3 ms·

There's already a demographic that'd do that sort of thing - see reddit.com/r/raisedbynarcissists for horrifying examples. Your concern is dead on, and we'd nee

There's already a demographic that'd do that sort of thing - see reddit.com/r/raisedbynarcissists for horrifying examples. Your concern is dead on, and we'd need some serious progress on youth rights for me to be more comfortable with unrestricted designer babies.

derefr 10y ago
Interestingly, I think the current systems in most of the developed would would already handle this somewhat adequately, insofar as "designer babies" would probably not be treated as genetic children of their "gene base" parents (i.e. something they have an intrinsic right to take home from the hospital), but probably rather would be considered "genetic orphans" (like babies dropped off at a hospital with no known parents) who are then adopted by the "gene base" parents. As such, just like any other adopted children, the parents would have to go through harsh screenings to determine eligibility, and then after "adoption" would be heavily monitored by governmental child social-welfare departments (e.g. Child Protective Services in the US.)
- whafro 10y ago
  Maybe, but that seems to assume effectively no genetic material from the parents. What if the design starts with the parents' DNA, but makes one change to prevent a disease? Seems like that parent wouldn't be adopting a genetic orphan, and would have the right to take the newborn home. What about two changes? 50? It's one of those "where do we draw the line?" issues.
  - ThrustVectoring 10y ago
    I think the natural dividing line is "is the baby the unmodified result of combining sperm and egg?" People already have the right to do that without additional government interference -- anything past that should arguably be regulated.
    - scarmig 10y ago
      Where would somehow selecting one of the billions of sperm and one of the millions(?) of eggs for ideal genetic material and then allowing them to combine "naturally" fall? That'd probably get you 60% of the way to full on designer babies anyway, unless you're going for a trait that's not at all in your gene pool.
      - ThrustVectoring 10y ago
        That ship has basically sailed, since we already do sperm selection for in-vitro fertilization.
      - akiselev 10y ago
        For the record, we already do this on a surprisingly regular basis in the developed world. It's called preimplantation genetic diagnostics and is a relatively cheap addition to regular IVF since companies like Counsyl and Qwest have sub-$1000 genetic tests for thousands of genetic factors. Gender selection is already easily done and some Jewish communities have had great success eliminating Tay-Sachs this way. It's "only" a matter of identifying the genes responsible for the characteristics you desire but you may never be able to select 100% of the traits you want if you're trying to select for many of them at the same time. It's not useful for top to bottom designer babies since the probabilities of getting the right mutations and chromosomal combinations is nearly infinitesimal. I have yet to hear any loud controversy regarding PDG IVF so I think it's one of those situations where genetic engineering will slowly creep up on society and by the time we have a public debate about the ethics it'll be way too late.
- skissane 10y ago
  At least where I live (and I imagine many other places), the law of parenthood isn't based on genetics. Where I live, the birth mother is legally the mother, and if she says X is the father, and he agrees with her statement–by both of them signing the birth registration paperwork–then X is legally the father. (In most cases; in some cases, if the birth mother is in a marriage or cohabiting relationship with a man, her male partner is legally the father even if the birth certificate names another man, and even if that other man is genetically the father – as in the case I mention below.) Generally speaking, genetics only comes into the picture if someone launches a court case to dispute parentage – e.g. if the mother says X is the father but he refuses to accept that status. But, if a man signs the birth papers for the child, he is legally the father, even if it isn't genetically his offspring. And likewise, if the mother gives birth to the child, she is legally the mother even if the egg came from someone else. Genetic parenthood by itself doesn't automatically make you a legal parent. At best, it creates the possibility for you to claim parenthood (if you want to), or for someone else to impose it on you (if they want to). An interesting court case - http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FamCA/2009/691.html http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FamCA/2009/691.html - found that the birth mother's cohabiting partner was legally the father, even though the genetic father was listed on the birth certificate. This wasn't what any of the people involved wanted – the birth mother was acting as surrogate for her daughter and son-in-law, who were the genetic parents – but was an undesired to all parties side effect of the lack of legal recognition of surrogacy at the time in that part of Australia. The remedy was the genetic parents had to legally adopt the child, even though they had been raising him as their child from the time of birth.

derefr 10y ago

Interestingly, I think the current systems in most of the developed would would already handle this somewhat adequately, insofar as "designer babies" would probably not be treated as genetic children of their "gene base" parents (i.e. something they have an intrinsic right to take home from the hospital), but probably rather would be considered "genetic orphans" (like babies dropped off at a hospital with no known parents) who are then adopted by the "gene base" parents. As such, just like any other adopted children, the parents would have to go through harsh screenings to determine eligibility, and then after "adoption" would be heavily monitored by governmental child social-welfare departments (e.g. Child Protective Services in the US.)

whafro 10y ago
Maybe, but that seems to assume effectively no genetic material from the parents. What if the design starts with the parents' DNA, but makes one change to prevent a disease? Seems like that parent wouldn't be adopting a genetic orphan, and would have the right to take the newborn home. What about two changes? 50? It's one of those "where do we draw the line?" issues.
- ThrustVectoring 10y ago
  I think the natural dividing line is "is the baby the unmodified result of combining sperm and egg?" People already have the right to do that without additional government interference -- anything past that should arguably be regulated.
  - scarmig 10y ago
    Where would somehow selecting one of the billions of sperm and one of the millions(?) of eggs for ideal genetic material and then allowing them to combine "naturally" fall? That'd probably get you 60% of the way to full on designer babies anyway, unless you're going for a trait that's not at all in your gene pool.
    - ThrustVectoring 10y ago
      That ship has basically sailed, since we already do sperm selection for in-vitro fertilization.
    - akiselev 10y ago
      For the record, we already do this on a surprisingly regular basis in the developed world. It's called preimplantation genetic diagnostics and is a relatively cheap addition to regular IVF since companies like Counsyl and Qwest have sub-$1000 genetic tests for thousands of genetic factors. Gender selection is already easily done and some Jewish communities have had great success eliminating Tay-Sachs this way. It's "only" a matter of identifying the genes responsible for the characteristics you desire but you may never be able to select 100% of the traits you want if you're trying to select for many of them at the same time. It's not useful for top to bottom designer babies since the probabilities of getting the right mutations and chromosomal combinations is nearly infinitesimal. I have yet to hear any loud controversy regarding PDG IVF so I think it's one of those situations where genetic engineering will slowly creep up on society and by the time we have a public debate about the ethics it'll be way too late.
skissane 10y ago
At least where I live (and I imagine many other places), the law of parenthood isn't based on genetics. Where I live, the birth mother is legally the mother, and if she says X is the father, and he agrees with her statement–by both of them signing the birth registration paperwork–then X is legally the father. (In most cases; in some cases, if the birth mother is in a marriage or cohabiting relationship with a man, her male partner is legally the father even if the birth certificate names another man, and even if that other man is genetically the father – as in the case I mention below.) Generally speaking, genetics only comes into the picture if someone launches a court case to dispute parentage – e.g. if the mother says X is the father but he refuses to accept that status. But, if a man signs the birth papers for the child, he is legally the father, even if it isn't genetically his offspring. And likewise, if the mother gives birth to the child, she is legally the mother even if the egg came from someone else. Genetic parenthood by itself doesn't automatically make you a legal parent. At best, it creates the possibility for you to claim parenthood (if you want to), or for someone else to impose it on you (if they want to). An interesting court case - http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FamCA/2009/691.html http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FamCA/2009/691.html - found that the birth mother's cohabiting partner was legally the father, even though the genetic father was listed on the birth certificate. This wasn't what any of the people involved wanted – the birth mother was acting as surrogate for her daughter and son-in-law, who were the genetic parents – but was an undesired to all parties side effect of the lack of legal recognition of surrogacy at the time in that part of Australia. The remedy was the genetic parents had to legally adopt the child, even though they had been raising him as their child from the time of birth.