Hypothetical question

shadowda · 2016-09-12 00:45:52

an ethical question like Bobithan's

imagine in the near future where people can pick and chose dna for their baby. designer babies.

now, say we have found "the gay gene"

would it be permissible for a person to knowingly remove said gene if they knew their child had it.

Zoey2070 · 2016-09-12 00:47:59

to quote my biology teacher sophomore year of high school "there's 3 genes that code for eye color and you think there's something that codes for something as complex as sexuality?"

but either way, even though it's doubtful it's a "gene" or in ur DNA, i'd say, sure, why not.

hummerz5 · 2016-09-12 00:48:37

As large of a decision that would be, the process would be seemingly comparable to picking out the child's eye color, etc.

So in a way, we could look at this as "is it OK for parents to determine potentially life-defining characteristics before the child comes into being"

Eh, I can't really argue over it. I feel like that would really put a dampening on the whole idea of a child being its own person... but then again, I also believe that we as "individuals" are largely structured by our parents and their choices.

In a way, that makes it no different.

Slabdrill · 2016-09-12 00:54:16

i'd say it would be fine

Ratburntro44 · 2016-09-12 01:07:16

So long as there is sufficient reason not to expect a change to result in a lower quality of life I can't easily think of a reasonable objection to it. I'd have to think more to make a more substantial argument though.

One thought I do have is a comparison: consider a "designer baby" being made by choosing specific eggs and sperm rather than by actually altering particular genes. You know that certain choices of egg and sperm will result in a heterosexual child, while others will result in a homosexual child. It seems unreasonable to me to say that choosing the heterosexual one would be unethical. Given that, I also fail to see sufficient difference between the "choosing out of options" scenario and the "altering existing dna" scenario to make a difference in the ethics. Though I am not completely confident in this argument, it currently seams reasonable to me.

Pingohits · 2016-09-12 02:20:08

if designer babies DO exist, and the parent(s) are modifying their child in every way possible, it is tolerable for them to get rid of the "gay gene".

as hummerz had said:

hummerz5 wrote:

As large of a decision that would be, the process would be seemingly comparable to picking out the child's eye color, etc.

that is a very important point to stress.

in short, yes, it is allowable, as removing the "gay gene" is the same as removing a "blonde gene" or "freckles gene"

N1KF · 2016-09-12 04:24:43

It would be beneficial for the child for several reasons. The child would feel more welcomed around peers unaccepting of homosexuality (while there are also those unaccepting of heterosexuality, I don't think it compares as well), would find it easier to find a romantic partner, and possibly religious reasons. Because of these benefits of heterosexuality over homosexuality, I don't see why the child would rather be the latter than the former. Although, once the child is aware of their parents' choices, the child may not their parents' choice to determine what they are. Those feelings would probably be even more intense if the child isn't told about it, and finds out later in life.

Kaleb · 2016-09-12 04:55:20

I think it would be perfectly fine because the "baby" aka embryo is not even a person yet so this wouldn't harm the baby in the future at all. This is a good thing because if this were to be illegal or something like that then the human population as we know it would steadily decrease because of same sex couples. But! If the parents were to add said "gay gene" to the baby and let the baby know if they added or removed it the baby would be fine with either option. This is because if the baby were to grow up and had unknowingly the "gay gene" removed telling the kid would make that kid wierded out as the kid wouldn't be interested in "same sex" actions. It is the same type of outcome the other way around as well. So this is why I say It would be fine, this would not harm the baby in the future in any way/shape/or form.
So ye that is what I think.

SirJosh3917 · 2016-09-12 05:04:24

Kaleb123 wrote:

I think it would be perfectly fine because the "baby" aka embryo is not even a person yet

;-;

they're still people

N1KF · 2016-09-12 05:06:36

ninjasupeatsninja wrote:

Kaleb123 wrote:
I think it would be perfectly fine because the "baby" aka embryo is not even a person yet
;-;
they're still people

I think the point was that they don't have their own developed identities, so hypothetically changing their sexual orientation isn't harmful because of that.

Kaleb, SirJosh3917, Yandax, Pingohits

Official Everybody Edits Forums

#1 2016-09-12 00:45:52

Hypothetical question

#2 2016-09-12 00:47:59

Re: Hypothetical question

#3 2016-09-12 00:48:37

Re: Hypothetical question

#4 2016-09-12 00:54:16

Re: Hypothetical question

#5 2016-09-12 01:07:16

Re: Hypothetical question

#6 2016-09-12 02:20:08

Re: Hypothetical question

#7 2016-09-12 04:24:43

Re: Hypothetical question

#8 2016-09-12 04:55:20

Re: Hypothetical question

#9 2016-09-12 05:04:24

Re: Hypothetical question

#10 2016-09-12 05:06:36

Re: Hypothetical question

Board footer