How do you feel about the concept of genetic engineering/designer babies?

Question

Personally I am in favor of it for everything. I get how it makes some people feel weirded out, but I think it's better than the current state of affairs where people are privileged or held back and treated as inferior vs superior based on traits that they had no control over. Regardless of the whole "we are all equal in our own way" mantra that some people push it still seems like there are traits that are conventionally desirable and those that are undesirable and that the more desirable traits you have the better off you are. As a result I think it would reduce a lot of inequalities and improve happiness if we could prevent people from getting the undesirable traits in the first place and ensure only the desirable ones are expressed.

Thoughts?

I am in favor of it but only for preventing deseases

I am in favor of it for everything including physical traits

I am completely against it

Select age and gender to cast your vote:

GirlGuy

Updates:

2 mo

For the people who said they were against cosmetic things being controlled for, are you also against those same traits being modified via cosmetic surgery?

So for example lets say cosmetic surgery advanced to the point where every trait could be modified in a safe reliable way, would you oppose that too or do you only oppose those things being controlled genetically?

Answer 1

hellionthesagereborn | 174 opinions shared on Family & Friends topic.

Guru

I am not for it. I can understand it for removal of genetic disorders, but I think that nature is far more complicated then we like to think. I think the disorder that is found within our genetics is there for a reason, because it is what allows us to adapt, if you remove that disorder you create sameness and by extension weakness. You run the risk of altering our genetics to the point were diversity is removed to the point were we all have the same strengths but also the same weakness.

For example, their is a genetic alteration that removes protien markers from white blood cells. They seem to be harmless but it turns out that they do have a great benefit, namely in the resistence and immunity to HIV. Sickle cell anemia affects many people of African descent, it causes a host of issues and is a serious problem BUT it is a recessive gene, so you need two of them to get it however if you get only one, it deforms your blood cells ever so slightly with no real negative consequence but bestows a significant degree of malaria resistence (and potentially other blood born parasite/diseases).

If we look at plant mutations, we have a series of good examples of why genetic engineering could be bad or out right dangerous. Now while its not strictly genetic engineering if we look at bananas we can see the dangers of not having enough diversity within our genetics. The Gros Michel was the banana that was most common for the early 1900s all the way up until the 1960s where it nearly went extinct. Because of how they produce it, all plants were genetically identical which meant that they were highly susceptible to certain diseases, what would kill one would kill all of them.

Tomatoes were bred for their color because bright red is more appetizing, however doing this genetic alteration lead to the unfortunate mutation of reduced flavor, so Tomatoes today are less enjoyable then they were historically simply because of this mistake.

Seemingly insignificant mutations could be removed that would be beneficial given the right set of circumstances, or ones that seem harmful can be in other forms be highly beneficial. So I think its very important to be aware of that and tread very carefully in this regard. I fully understand the desire for it but frequently we don't realize what we are screwing with until its too late and in this case, this is your children who will suffer the consequences (or grand children or great great great grandchildren) if even the slightest mistake is made. So while I think we should definitley learn more and consider it, I think we need to be very careful with its applications.

Bandit74

2 mo
I would agree it needs to be approached carefully but that doesn't mean we shouldn't approach it at all. It's not like all variations in trait are equally beneficial. Lots of people suffer and are treated poorly for those variations. Do future generations really need to suffer just for the sake of diversity?
hellionthesagereborn

2 mo
Well I wasn't suggesting we shouldn't approach it at all, I was pointing out that you shouldn't screw with a system unless your more then 100% certain of what every single thing does and even then if their is nothing wrong you should probably not meddle with it. Hence me stating that for genetic disorders sure, but designer babies no and in both cases you should be very very careful because you don't know what could happen (and if a mutation that has negative consequences gets passed on it will get harder and harder to stop the spread of it (in particular if its a recessive gene sort of thing or is only activated under specific circumstances).

As for "diversity", we are not talking about racial diversity but genetic diversity and that is quite literally the entire reason why we have an aversion to siblings and a taboo against incest because they do not have enough genetic diversity which means negative mutations get passed on far easier, ones that can be lethal for the next generation. I personally would hate to have to explain four generations from now why they are all dying because we thought it was so important that every one have x color of eyes and a six pack.

So like I said, when necessary to remove a mutation that would be lethal, debilating or what have you, fine under the circumstances that they are very very careful, otherwise we let nature play out exactly as it has been doing because after all, its a system that has managed to survive mass extinction after mass extinction, radical shifts in atmosphere radical shifts in temperature, diseases, changing enviroments etc. and is responsible for why humans and life in general is so adaptable and so resistent to death.
hellionthesagereborn

2 mo
I am personally against cosmetic surgery, but I think its up to the individual. That however is not applicable to genetics because genetics can be inherited, that means its more along the lines of getting your child cosmetic surgery against their will rather then getting it for yourself.
Show All Show Less
Bandit74

2 mo
My intended point of this wasn't necessarily genetics it was more about preventing people from having traits that make them disadvantaged. To me genetic engineering was one possible solution but since people seem hung up on that I am now proposing surgery to see if the sticking point is with modifying away undesirable characteristics vs the method through which it is done.
hellionthesagereborn

2 mo
Well how does one define an "undesirable trait"? Their is a guy who is completely color blind (he quite literally doesn't see color of any kind, just black and white). He got a device that beeps when presented with a color, each beep corresponds to a different color. He now produces art based upon sound i. e. he paints using those beeps and he now hears color from years of using this device so he paints abstract paintings (very colorful) based upon famous speeches and such. We wouldn't have that if he fixed his condition.

Theodore Roosevelt was Asthmatic as a kid, had a lot of tragedy. However this also pushed him to embrace the, as he called it, "Strenuous life", which allowed him to overcome most of those "negative traits" of his child hood to become arguablly the most manly man in history. So would that have happened if he had gone the easy way?
hellionthesagereborn

2 mo
A philosopher (who's name escapes me) had polio through out his entire body as a teenager. He was told he was going to die before the night was through so he asked his family to turn his bed to the window because if he was going to die he was going to die seeing the sunrise. He survived. Then they told him he would never regain functionality of his body and he would be bed ridden for life. So he forced himself to regain mobility in his arms and upper body. Then they told him he would never walk again, and well long story short he walked with a cane but he still walked. This shaped his entire philsophocal views and character without which all of his work would be nonexistent.

My point is struggle and weaknesses force us to look at things differently, function in ways that we would otherwise not do and from it learn incredible life lessons and develop incredible skills which then improve society as a whole. So getting rid of everything bad is in fact a "negative trait", some times you need those things to develop and learn and grow both individually but also as a species (I mean most of our understanding of genetics and the brain for instance come from defects and mutations that screw things up).

So we definitley should deal with the ones that are going to be debilitating to the point of non functionality but we should be careful not to meddle to much otherwise we may in fact do more harm then good.
SomeBlondeChick

2 mo
@Bandit74 - specific physical traits that make people "disadvantaged". So in essence eradicate minority skin tones as that is a predominant factor of disadvantageous situations. Sure you're not Hilter reborn? Your ideology, after all, would make him very proud what when it runs akin to the superior "Aryan" race.
hellionthesagereborn

2 mo
@SomeBlondeChick Were the hell did you get that from? Also are you seriously stating that different skin colors are "disadvantaged"? Sounds a bit racist on your part not his.
Bandit74

2 mo
@SomeBlondeChick
Honestly I was not even thinking of skin color when saying that. I am talking more in terms of things like height, facial structure, intelligence etc.

Answer 2

Bandit74

I would agree it needs to be approached carefully but that doesn't mean we shouldn't approach it at all. It's not like all variations in trait are equally beneficial. Lots of people suffer and are treated poorly for those variations. Do future generations really need to suffer just for the sake of diversity?

Answer 3

hellionthesagereborn

Well I wasn't suggesting we shouldn't approach it at all, I was pointing out that you shouldn't screw with a system unless your more then 100% certain of what every single thing does and even then if their is nothing wrong you should probably not meddle with it. Hence me stating that for genetic disorders sure, but designer babies no and in both cases you should be very very careful because you don't know what could happen (and if a mutation that has negative consequences gets passed on it will get harder and harder to stop the spread of it (in particular if its a recessive gene sort of thing or is only activated under specific circumstances).

As for "diversity", we are not talking about racial diversity but genetic diversity and that is quite literally the entire reason why we have an aversion to siblings and a taboo against incest because they do not have enough genetic diversity which means negative mutations get passed on far easier, ones that can be lethal for the next generation. I personally would hate to have to explain four generations from now why they are all dying because we thought it was so important that every one have x color of eyes and a six pack.

So like I said, when necessary to remove a mutation that would be lethal, debilating or what have you, fine under the circumstances that they are very very careful, otherwise we let nature play out exactly as it has been doing because after all, its a system that has managed to survive mass extinction after mass extinction, radical shifts in atmosphere radical shifts in temperature, diseases, changing enviroments etc. and is responsible for why humans and life in general is so adaptable and so resistent to death.

Answer 4

hellionthesagereborn

I am personally against cosmetic surgery, but I think its up to the individual. That however is not applicable to genetics because genetics can be inherited, that means its more along the lines of getting your child cosmetic surgery against their will rather then getting it for yourself.

Answer 5

Bandit74

My intended point of this wasn't necessarily genetics it was more about preventing people from having traits that make them disadvantaged. To me genetic engineering was one possible solution but since people seem hung up on that I am now proposing surgery to see if the sticking point is with modifying away undesirable characteristics vs the method through which it is done.

Answer 6

hellionthesagereborn

Well how does one define an "undesirable trait"? Their is a guy who is completely color blind (he quite literally doesn't see color of any kind, just black and white). He got a device that beeps when presented with a color, each beep corresponds to a different color. He now produces art based upon sound i. e. he paints using those beeps and he now hears color from years of using this device so he paints abstract paintings (very colorful) based upon famous speeches and such. We wouldn't have that if he fixed his condition.

Theodore Roosevelt was Asthmatic as a kid, had a lot of tragedy. However this also pushed him to embrace the, as he called it, "Strenuous life", which allowed him to overcome most of those "negative traits" of his child hood to become arguablly the most manly man in history. So would that have happened if he had gone the easy way?

Answer 7

hellionthesagereborn

A philosopher (who's name escapes me) had polio through out his entire body as a teenager. He was told he was going to die before the night was through so he asked his family to turn his bed to the window because if he was going to die he was going to die seeing the sunrise. He survived. Then they told him he would never regain functionality of his body and he would be bed ridden for life. So he forced himself to regain mobility in his arms and upper body. Then they told him he would never walk again, and well long story short he walked with a cane but he still walked. This shaped his entire philsophocal views and character without which all of his work would be nonexistent.

My point is struggle and weaknesses force us to look at things differently, function in ways that we would otherwise not do and from it learn incredible life lessons and develop incredible skills which then improve society as a whole. So getting rid of everything bad is in fact a "negative trait", some times you need those things to develop and learn and grow both individually but also as a species (I mean most of our understanding of genetics and the brain for instance come from defects and mutations that screw things up).

So we definitley should deal with the ones that are going to be debilitating to the point of non functionality but we should be careful not to meddle to much otherwise we may in fact do more harm then good.

Answer 8

SomeBlondeChick

@Bandit74 - specific physical traits that make people "disadvantaged". So in essence eradicate minority skin tones as that is a predominant factor of disadvantageous situations. Sure you're not Hilter reborn? Your ideology, after all, would make him very proud what when it runs akin to the superior "Aryan" race.

Answer 9

hellionthesagereborn

@SomeBlondeChick Were the hell did you get that from? Also are you seriously stating that different skin colors are "disadvantaged"? Sounds a bit racist on your part not his.

Answer 10

Bandit74

@SomeBlondeChick
Honestly I was not even thinking of skin color when saying that. I am talking more in terms of things like height, facial structure, intelligence etc.

Answer 11

Not_Average

Xper 6

I’m all for innovative technology, but this would really throw off the natural forces in a way in which I can’t predict. I’ve thought about this one a lot. At what point do desirable traits no longer become desirable because they are assigned by default and society won’t know what biological flaws look like? How do we value individuality? Does that cause some type of mental trauma when we are absent of that feeling makes us feel special or unique during certain developmental and pivotal periods of our life? Is this a mental illness in which the clinical psychological realm are prepared to deal with? Does this destroy the institution of marriage? Will children be able to suffice the barrier of adolescence without two parental figures having their superior genetics?

These are the questions I ask myself, and I really can’t come up with solid answers tbh. It’s such a complex whirlwind of a concept to throw off natural equilibriums in such a way. I don’t even think some of the brightest minds will be able to accurately decipher and predict the offset turbulence this could potentially cause.

As an engineer- anytime I go too deep down the rabbit hole on technology, it serves me best to walk away coming back to it at a later time. So this has been on my mental reserves for a while.

I invest in a company that is developing effective gene editing, but it’s mostly to solve biologically defects such as hereditary blindness. It’s very interesting, but there is a point in which technology serves a disadvantage towards society even if it’s designed with the best intentions.

I always gotta re-read this guy whenever I’m brain storming through issues like this.

https://www.nspe.org/resources/ethics/code-ethics?gclid=Cj0KCQiA48j9BRC-ARIsAMQu3WSKFHWRr17lvZf3H6JwVU2EoJA6jiZY6W_VbLwk4Ti32CgEnyQCadgaAkJmEALw_wcB

Bandit74

2 mo
I think the traits that are desirable would still be desirable there just wouldn't be any special treatment/privilege for possessing those traits as they would be the default as you put it. For example it's desirable to have two eyes but nobody really gets special treatment for it because it's the norm and what most people have.

-"What do you mean by society knowing what biological flaws look like?"
I would imagine if we had such a precise understanding and control over genetics we could probably account for whatever flaws you are concerned with.

-"How do we value individuality?"
Yeah, there would be less individuality for sure but I don't think we'd necessarily all look exactly the same. Just certain traits that we collectively find undesirable would disappear for example short stature in men. And is individuality so important that it justifies the suffering and mistreatment of people who were just unlucky with the cards they were delt?
Yeah they are unique but I think most would happily give that uniqueness to not be disadvantaged. I think you would too if you didn't have the traits you currently have.

-"Does that cause some type of mental trauma?"
Like I mentioned in my previous point people already experience mental trauma based on the variation that exists. I find it hard to imagine that fixing those inequalities would result in more mental trauma than what already exists.

-"Does this destroy the institution of marriage? "
How would it destroy marriage, if anything I would imagine it helps it as it would push more emphasis on personality compatibility rather than looks since a higher percentage of people would pass the attractiveness threshold.

All that being said I think tea-spaghetti made a good point about genetics being only half the equation for a lot of traits. So perhaps in the realm of physical traits we'd be more successful advancing cosmetic surgery than genetic engineering.

Answer 12

Bandit74

I think the traits that are desirable would still be desirable there just wouldn't be any special treatment/privilege for possessing those traits as they would be the default as you put it. For example it's desirable to have two eyes but nobody really gets special treatment for it because it's the norm and what most people have.

-"What do you mean by society knowing what biological flaws look like?"
I would imagine if we had such a precise understanding and control over genetics we could probably account for whatever flaws you are concerned with.

-"How do we value individuality?"
Yeah, there would be less individuality for sure but I don't think we'd necessarily all look exactly the same. Just certain traits that we collectively find undesirable would disappear for example short stature in men. And is individuality so important that it justifies the suffering and mistreatment of people who were just unlucky with the cards they were delt?
Yeah they are unique but I think most would happily give that uniqueness to not be disadvantaged. I think you would too if you didn't have the traits you currently have.

-"Does that cause some type of mental trauma?"
Like I mentioned in my previous point people already experience mental trauma based on the variation that exists. I find it hard to imagine that fixing those inequalities would result in more mental trauma than what already exists.

-"Does this destroy the institution of marriage? "
How would it destroy marriage, if anything I would imagine it helps it as it would push more emphasis on personality compatibility rather than looks since a higher percentage of people would pass the attractiveness threshold.

All that being said I think tea-spaghetti made a good point about genetics being only half the equation for a lot of traits. So perhaps in the realm of physical traits we'd be more successful advancing cosmetic surgery than genetic engineering.

Answer 13

SomeBlondeChick

Xper 6

Humans are unique, not robots. We are not mass produced in some facility, cloned one after another. Each "imperfection" is what makes a person special. If someone can not embrace themselves for who they are being a clone of everyone around them isn't going to change a damn thing.

.

On that I am against "cosmetic" babies. With specific physical traits. What point is that? Aside from being a form of euthenics and that's what the **Nazis** were all gun-ho for (the "superior" blue eyed, blonde & fair skinned "Aryan race" and comically Jews can be just as blue eyed, blonde & fair skinned). .

Besides we don't know all the genetics of humanity as it is. DNA sites like ancestry, 23&me, etc. they're always changing their particulars. Due to this found genes don't apply to every single person - I'm supposed to have straight dark hair per 23&me's sequencing without a hint of red, I'm a natural strawberry blonde with quite a bit of wavy/curl - because not everything's discovered.

Similarly my username says someblondechick. Sure I'm fair, blue-grey eyed, and strawberry blonde. I also happen to tan not burn by genetic fluke (of Mediterranean ancestry / father tanning very dark). If I was some "cosmetic" baby based on the poor understanding of the human genome I'd be a boiled lobster red every summer within 30 minutes instead of being able to sit out and read on the deck for 2+ hours without a hint of a burn & without sunscreen because geneticists would never be able to figure out my unique & natural genetic code.
.

I am also against "gender-specific" babies. Certain countries & societies are against female offspring for different reasons. If you allow them to program the gender of their children that is not a step forward that is 100 steps backwards that will just ensure the continued and endless suffering of women in these countries. Because if you can design gender specific babies what purpose would a woman have there aside from being a sort of "broodmare" (and that's how many are viewed now)

.

The ONLY genetic engineering I would EVER consider permissible or even for that matter moral is for severe mental or physical disabilities. Such children can oftentimes live either short or painful or hurtful (e. g. being bullied & ostracized, harassed and isolated from society) lives. They don't deserve that. If there was a way to "correct" such issues or "weed them" out of the gene pool that is fantastic.

Anything else for genetic engineering is just pure selfishness. .

Answer 14

Ally247 | 173 opinions shared on Family & Friends topic.

Yoda

It's terrible, it only further supports a certain societal beauty standard and discourages anything unique. We need to move away from that, not give into it.

Bandit74

2 mo
I don't know, I think a lot of what we find desirable is deeply ingrained in us and society just reflects back what we already like.

What value is there in uniqueness if it only serves to restrict your options and lead to you being disproportionately mocked and viewed as less than?
Ally247

2 mo
Why do the views of others matter? We need to celebrate and embrace individuality, not give into a one sighted, narrow societal view and imposition
Bandit74

2 mo
Most people do care about how others view them and how others view you affects how they treat you. I don't think you can just make it not matter.

I think those who fall within the ideal range of characteristics will always be privileged whether it's socially, sexually, romantically, economically etc and the further you deviate from that range the more disadvantaged you will be.

I'm sorry, I just don't believe we will ever have a word where someone who falls within the ideal range doesn't have significant advantages over those who deviate from that ideal. I truly think it is more realistic to just allow everyone to fall in the ideal range than it is to eliminate the concept of the ideal range. I would suspect that even you probably have bias whether it's socially, sexually, or romantically towards those who fall within what is conventionally considered desirable.
Show All Show Less
Ally247

2 mo
That's so superficial
Bandit74

2 mo
It is realistic.
Ally247

2 mo
That's literally just submitting to society and letting ourselves be shaped by marketing techniques that only seek to further capitalism
Bandit74

2 mo
Do you think it's marketing that influences what we find attractive and that without it what we consider desirable would be evenly distributed among all possible traits?
Ally247

2 mo
Without it there'd be a stronger emphasis on beauty is in the eye of the beholder, with it currently all we see is a cookie cutter ideal thrown in our faces
Bandit74

2 mo
Without it do you think the people who are currently considered ugly would have the same sex appeal as the people who are currently considered hot?

And what about things like intelligence or inheritable deases? Wouldn't it not be beneficial to control for those?
Ally247

2 mo
No, but everyone would be deemed considerably more attractive than they are currently because there is no ideal to compare to.

If you control everything then what's natural?
Bandit74

2 mo
I just find that hard to believe. I think it's more likely that the media just shows us what we already like and even without it our preferences would still be the same.

Depends on how you define the word natural and not being natural isn't necessarily bad.
Ally247

2 mo
Well with the growth of media and technology, grows the industry of makeup, plastic surgery and insecurities. That tells you something.

Never said that, but that's like a fake world. What happened to celebrating our differences?
Bandit74

2 mo
I'll meet you in the middle. I think what the media shows us as ideal is genuinely what we collectively find most desirable ie women wouldn't suddenly prefer short fat guys over tall fit ones if "the media" suddenly disappeared. However, social media, advertising, tv, movies, online dating etc probably skews our perceptions of what is average. Not just with filters, makeup, photoshop but also accessiblity. Before technology you would only really be compared to and have the ability to date within your local community but now we are compared to and can interact with the best looking from all over the world.

Still I think pandoras box is opened and that it's easier/more realistic to just let everyone have the traits we innately prefer.

Not really fake, the people born through genetic engineering would still have real biological bones, skin tissue etc. Not like we're making them with synthetic materials. Differences are not bad and even if genetic engineering were to become a thing there would still be differences just less. Like I don't think we'd all have the same hair and eye color, but chances are no one would choose to let their kid be born with the traits that most people find undesirable.
Ally247

2 mo
You met me in the middle, whilst I disagree with you I won't press. I think I've got my point across, and so have you.
Bandit74

2 mo
Fair enough.
Thanks for being open minded instead of writing it off as Nazism like some other users
Ally247

2 mo
I enjoy a debate
007kingifrit

2 mo
uuuuh disabilities aren't "unique" their horrible blights on people's lives
SomeBlondeChick

2 mo
@Bandit74 - Most people do care about how others view them and how others view you affects how they treat you. I don't think you can just make it not matter.

No they don't. People with inferiority complexes actually do care what others think and that wouldn't change if they all looked like perfect clones of one another because Clone A could be better at singing, Clone B better at basketball & Clone C can't do shit.

Answer 15

Bandit74

I don't know, I think a lot of what we find desirable is deeply ingrained in us and society just reflects back what we already like.

What value is there in uniqueness if it only serves to restrict your options and lead to you being disproportionately mocked and viewed as less than?

Answer 16

Ally247

Why do the views of others matter? We need to celebrate and embrace individuality, not give into a one sighted, narrow societal view and imposition

Answer 17

Bandit74

Most people do care about how others view them and how others view you affects how they treat you. I don't think you can just make it not matter.

I think those who fall within the ideal range of characteristics will always be privileged whether it's socially, sexually, romantically, economically etc and the further you deviate from that range the more disadvantaged you will be.

I'm sorry, I just don't believe we will ever have a word where someone who falls within the ideal range doesn't have significant advantages over those who deviate from that ideal. I truly think it is more realistic to just allow everyone to fall in the ideal range than it is to eliminate the concept of the ideal range. I would suspect that even you probably have bias whether it's socially, sexually, or romantically towards those who fall within what is conventionally considered desirable.

Answer 18

Ally247

That's so superficial

Answer 19

Bandit74

It is realistic.

Answer 20

Ally247

That's literally just submitting to society and letting ourselves be shaped by marketing techniques that only seek to further capitalism

Answer 21

Bandit74

Do you think it's marketing that influences what we find attractive and that without it what we consider desirable would be evenly distributed among all possible traits?

Answer 22

Ally247

Without it there'd be a stronger emphasis on beauty is in the eye of the beholder, with it currently all we see is a cookie cutter ideal thrown in our faces

Answer 23

Bandit74

Without it do you think the people who are currently considered ugly would have the same sex appeal as the people who are currently considered hot?

And what about things like intelligence or inheritable deases? Wouldn't it not be beneficial to control for those?

Answer 24

Ally247

No, but everyone would be deemed considerably more attractive than they are currently because there is no ideal to compare to.

If you control everything then what's natural?

Answer 25

Bandit74

I just find that hard to believe. I think it's more likely that the media just shows us what we already like and even without it our preferences would still be the same.

Depends on how you define the word natural and not being natural isn't necessarily bad.

Answer 26

Ally247

Well with the growth of media and technology, grows the industry of makeup, plastic surgery and insecurities. That tells you something.

Never said that, but that's like a fake world. What happened to celebrating our differences?

Answer 27

Bandit74

I'll meet you in the middle. I think what the media shows us as ideal is genuinely what we collectively find most desirable ie women wouldn't suddenly prefer short fat guys over tall fit ones if "the media" suddenly disappeared. However, social media, advertising, tv, movies, online dating etc probably skews our perceptions of what is average. Not just with filters, makeup, photoshop but also accessiblity. Before technology you would only really be compared to and have the ability to date within your local community but now we are compared to and can interact with the best looking from all over the world.

Still I think pandoras box is opened and that it's easier/more realistic to just let everyone have the traits we innately prefer.

Not really fake, the people born through genetic engineering would still have real biological bones, skin tissue etc. Not like we're making them with synthetic materials. Differences are not bad and even if genetic engineering were to become a thing there would still be differences just less. Like I don't think we'd all have the same hair and eye color, but chances are no one would choose to let their kid be born with the traits that most people find undesirable.

Answer 28

Ally247

You met me in the middle, whilst I disagree with you I won't press. I think I've got my point across, and so have you.

Answer 29

Bandit74

Fair enough.
Thanks for being open minded instead of writing it off as Nazism like some other users

Answer 30

Ally247

I enjoy a debate

Answer 31

007kingifrit

uuuuh disabilities aren't "unique" their horrible blights on people's lives

Answer 32

SomeBlondeChick

@Bandit74 - Most people do care about how others view them and how others view you affects how they treat you. I don't think you can just make it not matter.

No they don't. People with inferiority complexes actually do care what others think and that wouldn't change if they all looked like perfect clones of one another because Clone A could be better at singing, Clone B better at basketball & Clone C can't do shit.

Answer 33

KimmyWhimmy

Xper 6

Absolutely not

Bandit74

2 mo
Can you elaborate a bit?

Answer 34

Bandit74

Can you elaborate a bit?

How do you feel about the concept of genetic engineering/designer babies?

Most Helpful Guys

Most Helpful Girls

What Girls & Guys Said

Related myTakes