Designer Babies: One step at a time

[r2d2d3d4d5]

In the UK The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) may alter its rules on creating babies to help sick siblings. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3903535.stm)

Now, I've yet to make up my mine about how I feel about allowing genetic selection but the scientists and doctors seem to have already made up their minds and are putting us all on the same slippery slope.

[Saint Lucifer]

I fail to see the problem here. If it can make someone's life better, doesn't it seem a bit 'evil' (for lack of a better word) to stand in the way of another person's salvation just so someone else not even connected to the benefactor doesn't have to suffer through a moral quandary?

[Sazar]

I don't agree with this...

I can see stem cell research and its implications but this is beyond wrong...

if someone is going to die due to a disease and there is no help for them... tough luck... been nice knowing you...

[Son Goku]

Bleh, what's going to be next? Cloaning adults as organ banks? :barf:

[PsychoSy]

That's exactly what the world needs -- an indefinite supply of "PsychoSy"s and "Udawg"s ... :p

:nana: :nana: :nana:

Bleh, what's going to be next? Cloaning adults as organ banks?

Customer: "Excuse me, sir! Where do you keep your gall bladders?"

Clerk: "Isle 7. Right next to the ice cream ..."

(shudders)

[Saint Lucifer]

Bleh, what's going to be next? Cloaning adults as organ banks?:barf:
I honestly don't see what is so bad about that, either. If you can make organ banks lack the mental capacity to appreciate their situation, there's no harm. Best of all, think of all the lives it could save.

Oh, sure... it's nice and easy to say, "if someone is going to die due to a disease and there is no help for them... tough luck... been nice knowing you..." but overall it doesn't take medical advances into consideration. If we have organ farms, essentially there will be something we can do to help. How is that a bad thing?

[Son Goku]

Cloning (aka creating) people in order to harvest their organs... Bleh The clone is arguably another individual... Disposable people, and a world full of clones that are simply used as organ banks is something I definitely would not want to see.

Oh hi mini-me. This will be over in a sec...

I'm sorry, but I for one wouldn't want my life saved at the cost of taking another, in order to harvest the organs...

[Rakeesh]

if someone is going to die due to a disease and there is no help for them... tough luck... been nice knowing you...

Good ol' natural selection (which I personally agree with.) But then you bleeding hearts disagree when it comes to AIDS education. Ah, the grand paradox that is left wing politics :D

[Saint Lucifer]

I'm sorry, but I for one wouldn't want my life saved at the cost of taking another, in order to harvest the organs...You always have the right to allow yourself to wither and die... everyone has that right.

Besides... everyone benefits from someone else's misfortune or circumstances.

[Saint Lucifer]

Good ol' natural selection (which I personally agree with.) But then you bleeding hearts disagree when it comes to AIDS education. Ah, the grand paradox that is left wing politics :DYeah! And here I thought everyone of the same political party held the same beliefs! :retard:

[Sazar]

Good ol' natural selection (which I personally agree with.) But then you bleeding hearts disagree when it comes to AIDS education. Ah, the grand paradox that is left wing politics :D

show me where I have disagreed :)

you imagine someone says something and then harp on it till you think it is fact :)

I have never said abstinence is bad or that it should not be proposed... I disagree with the policy of locking 1/3rd of all funding for abstinence programs and I disagree with bush seeking to help nations that propose or pursue abstinence first policies BEFORE nations that have a serious AIDS problem and are seeking help to educate and control the issue...

[Son Goku]

Creating a living being (be they baby, another adult, or what not), with the express purpose of harvesting their organs/killing them... I'm sorry, but I do have a problem with that.

Now, if we could find a way to create the needed organ (and just that organ) within the individuals body, or to repair/regenerate the cells (beyond our current level of medical technology I'm sure), that could be another matter.

But when we're talking about creating disposable individuals... :eek:

[Sazar]

I honestly don't see what is so bad about that, either. If you can make organ banks lack the mental capacity to appreciate their situation, there's no harm. Best of all, think of all the lives it could save.

Oh, sure... it's nice and easy to say, "if someone is going to die due to a disease and there is no help for them... tough luck... been nice knowing you..." but overall it doesn't take medical advances into consideration. If we have organ farms, essentially there will be something we can do to help. How is that a bad thing?

I can understand and I do fully support stem cell research because it seems likely to lead to positive results in the medical field especially when dealing with issues such as Alzheimers and the like...

harvesting organs from clones though seems a little off because then you get the issue of clones rights that will pop up and there is no logical reason for a sentient and self-sufficient clone not to have rights..

if the organs are grown independent of a host body I am for it... if not then I am against it...

[r2d2d3d4d5]

This child hasn't been born yet but it's already been decided that it's going to spend a large part of its early life acting as a blood bank for its brother. The article doesn't say for how long but this could be a life long thing. What if it doesn't work out? This kid is going to know that it was borned for one purpose and it failed in that purpose. Even if it works the kid is bound to be confused as to why its parents had it and whether they wanted it.

OK giving up a little bid of blood and spending a little while in a hospital is not going to hurt the kid. But what if a transplant was necessary that would involve much more suffering for the child?

If they are now selecting embryos based on the properties of their blood, what next? Will we eventually have a civilization were those that can afford it could make sure that they only chose the smart/strong/tall/etc embryos.

What if they can't find the right embryo in the batch they have? Why not change a few genes (when the tec is available) to make sure that the blood is a perfect match? Then why not a change a couple more genes to make sure that it's less prone to infection (in case it has to spend a long time in the hospital). Or how about green eyes? Green eyes look nice……

One step at a time.

[Son Goku]

Let me just throw this in here. Identical twins, in a manner of speaking are like clones (though the zygote split inside the womb, and they're born around the same time; as opposed to being cloned by scientists). Identical twins, despite their genetic similarities are still seperate individuals.

It would seem unthinkable, to suggest useing one twin as an organ bank for the other. Who, that is an identical twin, would even want to think of having their own brother used in this way?

[Saint Lucifer]

I'll try not to miss a point, but I have more than I usually do to address.
I can understand and I do fully support stem cell research because it seems likely to lead to positive results in the medical field especially when dealing with issues such as Alzheimers and the like...

harvesting organs from clones though seems a little off because then you get the issue of clones rights that will pop up and there is no logical reason for a sentient and self-sufficient clone not to have rights..

if the organs are grown independent of a host body I am for it... if not then I am against it...
There is no reason to make them intelligent enough to appreciate their situation. That is the crux of the issue. Once you make them that intelligent, that is about the only time I even begin to see any sort of moral issue.

Of course, this brings up the whole concept of trading 'a life for a life' and the relative value of life... throughout history we have constantly traded one life for another, two lives for one, and more even. The concept is not new to us. The best difference in is this scenario is that we finally have the chance to trade one life (the clone's) for so many more. One clone could actually give several organs to completely different people. After all, it is mostly based upon blood type.
---

This child hasn't been born yet but it's already been decided that it's going to spend a large part of its early life acting as a blood bank for its brother. The article doesn't say for how long but this could be a life long thing. What if it doesn't work out? This kid is going to know that it was borned for one purpose and it failed in that purpose. Even if it works the kid is bound to be confused as to why its parents had it and whether they wanted it.Or if it all works out, the child can know that it served a remarkably useful purpose and was able to save its brother. Who knows how the child will react?
---
Let me just throw this in here. Identical twins, in a manner of speaking are like clones (though the zygote split inside the womb, and they're born around the same time; as opposed to being cloned by scientists). Identical twins, despite their genetic similarities are still seperate individuals.

It would seem unthinkable, to suggest useing one twin as an organ bank for the other. Who, that is an identical twin, would even want to think of having their own brother used in this way?The difference is that the clone is created for the express purpose of saving someone's life. There is no real bond or kinship between the original person and his clone.

Perhaps I can't understand that point of view because I hate my brother oh so very much. (Not to say that he is my twin.) :D

[Sazar]

I'll try not to miss a point, but I have more than I usually do to address.

There is no reason to make them intelligent enough to appreciate their situation. That is the crux of the issue. Once you make them that intelligent, that is about the only time I even begin to see any sort of moral issue.

Of course, this brings up the whole concept of trading 'a life for a life' and the relative value of life... throughout history we have constantly traded one life for another, two lives for one, and more even. The concept is not new to us. The best difference in is this scenario is that we finally have the chance to trade one life (the clone's) for so many more. One clone could actually give several organs to completely different people. After all, it is mostly based upon blood type.

yes there are uses for this technology and know-how.. undoubtedly.. and we already have it in our hands..

the problem is how do you make them "not intelligent enough"

effectively you are bringing forth a sentient (or semi-sentient being) for the sole purpose of harvesting parts from them.. after which you are left with? 1 still sick person and one retarded person for lack of a better term..

IF the organs can be harvested w/o the need for a sentient being to be created/cloned/whatever than thats great but having a real live person around just makes it VERY wrong..

I support teh choice for abortion upto a degree but I sure as hell don't support killing people who are out of the womb and surviving by themselves...

Or if it all works out, the child can know that it served a remarkably useful purpose and was able to save its brother. Who knows how the child will react?

how so if the intelligence is proposed to be reduced?

The difference is that the clone is created for the express purpose of saving someone's life. There is no real bond or kinship between the original person and his clone.

Perhaps I can't understand that point of view because I hate my brother oh so very much. (Not to say that he is my twin.) :D

yes but the problem is that there is no proof the clone will NOT have feelings...

I was born a set of 2 twins and even though my brother did not survive beyond the first coupla days I still have a feeling of attachment thinking about what could have been.. its probably why I respect my elder brother so much even though he was a pratt in his early teens (:D)

the whole process of growing people just to cut out parts is just incredibly wrong..

the clones will (for all intents and purposes) be more perfect than the person they are being grown for... whats to stop people from offing the "defective" person and replacing them with the clone?

[r2d2d3d4d5]

This child hasn't been born yet but it's already been decided that it's going to spend a large part of its early life acting as a blood bank for its brother. The article doesn't say for how long but this could be a life long thing.
I've been reliably (ish) informed that in this case only the placenta is necessary for the treatment.

But once the precedent is set more complicate/extended procedures could be on the horizon for other embryos. It would certainly become more difficult to deny a family a chance to possibly save the life of one of their children.

[Saint Lucifer]

the problem is how do you make them "not intelligent enough"I'm not a scientist, so you cannot expect me to tell you exactly how, but if you can clone someone and alter their genetic makeup, I imagine that altering their mental ability wouldn't be a stretch.

effectively you are bringing forth a sentient (or semi-sentient being) for the sole purpose of harvesting parts from them.. after which you are left with? 1 still sick person and one retarded person for lack of a better term..You are left with one hopefully better person and one other vessel that served its purpose.

how so if the intelligence is proposed to be reduced?The part you're quoting was in my response to R2d2-etc, as such, it was tailoured to be only a response to him and his situation. Ideally, the clone wouldn't be intelligent enough to be aware of the situation. Unfortunately, my response was one aimed towards a scenario where the child would probably be aware.

yes but the problem is that there is no proof the clone will NOT have feelings...To be perfectly blunt, I'm practically certain that it would. Hence my reason for limiting its thought. That way, it seems less cruel when it cannot actually comprehend its existance. Ideally, it would be blissfully unaware.

the clones will (for all intents and purposes) be more perfect than the person they are being grown for... whats to stop people from offing the "defective" person and replacing them with the clone?Because the clone is not actually the original person, just a copy.

[intercede007]

Unfortunatly, this is one of those arguments where you are either for it, or against it.

These type discussions go further down then facts and figures; it's a deeply routed personal feeling that aren't going to change because a scientist could do this or an ethicist said that.

[r2d2d3d4d5]

Unfortunatly, this is one of those arguments where you are either for it, or against it.

These type discussions go further down then facts and figures; it's a deeply routed personal feeling that aren't going to change because a scientist could do this or an ethicist said that.
I'm still undecided. I think this argument has a long way to go yet (not necessarily in this thread, but generally).

Yes, I have concerns, but I also think this kind of technology has a lot of potential for good.

[Rakeesh]

Yeah! And here I thought everyone of the same political party held the same beliefs! :retard:

show me where I have disagreed :)

That comment was not referring to anybody here specifically, rather that side in general.

you imagine someone says something and then harp on it till you think it is fact :)

Show me where I have done this :D

[Son Goku]

I'm not a scientist, so you cannot expect me to tell you exactly how, but if you can clone someone and alter their genetic makeup, I imagine that altering their mental ability wouldn't be a stretch.

And the moment a person starts messing around with certain genes... Eukariotic gene expression is not as simple as in prokariotes... A slight change in a regulator gene (a gene that regulates the expression of other genes) could have, potentially far reaching consequences beyond one simple change...

And I have a problem with this as well. Attempting to make stupid people, to use as a vessel to serve some purpose... I would not want to live in a world necessarily with a permanent "donor class" comprising up to 50% of the nations population. This would arguably make us little different from the Gauld (for anyone who has watched Stargate SG1), bleh...

And beyond the moral issues of growing people for this express purpose (which, personally I find a bit repugnant); there's also social issues. When they find out they were created for this purpose, and given a survival instinct in our species, how are they likely to react? I could even see an uprising (potentially) with civil unrest between clones and non-clones, with the clones (feeling opressed) not liking their station in the current social order. This sorta thing could get real ugly, and perhaps real fast.

As to trying to "make them stupid", the effort in trying to create organs without a host body (or in nano-tech or something, where damaged tissue could be re-built from the atom up) would, as far as I'm concerned, be time better spent.

[Son Goku]

yes but the problem is that there is no proof the clone will NOT have feelings...

I was born a set of 2 twins and even though my brother did not survive beyond the first coupla days I still have a feeling of attachment thinking about what could have been.. its probably why I respect my elder brother so much even though he was a pratt in his early teens

And there's an answer from someone who apperently was an identical twin... You see, clone or identical twin; biologically and genetically they're the same thing. I brought it up for this purpose. No one considers that either twin is any less real of a person then the other...

I dunno, it just seems like, with much of this, the thinking is like the clone is just a copy of someone and not a real person. Hence expendable, not necessary. It's not like creating a photo-copy of some piece of paper...it's a seperate individual (human being) which is being created. And though identical twins can share many things in common, it isn't like each isn't without their own unique personality either...

[Saint Lucifer]

Originally Posted by Saint Lucifer

you imagine someone says something and then harp on it till you think it is fact :)"
Show me where I have done this :DI know it's an honest mistake, but I didn't say that. Sazar did.
---
And the moment a person starts messing around with certain genes... Eukariotic gene expression is not as simple as in prokariotes... A slight change in a regulator gene (a gene that regulates the expression of other genes) could have, potentially far reaching consequences beyond one simple change...

And I have a problem with this as well. Attempting to make stupid people, to use as a vessel to serve some purpose... I would not want to live in a world necessarily with a permanent "donor class" comprising up to 50% of the nations population. This would arguably make us little different from the Gauld (for anyone who has watched Stargate SG1), bleh...I'm not familiar with them. I'll imagine that they're a technologically advanced yet socially primitive race, however, as that is the point you seem to be making.

And beyond the moral issues of growing people for this express purpose (which, personally I find a bit repugnant); there's also social issues. When they find out they were created for this purpose, and given a survival instinct in our species, how are they likely to react? I could even see an uprising (potentially) with civil unrest between clones and non-clones, with the clones (feeling opressed) not liking their station in the current social order. This sorta thing could get real ugly, and perhaps real fast.I imagine if you kept them locked up in research facilities you could dodge that issue entirely. As, uh, cruel as it sounds you can't really risk them damaging their wonderful livers.

As to trying to "make them stupid", the effort in trying to create organs without a host body (or in nano-tech or something, where damaged tissue could be re-built from the atom up) would, as far as I'm concerned, be time better spent.There are many different approaches to a certain obstacle. The one you describe is far beyond any real dream of accomplishment today. Although one may say the same in regards to the cloning, I'm inclined to agree that it is also pretty far away, but it is at least closer. Besides, different scientists work on different things.

I dunno, it just seems like, with much of this, the thinking is like the clone is just a copy of someone and not a real person. Hence expendable, not necessary. It's not like creating a photo-copy of some piece of paper...it's a seperate individual (human being) which is being created. And though identical twins can share many things in common, it isn't like each isn't without their own unique personality either...
I don't necessarily see them on equal levels. For me, it's all about the intent - why they were created. To me, a clone being created for the express purpose of being an organ farm is less valuable than the original person who is in peril. In other words, the value of the clone only applies to this specific situation. If on the other hand, the clone is meant to be released into 'the wild' (or a social setting) where it can learn and gather experience and knowledge then I'm more inclined to be sympathetic to its plight.

While of course this may seem inconsistant (and I agree that it is) it's worth noting that consistant people have the possibility of being inconsistantly correct whereas inconsistant people have the possibility of being consistantly correct. Or at least that's my philosophy...