In the next twenty to fifty years, notwithstanding the complete destruction of Western civilisation as we know it, we can almost definitely expect to see the advancement of gene manipulation techniques by science. This has led a number of scientists - and many excitable journalists - to conclude that within our lifetimes the possibility of deciding your child's genetic make-up will arise.

So what does this mean for sexuality? Well, I'm sure that most of us here, having had a certain amount of firsthand experience, would agree that sexuality is largely determined by genetics. Additionally, scientists are forever investigating the precise causes of sexuality (both genetic and environmental). It would not surprise me if, within the next fifty years, scientists gradually uncovered exactly how sexuality is determined. With the (by then quite well-advanced) gene-manipulation techniques in place, we would be able to pinpoint and wipe out/correct "homosexual genes".

Therefore, theoretically it should eventually become possible to decide your child's sexuality. The question I pose here is: What then? What is the future of sexuality?

Would a more tolerant and (perhaps more importantly) more overpopulated society find benefits to maintaining a homosexual population? Would homosexuals themselves choose to bring homosexual children into the world? Would everyone agree that homosexuals are largely unnecessary and let homosexuality die out forever? Would people go for the more hedonistic option and create bisexual kids? Or would people just leave it up to nature?

What would be the government's response? Would it be considered cruel or an abomination to deliberately bring into the world someone with a perceived disability? What exactly would it mean to the child, knowing that their sexuality had been pre-decided by their parents?

I personally have absolutely no idea what would happen in such a situation - and I suppose it's a very similar debate to that over the future of disabled children in a world of designer babies. I'd like to hear what everyone's opinion is on the prospects for homosexuality, bisexuality, gender identity confusion, and all of the rest. Feel free to move onto other issues related to designer babies later, as it's a very interesting and wide-ranging subject.

I personally find the ideas of designer babies slightly scary, it leaves the possibility to "super" humans which, if you beleive the fiction on the subject, we may very well be in big trouble. One the other hand it would allow genetic defects and diseases to be wiped out...which would be a good thing, even if i'm only looking at the short term, of course genetic manipulation may have side effects as yet unknown, if a genetically modified human were to reproduce how do we know that something catastrophic could happen a few generations down the line, it may well be possible within our life times but goverment imposed restrictions and protests (which there will inevitably be). As for the over population issues, it may become nessecary to restrict the amount of offspring a couple can have, I think they do that in hong kong or somewhere like that.....


On the other hand I would be extremely amused to see pictures of a baby with a little Prada label sticking out its arse crack

....sorry polo, didn't mean to kill your thread, i'll stop posting and go curl up in an corner and DIE!!!!

I don't like the idea of the so called designer babies. Governments should make restrictions on genetic research to where it wont blend into the current pop culture. I'll post more later, I have to get back to class.

I have no real objection to designer babies, with limits. If you want to decide your child's hair colour, eye colour, whatever, I don't see anything wrong with that - not much difference, morally speaking, between that and leaving it to blind chance. (This is all assuming that there won't be horrible mutating side effects to the genetic engineering, of course). The only immoral thing I could think of doing with the technology is deliberately giving a child a handicap of some kind, though I'm not sure why anybody would do that, with the possible exception of unethical scientists wanting to study a genetic disorder...

i think the problem would come from parents wanting their children to have enhanced brain power or athletic abilities etc, if science fiction has taught us anything its that these people are crazy and evil, except Dr Bashir (from Deep Space 9, yes i watch star trek, deal with it) he's a nice, slightly camp guy, who's really very good at darts >_>

But should we then consider sexuality a proper area to interfere in? After all, some people might view it as a potential handicap. Then again, that could lead to all sorts of tinkering with humans, human behaviour, psychology, physiology, etc, etc. I'm very much afraid that genetic engineering could mean the opening of a huge can of worms.

The world will never be completely tolerant of homo or bisexuality. But at the same time, the world will never get rid of it fascination with homosexuality, and I suspect that yes, homosexuals will be interested in populating the earth with other homosexuals. I suspect that when and if sexuality will be an option for parents, then the result will be something like we see today with abortion and abortion clinics. It will be widely protested, and widely accepted and promoted. I feel about designer babies as I feel about abortion. If someone wants to abort a pregnancy, they should have the ability and the resources to do so. If you don't believe in abortions, then obviously you're not going to get one, but at least leave the people who want and need it the option. It's like churches, not every one's a Christian, and some people are even violently oppsed to not only Christianity, but also organized religion in general. the peoplewho are opposed to it aren't going to be visiting a church, but for the people who DO believe in it, at least they have an outlet to practice their beliefs, it's an ption they have to go or not, but at least it's THERE, ya dig?
So, if you want to pick your baby's gender, hair color, eye color, sexuality, it's up to you, and I think you should be able to if it's possible, whether others like it or not.
*Phew* Yeah, that's about it.

Moral implications aside, the thing about genetic engineering in that direction would be that the smartest people, etc, would be those whose parents were the richest--those who could pay for extensive engineering. Imagine a world where the rich were beautiful, athletic, and brilliant...those children who were not engineered would be at a terrible, dabilitating disadvantage, especially in terms of being any competition for work, etc; not to mention the psychological aspect and prejudices that would spring up between the two groups. The social ladder could very well become rigid, and one wonders at that point what would happen to humans as a whole.

I wouldn't like for genetics to be used as some commercial tool for people who might not completely understand what they are doing. Genetics should only be used for medical research to help other people.

This kind of moral pluralism is fallacious. You may think murder's wrong, but I disagree, so I can go out and kill people, right? Obviously you don't think I should be allowed to murder people. Why do you think that? Because it disagrees with your moral code. So why are you allowed to impose your moral code on others in some cases, but not in others?

I think she was referring specifically to abortion, not to morals in general... abortion is a pretty touchy subject and everyone seems to have a different opinion about it, so I seriously doubt that her views on abortion are the same as her views on murder. It's not moral pluralism, it's just an example.

To those who oppose it, abortion is murder. But that's not the point. Her statement was that people should let others follow their own moral codes, even if they're in opposition (that's pluralism, accepting other moral codes to be of equal value to your own). I think she's being inconsistent in this - why does she want to let some people follow their own moral codes (people who want to genetically modify their offspring), but insist on imposing her moral code on murderers and theives?

No, her statement was that her opinion on designer babies is the same as her view on abortion, and that the two subjects will probably become similar in many other people's views as well. She is more or less stating that she is fine with both abortion and designer babies, and if other people disagree with it then they shouldn't take part in it. That is her moral code on the subject, and I think it's fairly reasonable. Her moral code when it comes to theft and murder is most likely very different, and that's understandable as well.

Those are seperate issues and you're just complicating things by treating a specific example like a general statement.

I really hope people don't go through with this designer baby thing at all, especially if it becomes a widespread popular thing. Currently we have a big problem with conformity and pop culture, as far as people dressing alike, and cutting their hair alike. But can you imagine what would happen if people started design their kids alike?

That type of thing would also lead to a mass scale segregation. For example, in areas where there is a lot of discrimination against homosexuality, the homosexual population in this area would virtually disappear. Whereas, in areas where it's more acceptable, the homosexual population would increase dramatically.

Also, doctors would need to have an impeccable understanding of genetics in order to accomplish this. If they accidentally changed a small section of a single gene, it could completely alter the person's physiology.

The key part is that if other people disagree they shouldn't take part in it. This is classic pluralism, this "live and let live" attitude. She can't expect people with a serious moral objection to the genetic engineering of a human to simply "live and let live", because to them she is doing something seriously wrong. She doesn't "live and let live" when other people do what she considers to be seriously wrong (keep in mind that, like murder, theft and, yes, abortion, genetic engineering involves an unconsenting person), so she cannot demand different treatment.

Okay. Sure. Fine. The last thing I want to do is start a debate about this. We obviously disagree and I'm not going to change your mind any more than you're going to change mine.

As far as I know genetic engineering does not involve unconsenting persons.

Oh boy Brave New World...



And this cutting hair/dressing alike is a bad thing because?

I agree, some forms of conformity are dangerous. But everyone conforms to something, greater or lesser. Even those people who are very much anti-conformists end up conforming to an anti-conformist image. In my opinion, as long as you're happy with who you are and who you choose to be, and you're doing nobody else major harm, why does it matter if you conform or not?

On the other hand, I completely agree that genetic engineering/designer babies is a very dangerous area we can walk into. Sure, it's easy to say that no child should be born with Down's Syndrome, but where do we stop. Homosexuality is a really difficult thing for an individual to deal with. The average age of death (don't quote me on this) is somewhere around 55 for a homosexual male (a large part of which comes from depression and all the other wonderful psychological problems that come with being a social leper). Why would any parent want to subject their children to that?

Personally, I think that the government needs to draw a line between disease and design.

And as for Commie's comments -- I agree that moral pluralism is a very difficult area. That's why I can't consider myself a true postmodernist -- I [i]do[/do] believe in absolutes, like murder is wrong, rape is wrong, theft (depending on the situation, of course) is wrong. Mostly these all boil down to a "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" ethic, which for me is the basis of all society and perhaps the one absolute that exists for humankind.

How does an unborn child consent to having its homosexuality removed, exactly?

I was talking about genetic disorders and such, not homosexuality because I do not believe homosexuality is something that should be changed. I do think some sort of laws need to be made so we wont go into the world of designer babies. Genetic engineering isn't as bad as politicians and the media make it out to be. Its actually pretty easy and fun.

Well, but that still doesn't address the "consent" issue. Whatever you're doing to the unborn child is without its consent. Of course, this whole thing depends on whether you believe a fetus is a "person" or not (but, then again, since the fetus is supposedly going to be carried to term and undisputably become a person, carrying with it whatever traits were given it in the developmental stage, that point really becomes void).

Also... "fun" sounds like a strange word to describe the business of altering people's genetic makeup. I would think, whether you believe it should be done or not, it would be considered a rather serious thing.

3

Correct, I guess I should have explained what I meant a little better. I don't think an unborn child's sexuality should be changed without its consent. However, I do believe if it has a genetic disorder it should be dealt with.



I wasn't referring to people, I was referring to bacteria, plants, and things like that. it can be fun to see what happens when you make a bacteria resistant to a antibiotic. Is it fun that these bacteria do become resistant? no. Is it fun that these people have genetic disorders? no. Will I be happy when I rid them of the disorders and make their lives better? yes.

Ah, but therein lies the crux of the matter.

Who decides what a genetic disorder? Could homosexuality not be termed a genetic disorder? Other than population control and improving the world's fashion sense, it seems to play no part in advancing the evolution of the human species. Homosexuals suffer a great deal from both internalized and external homophobia -- I'll bet there's a lot of homosexuals in the world, dealing with the problems of internalized homophobia and all the prejudice of external homohobia, who would wish they had been born "normal."

And what *is* normal, exactly?

Usually it is the geneticists or doctors who decide. The second question is where I stop and say, that I have no idea.

*meekly contributes* this is one of those issues that gets me a little nervous. Personally, it irritates me that people want to poke around make their children perfect. It almost gets into my fear of robots - programmed people, everything tweaked and fixed and finished up like a project. I really don't see the point. Eliminating debilitating diseases I can understand (not homosexuality, spina bifida, etc. but don't quote me on that, that's only an example, I have no idea how it applies) but something tells me it wouldn't be a good idea to get involved, especially in genetics and stuff in the brain.

I don't know if I could bring myself to say that homosexuality is a disability or genetic defect. I think I've been conditioned by a liberal and politically correct society, though. Thinking about it logically, homosexuality is genetically and societally undesirable. But then, so is a tendency towards religiousness or extremism. Scientists have argued that belief in the supernatural is caused by the way our brain is set up, and that therefore a change in genetics could remove the irrational urges associated with religion. Ditto for political extremism of all types.
It's all tampering with the human mind and what it is to be human though.
Messing around with sexuality is messing around with the human mind as much as it is with simple biology. It's all very dodgy indeed.

As much as I think genetic disorders, or any other disease for that matter, is bad, people need to die somehow.

I know that sounds rather harsh, but since most industrialized nations have taken out the the threat of small pox, polio, and whatever, now scientists are aiming to take out cancer and genetic disorders. If we keep this up, people will be living FOREVER. (Until we all shoot each other, any way.)

Humanity needs to learn to recognize its mortality, and accept it. I also think humanity should not feel compelled to try to control everything as soon as they have the means to.

I don't really want to bring it up again, but I feel I have to clarify myself (geez, you can't leave for a day without something like this happening while you're gone!). In fact, I was not referring to morals in general, but specifically abortion because it's about in the same area (affecting a baby before it's born) and because abortion is very controversial, and so will be designer babies. It was just an example, I didn't think too hard on it, and I didn't expect others to look too deep either. I talked about churches because it just happened to be another example.

I just had a peculiar thought, if you were going to have a child, the docter tells you it will probably have gender issues when they grow up but they will also have very gender specific features, would you change them to match their physical features or change their physical appearance to allow them to choose when they grow up, or would you leave it be? (bearing in mind doing nothing could cause more issues and confusion than meddling would)

This subject is a touchy one for me, because I am so against it. Reading this quote disturbed me somewhat, and got me thinking. Who decides who gets to play god? We are playing god, and it is a very, very scary thought. It's not up to the parents to decide how the child will be born, because technically it's not their child. Children aren't pieces of furniture that you buy, or little coloured I-macs. They are people. I believe people lose sight of the fact that this is a persons life that you are tampering with, not just your property, your child. The child is it's own individual, and it has the right to be allowed to grow up naturally, how it's meant to happen, for better or for worse. Who are you to decide that they will be gay or straight? Who are you to decide what disease or disability they will or wont have? These aren't lab experiments, these are human beings who cry and are happy and sad and have relationships just like each and every one of us. Imagine growing up and learning that your parents genetically designed you to be straight, not gay. I guess for this arguement to work, you have to believe in the whole "only a select few people out there for you" thing but, argh, think of you're significant other. If you were programmed to be either straight or gay and you happened to be on the wrong side of the orientation pool? You would miss out on a relationship with that person, you couldn't have one. You're life has been changed completely, your life experiences have been decided before you're even born. Your relationships, your personality, your likes, dislikes, relationships, your life is completely predecided by your parents. We wont be people anymore. We'll be programs. I can't even finish writing this, I'm too worked up. My question is, when will we stop? How far will we go? What is too far? The world just keeps getting worse and worse.

I totally agree.

Also... a bit of an inspirational poem about parenting, from Kahlil Gibran:
Your children are not your children.
They are the sons and daughters of Life's longing for itself.
They come through you but not from you,
And though they are with you yet they belong not to you.

You may give them your love but not your thoughts,
For they have their own thoughts.
You may house thier bodies but not their souls,
For their souls dwell in the house of tomorrow, which you cannot visit, not even in your dreams.
You may stive to be like them, but seek no to make them like you.
For life goes not backward nor tarries with yesterday.

You are the bows from which your children as living arrows are sent forth.
The archer sees the mark upon the path of the infinite, and He bends you with His might that His arrows may go swift and far.

I can understand how genetic engineering could start out with good intentions, but I simply can't support it. Just because another person comes from your body doesn't mean you have the right to toy with their identity. My feelings about it are expressed most eloquently in the above poem Tomoyo posted. Yay for Kahlil Gibran!

Jesus, this creeps me out. Once we know enough about this, it's like we can custom-program people...and it's frightening. Turning these people into programs and meddling with them as need be...like a robot. Turn a switch, flip a button.





My thoughts are sort of aligned with shib's. Playing God or a person in control is a risky business - who are we to have the authority to doctor people like that? I mean, fetuses and the like that are going to become people. Who says we can decide that simply because we can? Then there's the thing that each person is an individual. Do you have the right do perfect the individual as a person and tamper with them to suit your needs? Just because you are carrying the baby you made, does that give you authority to fiddle around with it at all? Does anyone have the right to change fetuses and then release them to the world doctored? It just keeps echoing back that we'll be programs, so many decisions about fetii before they have a say.

I mean no offence at all, but I think you guys are relying on misguided information. More research needs to be done to figure out what may be bad or good. I don't want the human race to stop genetic research, it can be a good thing.

Genetic research I have no problem with. It's how it can be applied that frightens me.

I have no problem with genetic research, but I do have a problem if the research becomes an experiment, and that experiment turns into a natural way of life - which it will. The envelope has been pushed to the limit. There is such a thing as going too far, and I believe that this is it. No more. What's so wrong with the way we are right now? Do we really want our children to be completely custom made and programmed? It ruins the point of having a child, it de-humanizes it. You're taking away people's right to be a human being - which comes with both positive and negative things. But in the end, it's a right that they are entitled to. If they really want to change themselves, they can always just have plastic surgery when they're older or something.

See, this is why I brought up the subject of sexuality, which is not something that can be changed like something as cosmetic as a facial feature or a limb. What if someone wanted to be straight, but their parents made sure that they were bisexual? Or vice-versa, for that matter. Given the choice I know I would rather have gone for bisexuality over simple homosexuality. What are our descendants likely to want?

Perhaps, too, there will be technology one day to adjust our genetics after our birth, but I suspect that this will come much later than simple embryonic manipulation. What do we do in the intervening gap?