On the premise of the movie Gattaca what is the opinion on here of the so called "designer humans." The ability to pick and choose on your children all the things that can be determined genetically. The right to terminate "faulty" children.
Is this wrong or right? Is this what we are building up to and if so what kind of society will this lead to?
Good thread idea. I seriously doubt that society will get to this point in the close future. Even in the distant future, making designer humans will probably be illegal. If, through some fluke of society, it is accepted, then we will be super-powaful!
i think designing babies to suit someone is disgusting.i would only sympathize for it if it were used on a baby that might be mentally challenged or have lung problems and somehow they can help cure that before birth or even full development but I am 100% against parents using it because they want a girl instead of a boy or because the baby needs to have blue eyes instead of green.
Yea designing baby is really disgusting. Having children isnt about creating an accessory it's about creating a family and continuing life. For someone to want to design their baby im my opinion that person would have to be deeply disturbed. You are supposed to love your chidren for who they are no matter what they look like or do. What your body gives you when you choose to make a child is what your child is supposed to be. For someone to want to design their child that person probly isnt ready for children. Having a child is part of you and it will be what it is supposed to be. I will feel very sad if i ever see the day when having a baby changes from what is said to be the most amazing experiance of ur life to being able to compare the process of having a child to ordering a pizza.
The strongest case for such interventions is that "a stitch in time saves nine", which is to say, in the perfectly dispassionate, perfectly utilitarian (and therefore inhuman) consideration, weeding out "imperfections" allows us to "run more efficiently". Cue a debate on exactly just what defines an imperfection and where one should draw the line of "functionality", not dissimilar to the debate on whether one can acceptably abort a fetus diagnosed with Down's Syndrome.
On a technical (or scientific) level the greatest issue is that one change causes any number of unknown consequences.
But I suspect most people here would argue this is insufficient to make the moral condemnation so desired of such an idea. So on a social level I would say that mainstream acceptance of the idea of genetic modification or "erfection" hinders social justice by encouraging discrimination. Therefore in the interests of social justice we ought to discourage the idea because it will tend to people being unable to see the wood for the trees.
Cue a debate on exactly just what defines an imperfection
Strop this would make for a great debate however i think that the true question isnt "what" defines and imperfection it is "who" defines this difference as an "imperfection". Wouldn't you agree that differences are considered imperfection because of people label them as imperfections. Yet so called imperfect people consider themselves to be normal because to them it is normal. So for example if the majority of the people in this world were "disfigured" then socialy wouldn't people who are now considered "normal" be considered "imperfect" in a world with the majority of the people being disfigured? Isn't it socieity who defines what is imperfect and what is normal based on the condition of the majority of the people? So doesn't that bring up the thought that the definitions of the words normal and imperfect mean absolutly nothing? Im just asking your opinion because that is how i see it i guess and i was wondering how you would debate that topic.
