Talk:Designer baby

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Socrates
Philosophy Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Designer baby article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] Survey

I was wondering if you could all let me know your views on Designer Babies, this would come in handy for an assignment that I am doing about Designer Babies.

I suggest the movie Gatacca for a further exploration of the possible social ramifications of the designer baby movement.
What? I am writing a report on designer babies and would like to know just how much the parent can change about the baby. Can they just say blue eyes blonde haired boy or can they say a high cheek-bones strawberry blonde smokey blue eyed baby girl?
The Talk:Designer baby page exists to discuss the content of Designer baby article in order to improve it. So this may not be right place to find answers to your questions. However, the answers people provide you could be useful material to expand the article. --Loremaster 18:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
It is currently possible to select the gender of one's child through various means (with varying degrees of accuracy; see Sex selection), but directly engineering the embryo is not currently possible. In theory, with a complete knowledge of the human genome and the power to build it from the ground up, one could edit everything about the child, though this level of power is nowhere near possible for modern humans. As of right now, the only thing remotely similar to a designer baby is PGD

[edit] POV check

This article seems to be overtly endorsing designer babies without presenting any opposing positions.

I agree. We should use the information provided in the external links to improve and expand the article. --Loremaster 16:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
C'mon you guys--it's about a designer baby... What's so POV or NPOV about it? A designer baby is basically...what a designer baby is supposed to be. However... I'm not in favor of it simply because it isn't right.
I've removed the biased content as well as the POV check tag. However, we still need to expand the article so I added an Expand tag. --Loremaster 14:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I've added a little technical background information on the topic. --Oobasogie 21:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)oobasogie 14:43, 8 Aug 2006
I've replaced the Expand tag with an Improve tag. --Loremaster 22:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Recent contributions are making a POV check tag necessary. --Loremaster 21:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I added the recent info on DB concerns and AAAS findings as background. As the page stands now, the info generally reflects mainstream thoughts in the bioethics community regarding this technology. Oobasogie 22:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)oobasogie
Now that the article has been improved by Metamagician, I've removed the POV check tag. --Loremaster 14:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Hm, now it's the opposite, now it's way to anti-Designer Baby. The only good things about it is some in the end. Should be fixed.Ran4 20:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] One Point Of View

'I think that 'designer babies'seem at bit strange thinking about the fact that you may be able to choose your childs eye colour, hair colour, height, abilty to learn e.t.c. I think that this is ok to stop dieases or cure them, but I don't think it is right to be able to choose how your child looks and their personality, because it just seems not righht. Plus I think it would be boring if everybody was clever, average size e.t.c. because their would be no individuality.' Ms Stevens, GSCE Biology Student*--84.43.34.152 15:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Why is it looked down upon so much? People that adopt a child would look for a certain hair eye colour or gender. I don't think that the government has the right to tell people that they can't have some say. 15:33, February 19 2007 - Kritish

I think the reasons is a Brave New World style problem, in which someone might breed people to work in a factory or something of the like, of course in the Brave New World the world controllers have the people's best intrest at heart. 70.56.87.77 (talk) 02:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The Talk:Designer baby page exists to discuss the content of Designer baby article in order to improve it not personal views such as whether or not a designing babies is a good idea. --Loremaster (talk) 02:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] regarding POV

Despite the pejorative nature of the term "designer baby", a growing minority of social theorists consider the notion of a designer baby, once the technology is shown to be safe, to be a responsible and justifiable application of parental procreative liberty. The usage of genetic engineering (amongst other techniques) on one's children is said to be defensible as procreative beneficence, the moral obligation by parents to try and give their children the healthiest, happiest lives possible. Some futurists claim that it would put the human species on a path to participant evolution.

Without a citation, referring to a growing minority of anything is biased, so i removed that section —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.66.28.155 (talk) 01:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC).

I have rephrased the first sentence of the paragraph and added citations. --Loremaster (talk) 02:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)