblical problems with discarding fertilized embryos. I was talking specifically about the process of gene manipulation, not the discarding of embryos. If the discarding of embryos is necessary to the process of gene manipulation, then of course a biblical case can be made against the practice. Thanks for bringing this point up.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I am not familiar enough with the procedure to know that unwanted embryos are involved. (Are they, necessarily?) Obviously, there are moral/biblical problems with discarding fertilized embryos. I was talking specifically about the process of gene manipulation, not the discarding of embryos. If the discarding of embryos is necessary to the process of gene manipulation, then of course a biblical case can be made against the practice. Thanks for bringing this point up.


There are always discarded embryos involved with even regular IVF and such like procedures, I would not expect any less for such a specialized form of IVF or whatever.

Anyway I assume they test several embryos to make sure the genetics are fine. I know some couples will try to conceive a child without some kind of genetic disease they both carry, and that involves making several embryos and selecting the "healthy" one(s).

Of course there are moral and ethical problems to this too, regarding the motive as mentioned above.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators
My question is this: why would parents want to pay big-time money to determine what their child looks like? My concern is not as much with the practice itself (manipulating genes) as with the motivation for the practice. The slippery slope is something to be concerned about as well. I personally could not make an airtight biblical case against the actual practice of gene manipulation, but again, it's the motivation I'm questioning.

We do things all the time to change our appearance. There are colored contacts for those who don't like their eye color, dye for those who desire a different shade of hair, scissors to style hair becomingly, cosmetics to cover blemishes, jewerly to enhance beauty, etc. All of these are unnatural ways of enhancing physical appearance. So, I'm not sure the concept of "choosing blue eyes for your child" is any more sinful, in and of itself, than having your baby girl's ears pierced, although it would be nicer if the child had a say (which is impossible anyway, in the case of manipulated genes). That's why the motivation--not necessarily the practice--is what matters, IMO.


There are several verses that talk about God making us - knitting us in the womb, knowing us before we were, how we are wondrously made, etc. The concept of God forming us is one that I couldn't get beyond in gene manipulation.

The "unnatural" things people do to change their looks aren't permanent (well, some are, but those aren't right, either, imo). But gene manipulation is messing, permanently, with what God has created.

I think you're right, motivation is important...but the question to me would be - what is the motivation for those who are pushing this idea? A perfect person? Kinda like Hitler's dream? And I agree - it is a very slippery slope!!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I don't think there can be a "good" motivation for this.

The only motivation even remotely good would be to try to avoid a child with a deadly genetic disease....however, even with that there is the issue of the unused embryos.

If they would only make adoption easier...there are so many unwanted children in so many countries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members


There are always discarded embryos involved with even regular IVF and such like procedures,



That is not true. A couple has the right to decide what is done with leftover embryos. If you believe that life begins at conception you can choose that no embryos are discarded. You can donate them to another childless couple or cryopreserve them for later use. During the thawing process an embryo may not survive and that embryo can be discarded, but is is no longer alive and therefore removes the ethical concerns. Many Christian couples choose to implant all thawed embryos regardless of how "good" they are just to prevent discarding them.

As for the practice of PGD it is completely wrong even if you have a genetic issue. What they do is take the embryos and make them split in two, essentially making a twin. The second embryo is tested and if it is genetically approved then you can implant that original one into the uterus. If it has a genetic issue, or in the case of this article does not look they way the parents want it to look or is the wrong sex, the embryos are discarded. I am fine with the practice of IVF as it is combining what God designed to combine: egg and sperm. But this is playing God, deciding who has a chance to live and who does not.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I believe this actually touches on a much larger philosophical question than eye color and such; to me it starts to push on the door of who is the giver of life (creator or creature) and what are the limits to God's patience and intervention!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members


That is not true. A couple has the right to decide what is done with leftover embryos. If you believe that life begins at conception you can choose that no embryos are discarded. You can donate them to another childless couple or cryopreserve them for later use. During the thawing process an embryo may not survive and that embryo can be discarded, but is is no longer alive and therefore removes the ethical concerns. Many Christian couples choose to implant all thawed embryos regardless of how "good" they are just to prevent discarding them.

As for the practice of PGD it is completely wrong even if you have a genetic issue. What they do is take the embryos and make them split in two, essentially making a twin. The second embryo is tested and if it is genetically approved then you can implant that original one into the uterus. If it has a genetic issue, or in the case of this article does not look they way the parents want it to look or is the wrong sex, the embryos are discarded. I am fine with the practice of IVF as it is combining what God designed to combine: egg and sperm. But this is playing God, deciding who has a chance to live and who does not.


I didn't realize that about splitting the embryo. Thank you for that. It certainly is wrong.

If cryofreezing an embryo reduces chance for life, then it would be wrong. The only way I could agree with IVF is that every embryo created would be implanted. It is hard to find a dr to do that though, because you'd have to create less embryos than normal in order to reduce the risk of having a litter of kids at one time. Although obviously Octomom's doctor didn't do such. (Anyone else sick of hearing about her? haha)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members


That is not true. A couple has the right to decide what is done with leftover embryos. If you believe that life begins at conception you can choose that no embryos are discarded. You can donate them to another childless couple or cryopreserve them for later use. During the thawing process an embryo may not survive and that embryo can be discarded, but is is no longer alive and therefore removes the ethical concerns. Many Christian couples choose to implant all thawed embryos regardless of how "good" they are just to prevent discarding them.

As for the practice of PGD it is completely wrong even if you have a genetic issue. What they do is take the embryos and make them split in two, essentially making a twin. The second embryo is tested and if it is genetically approved then you can implant that original one into the uterus. If it has a genetic issue, or in the case of this article does not look they way the parents want it to look or is the wrong sex, the embryos are discarded. I am fine with the practice of IVF as it is combining what God designed to combine: egg and sperm. But this is playing God, deciding who has a chance to live and who does not.


It's good that you brought this to light as far as how they were accomplishing their goals. (by destroying the twin(s) in order to test for the genetic traits they wanted expressed) Another thing to consider, that I did not think was clear from just reading the article is that they almost make it sound as if you can choose ANY hair, eye color etc. That is not true. They are bound by those genetic combinations that are unique to the two parents that are expressed within those embryos that they created. They ARE NOT talking about giving two blue eyed parents a brown eyed child through swapping one genetic sequence for another that was not originally contained within the embryo or that is not a genetic possibility because neither parent carries the genetic code for such. The article is a little deceiving in that area. They are merely using natural selection and choosing out of the available possible combinations the way Hitler would have and discarding the undesirables--only on a smaller scale.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...