Genetic Engineering: Designer Babies

[Mortimer]

Most of us have seen the term 'designer baby' used by the media. The term conjures up images of couples sitting down with a catalogue and carefully selecting each feature, characteristic and trait one by one; sex, eye and hair colour, height, weight, talents, definitely not the father's nose. The whole idea is both exciting and frightening and most certainly rife with ethical issues. The term 'designer baby' is a misnomer, unless your crediting nature as the architect. Within the constraints of current scientific capabilities a more real term might be 'Selected Baby'. The scientific reality is far removed from the media fervour. You can select an embryo with the right chromosomes to produce the child of your chosen sex or have the embryo screened for a potential hereditary genetic disorders, or choose an embryo that is a genetic match for a sibling who already has a genetic disorder, but anything else is pure hypothesis.

Future Science

Above is outlined what is currently scientifically possible and as we can see it is possible to identify certain genetic anomalies that indicate the presence of a predefined genetic disorder or disease and to identify a male or female embryo, but this page is suppose to be about 'designer babies'. Within the realms of current scientific capabilities creating a truly designed baby is simply not possible, some knowledge exists as theories and some experimentation with animals has taken place, but so far to the best of our knowledge no-one has dared to attempt to genetically design a human.

So what needs to be discovered to enable the parents of the future to sit down with their catalogue and tick the hair, eyes, nose, talents boxes?

Scientist will need to do a lot more work on identifying and isolating the specific genes that control the growth and development of each individual feature, trait, characteristic or talent. Then they will need to work out how to alter the DNA so that the child matches the tick boxes. Now, we know that the formation of the human is a highly complex process of interaction and interweaving and not simply a case of take this gene, change it and hey presto the baby that was going to have green eyes will now have brown eyes. There is a great deal of uncertainty and fear about what might happen once we start to 'mess around' with our offspring's DNA, but it probably will happen eventually and parents are likely to be able to sit down and start ticking those boxes.

http://humansfuture.org/genetic_engi...babies.php.htm

will it be possible to design a master race without hereditary diseases, stronger, more intelligent etc.?

[Supreme American]

They claimed in the 1980s that we'd be choosing things like gender in the 1990s. I don't know what research is producing this, but I hope it's a byproduct of a more ethical research as opposed to one geared toward where people can have actual designer babies. It would be a disaster and it would be basically like bringing back female infanticide again.

[Mortimer]

They claimed in the 1980s that we'd be choosing things like gender in the 1990s. I don't know what research is producing this, but I hope it's a byproduct of a more ethical research as opposed to one geared toward where people can have actual designer babies. It would be a disaster and it would be basically like bringing back female infanticide again.

It doesnt sound appealing vision to me either.

The Law

Most countries allow sperm sorting, and prenatal diagnosis is common even expected practice when used as a medical tool and therefore not subject to the same stringent scrutiny under law. Traditional methods are not generally affected by law either. Laws governing the use of PGD for specifically for non-medical sex selection vary around the world. In some countries such as the USA and Australia it's 'not illegal'. In the USA the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM), who function as an advisory service on matters ethical in lieu of statutes governing reproductive technologies, concluded that physicians should be free to offer pre-conceptive methods of sex selection, if found to be safe and effective, to couples desiring "gender variety" under specified conditions (ASRM Ethics Committee 2001). In other countries PGD and sex selection is subject to state laws and is permitted where the sex of the child is connected to a genetic disorder i.e. the disorder is only passed on to male children: These include

• United Kingdom
• Denmark
• Italy
• Portugal
• Spain
• New Zealand
• Germany

However the exact nature of the law varies greatly from country to country and is invariably subject to continuous debate and update. For example in Germany the law allows for prenatal diagnosis testing of an embryo for a genetic disease (note that an embryo i.e. fertilized egg and not an unfertilized egg can be tested) and if the embryo is found to have a disorder or disease then the pregnancy can be terminated without time limit. In the United Kingdom the law says that PGD can be used to determine if an embryo has a genetic disorder or disease, or is a match for a sibling that has a genetic disorder or disease and further that if there is a high risk of a gender specific genetic disorder or disease then the sex can be tested for.

Edit: but doesnt it sound something like human eugenics what nationalsocialists supported?

[StonyArabia]

Natural is always the best.

[morski]

[Phil75231]

I can support if IF it's restricted to ridding the genes of the worst traits (as in true, TRUE genetic defects [multiple sclerosis, tay-sachs, and down's syndrome, and genes implicated in truly antisocial behaviors).

As for actually enhancing us, I'm against it. Too many fools would try to use the gene engineering to enhance their offspring for the sake of their offspring's potential for power and control - even at the expense of others, and society in general (as opposed to using it to uplift everyone). Even "uplifting everyone" is morally ambiguous at best, for we don't know what the result will be. That's mere gambling with our offsprings' well-being.

In the end, we DO have an obligation to help the truly deficient/disabled, but we have NO obligation to give them more than what they need to survive.

This is the same logic that says that while we do have a moral obligation to help the poor and needy (e.g. poor Afrikaners, plus others), we have NO obligation to provide poor Afrikaners (and poor others) with an upper-middle-class lifestyle, or even an upper working class one. Similarly, we have a moral obligation to not perform harmful sexual acts (rape, etc.), yet no such obligation to provide sex to someone we're not attracted to.

I see no reason why the same logic does not apply to genetic engineering.

[dralos]

i want my mine child to look uber albanian

[zack]

Good. We can then make half breed blacks look like a full blooded white. We can eventually genetically engineer mixed people back to relative genetic purity so they can be fully assimilated.

100% for this technology and ion the coming white nationalist paradise every child will be required to be 100% uber nord.

[morski]

Even "uplifting everyone" is morally ambiguous at best, for we don't know what the result will be. That's mere gambling with our offsprings' well-being.

Reminded me of this superb piece of literature.

[Racial Observer 1814]

Leave it alone the way it is.