DNA issues

**line without a hook**:

I don't care what my kids would look like, what hear or eye color they have, or whether they have big ears or not... It doesn't matter, as long as they are healthy.

yes

franzi:

**line without a hook**:

I don't care what my kids would look like, what hear or eye color they have, or whether they have big ears or not... It doesn't matter, as long as they are healthy.

yes

agreed.

For keeping inherited diseases at bay, it might be a good idea. But for making your baby to have the perfet looks, now that is shallow. Shouldn't you love your child even if he/she is ugly or beautiful?

Whatsername_:

Eh. I figured I'd bring this to the table. I'm studying this in Biology right now. Pretty much, the technology we're headed toward today and in the future, you'll be able to alter your children before they're conseived by DNA (the code of life in your cells). They can prevent hereditary diseases on a certain gender's side or what-not, but then there's always the other side which is my side:

I think things should just go however it goes. It doesnt' matter what my kid looks like, how they perform and all, but as long as they're my kid and have my DNA (are actually related to me and not full of random DNA to improve the performance of the child), then it'll be good. Then there's the question that the child may eventually ask in the future, "Why didn't you fix me when you had the chance?" (if something's wrong). How are you supposed to respond to that?

There are so many things that relate to this. I just thought this would be an interesting topic to bring up....

there's a really easy solution to that. take out all diseases, leave everything else. ok, then you leave the genetic playground.

geekoll:

For keeping inherited diseases at bay, it might be a good idea. But for making your baby to have the perfet looks, now that is shallow. Shouldn't you love your child even if he/she is ugly or beautiful?

exactly.

but then again, scientists are so stupid they might not figure out how far they should take it..

s0dapop_and_ritalin:

geekoll:

For keeping inherited diseases at bay, it might be a good idea. But for making your baby to have the perfet looks, now that is shallow. Shouldn't you love your child even if he/she is ugly or beautiful?

exactly.

but then again, scientists are so stupid they might not figure out how far they should take it..

Scientists are stupid?. I would never have thought so....

I am a bit against it. It's the imperfections that make the world beautiful to me. And when they ask you 'why didnt you fix me?' I would say it was because i would love them no matter what.

I would rather have a baby that had... cancer, and brought the greatest joy to my life, than a perfect baby that took over the world. Thats the way i see it.

The perfect baby is in the eyes of the beholder.

s0dapop_and_ritalin:

geekoll:

For keeping inherited diseases at bay, it might be a good idea. But for making your baby to have the perfet looks, now that is shallow. Shouldn't you love your child even if he/she is ugly or beautiful?

exactly.

but then again, scientists are so stupid they might not figure out how far they should take it..

uhhh... yeah, i dont think you should be calling the scientists stupid aye. it would be the people who realise what the scientists have made possible and who take advantage of that you should blame.

heywait_13:

First, perfection is an illusion. What is beautiful to some can be ugly to others. Also, just because your DNA frobids you to develop any type of desiase doesn't mean that the illness is non-existant. If changing changing peoples DNA is an excuse to get rid of a type of person (ex. one with epilepsy) what you are mainly trying to do is mask an illness. First of all, before there is all this contreversy about making people better in the future, we should focus on getting them better NOW. I think that right now, its just a waste of time to think about altering DNA.

p.s. I know my spelling sucks.

I had difficulty understanding that. Particularly the bit about DNA forbidding the development of some diseases. Do you mean Immunity?. Some people do develop natural immunity to some diseases. Changing DNA is not an 'excuse' to 'get rid' of a type of person. Here, you make Eplipesy sound like a good thing, something to hold onto. Epilepsy is not a type of personality or part of who a person is, it is an unfortunate condition nobody should have to suffer. It is not masking the illness or covering it up, it is modifying their DNA to eradicate it from their system completely.

Also, you say we should make people better now. How, exactly?. If we could get rid of diseases now, we would be doing it already. As it stands, there is no 'Cure' for these conditions and DNA modification is one of the only alternatives for the future. DNA modification is in no way a waste of time whatsoever.

Bloodraine:

heywait_13:

First, perfection is an illusion. What is beautiful to some can be ugly to others. Also, just because your DNA frobids you to develop any type of desiase doesn't mean that the illness is non-existant. If changing changing peoples DNA is an excuse to get rid of a type of person (ex. one with epilepsy) what you are mainly trying to do is mask an illness. First of all, before there is all this contreversy about making people better in the future, we should focus on getting them better NOW. I think that right now, its just a waste of time to think about altering DNA.

p.s. I know my spelling sucks.

I had difficulty understanding that. Particularly the bit about DNA forbidding the development of some diseases. Do you mean Immunity?. Some people do develop natural immunity to some diseases. Changing DNA is not an 'excuse' to 'get rid' of a type of person. Here, you make Eplipesy sound like a good thing, something to hold onto. Epilepsy is not a type of personality or part of who a person is, it is an unfortunate condition nobody should have to suffer. It is not masking the illness or covering it up, it is modifying their DNA to eradicate it from their system completely.

Also, you say we should make people better now. How, exactly?. If we could get rid of diseases now, we would be doing it already. As it stands, there is no 'Cure' for these conditions and DNA modification is one of the only alternatives for the future. DNA modification is in no way a waste of time whatsoever.

That doesn't make it right though.
As I said before, I'm all for figuring out how DNA works. But changing it doesn't seem quite right to me. Who are we to fight nature and play God? Is that really our place? I don't think so. But I could be wrong...

paradoxical:

Bloodraine:

heywait_13:

First, perfection is an illusion. What is beautiful to some can be ugly to others. Also, just because your DNA frobids you to develop any type of desiase doesn't mean that the illness is non-existant. If changing changing peoples DNA is an excuse to get rid of a type of person (ex. one with epilepsy) what you are mainly trying to do is mask an illness. First of all, before there is all this contreversy about making people better in the future, we should focus on getting them better NOW. I think that right now, its just a waste of time to think about altering DNA.

p.s. I know my spelling sucks.

I had difficulty understanding that. Particularly the bit about DNA forbidding the development of some diseases. Do you mean Immunity?. Some people do develop natural immunity to some diseases. Changing DNA is not an 'excuse' to 'get rid' of a type of person. Here, you make Eplipesy sound like a good thing, something to hold onto. Epilepsy is not a type of personality or part of who a person is, it is an unfortunate condition nobody should have to suffer. It is not masking the illness or covering it up, it is modifying their DNA to eradicate it from their system completely.

Also, you say we should make people better now. How, exactly?. If we could get rid of diseases now, we would be doing it already. As it stands, there is no 'Cure' for these conditions and DNA modification is one of the only alternatives for the future. DNA modification is in no way a waste of time whatsoever.

That doesn't make it right though.
As I said before, I'm all for figuring out how DNA works. But changing it doesn't seem quite right to me. Who are we to fight nature and play God? Is that really our place? I don't think so. But I could be wrong...

It's all down to opinion here. If you were, say, a carrier of a recessive gene and you posed a risk of passing on Cystic Fibrosis to your child. Would you choose to have the gene modified or leave it alone?. I personally would have DNA modification in such a case, but others would let nature take its course. But, as you say, i'm heading down a dark and untested road here. Playing the role of 'God' is certainly an issue here. A world without sickness or disease, however ideal that sounds, wouldn't feel right in my eyes.

You shouldn't even try it. I believe it fate, and whatever happens, it happens for a reason. You're already in the river, so... just flow. You shouldn't do anything about it.

In the disease/health issues, yeah DNA fixing is a good thing, in moderation. (Preventing Alzheimers, Cystic Fibrosis, Down's syndrome etc.) Some people who have mental issues are amazingly gifted in other ways. Anyone know of the movie Rainman? Perhaps they would love to be normal, but what about the twisted chances they could of had to create things?

On the other side, genetically engineered kids is wrong in my mind. It makes things less varied. What happens if you get some parents who decide they want the best sports kid and the kid has those talents, but not the drive? It's kind of a belief of mine that your talents co-incide with your personality (genetically) [insert discussion on nature vs. nurture here].

End result: The kid might be able to do all sorts of amazing sport things, but he won't want to. Maybe he can K.O. someone in ten seconds flat, but his meaty fists don't have nimble enough fingers to allow him to--I don't know--play guitar, which is what his temperment(sp?) was originally set up for.

This could turn into a major parental control issue. How many children are actually going to thank their parents for doing this to them? Are they going to feel indebted/grateful or simply resentful?

What about the group of so called unmodified people? They will soon be displaced (in jobs, sports, music) by the people who were created to be better. This whole gene thing, at first, will only be available to those who can afford it. Kids who would have been born with a step up on everyone else (financially, and with opportunities) are now going to have a chance to be miles ahead.

In trying to not become too sci-fi, at what point do things level out? Do we have the Genetically Modified Olympics? Regulations stating the ratio of GM's to non-GM's in the workplace? Segregated schools?

Whoa. Yeah, that's my lengthy stand on the topic. *bows out*

Kiru:

Actually, if it's to prevent a fatal disease that could be a bad thing to alter their DNA.

You might be thinking "OMG YOU'RE GONNA LET THEM DIE?!" but think

If people never were born with things that will eventually do them in, what'll it do the the world population.

There'll be so many more people.

And once the world reaches a point that it can no longer support all of the people and animals living on it...

Well, that's your typical apocalypse.


But for things like Alzheimers, sure you could fix those.

You have to take into account the fact that, in many countires, the birth rate is falling. Eventually this will level out.

Damn, I didn't think that this went this far!

If you can see before wise what kind of diseases your child would have and have a chance to fix it, I would fix it. But I agree with the person who said that if you give people an inch, they'll take a mile. It will cause the polititians to have to debate about this, and it will probably be another topic and maybe make more disagreement between parties. Then presidency and government.

God, what a great future to look forward to. And we're (speaking to the teenage population) in the middle of it all....

People will get carrieed away with this as it becomes more acceptable. Soon people will be designing their children, from their eye color to how tall they will become, and that will be a sad world. If DNA is altered, what if somewhere down the line the mom becomes unsure of who the dad really was, the DNA will have been tamprered with and it will remain a question that cannot be answered. I dont think it should be done under any circumstances, I know alot of "great" things could be done to end hereditary diseases, but I dont think it is worth it.

I think there should be a lot of strict unremoveable laws surrounding it

-it should only be done to the fetus
-the doctor has to agree and fill out forms saying it's neccesarry

spill_no_sick:

I think there should be a lot of strict unremoveable laws surrounding it

-it should only be done to the fetus
-the doctor has to agree and fill out forms saying it's neccesarry

when is a case of nessasary? Children grow up with diseases everyday, its a fact of life, by getting rid of that we are just tampering more with natural cycles that keep this planet balanced, I dont think there will ever be a neccesarry circumstance, and that may make me heartless and sound like I dont care, but the idea really bothers me, sorry.