If we had the technology, should we edit the genes and/or DNA of our children?

Posted by: PetersSmith

Whether it be gene-splicing or actual DNA manipulation, changing the genes of our children can be done and could actually have some benefits, then again, is it worth it? We are presuming that we would have perfected the technology in order to use it properly without many "risks".

22 Total Votes

Yes, but there should be limits.

Yes, we should remove genetic disorders, but we shouldn't go overboard with this. This isn't a game. We can't just edit what our children will be when they are born. We shouldn't make them superhuman or superior to others. We should only manipulate ... the DNA so certain humans that are born aren't put at a distinct disadvantage. Many people affected by genetic disorders feel that they were cursed from birth, so let's not let that happen. However, having a lower metabolism, red hair, heterochromia, and a variety of other "birth defects" should not be changed just because the parents want their child to be different or "better"   more
10 votes

No, of course not.

Gene-splicing, DNA manipulation, gene changing? These things are where science will go too far. The birth process is supposed to be natural, not something artificial. Manipulating DNA and genes would be like "creating" children rather than birthing ... them. It's only natural for certain children to gain certain disadvantages at birth, this has been so since the first species. Genetic disorders are natural and while it may be terrible to have some, but think of the risks? There's certain areas where science shouldn't tread and this is one of them   more
5 votes

Yes, of course

Let's see: no more autism, Down syndrome, Sickle-cell disease, Angelman syndrome, Canavan disease, Cystic fibrosis, AIDS on birth, Duchenne muscular dystrophy, and many more genetic disorders. Not only will we be able to remove genetic disorders, bu... t we can also change many traits of our children. We could make it so they have a higher metabolism, are born with a different hair color or eye color, give them a stronger heart, a greater brain capacity, stronger muscles, and many more augmentations. We could even gain powers previously not thought possible. There's a chance that we could even become all perfect where our DNA makes our bodies immune to diseases and less prone to depression. We could become greatly enhanced and the possibilities are endless. Who knows what we could do if we truly master the art of changing DNA? It may take a while to get to this scientific level, but we may be able to do it   more
4 votes
1 comment

Are you our of your mind?

We aren't God (or one of the gods). We aren't Nazis. We aren't monsters. We do not create genetic monstrosities, doing so would make us less than human.
3 votes
Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
PetersSmith says2014-07-19T21:44:31.1726666-05:00
Stalin_Mario says2014-07-19T22:37:54.0661121-05:00
If we can alter the genes in our kids in which it can prevent diseases and disorders, then of course it would be totally worth it!
PetersSmith says2014-07-19T22:39:15.2659724-05:00
Stalin_Mario: You're choice also includes the manipulation of natural genes that affect hair color, eye color, mental capacity, muscular power, and many other things. This choice technically also includes the support of creating "super humans".
PetersSmith says2014-07-19T22:39:35.6838607-05:00
Just saying.
Stalin_Mario says2014-07-19T22:40:34.1098886-05:00
I'm for it. Obviously only if the parents consent to it.
PetersSmith says2014-07-19T22:41:35.2339019-05:00
Stalin_Mario: I actually totally agree with you. It would be awesome to be able to have telekinesis or heterochromia when you're born. It'd be funny though if they force you to do gene manipulation.
PetersSmith says2014-07-19T22:42:00.9986591-05:00
Stalin_Mario: I wish they could do it after birth so the children could decide though.
Stalin_Mario says2014-07-19T22:43:48.5961530-05:00
Yea, but I only support beneficial changes, nothing negative. We shouldn't have the right to make a child have no legs or no arms or have autism, etc.
PetersSmith says2014-07-19T22:44:16.5443642-05:00
Stalin_Mario: Why would we ever do that?
reece says2014-07-19T23:06:21.0200363-05:00
I thought we already can? But it just costs a hole bunch of money?
PetersSmith says2014-07-19T23:10:49.3624160-05:00
Reece: We can to a very certain extent.
PetersSmith says2014-07-19T23:11:06.3651236-05:00
Reece: It's mainly with other animals though.
Stalin_Mario says2014-07-19T23:20:50.6812071-05:00
Yes we can, I think it's called genetic engineering. We can't do it because I think it's against the law, because it's unethical
PetersSmith says2014-07-19T23:21:18.7392998-05:00
Stalin_Mario: Pfft, ethics
guylaquit says2014-07-19T23:22:43.9255680-05:00
This would be the obvious downfall of the world
Stalin_Mario says2014-07-19T23:25:06.8780870-05:00
No, it would enhance Humanity, and help us leap into the next step. It would obviously do quite the opposite of what you said.
guylaquit says2014-07-19T23:26:22.3217130-05:00
Right, because having a bunch of telekinetic people running around and expecting them not to get greedy is a good idea
Grayscale says2014-07-19T23:26:52.7963154-05:00
One of my fear here would be when the idealists start getting involved in the process to where it strays from limiting the negatives (removing diseases) to creating the "new man". They would start to play with genetics for the "benefit" of society and tweak something that may inadvertently harm us. For example, lets say we are trying to reduce violence in humans but due to its proximity to sex destroy our reproductive desires or causes mass depression? Centrally trying to plan human evolution can lead to some irreversible effects, DNA lost is hard to rectify and would be more troublesome to rectify than an economy. Also genetic manipulation doesn't always display harmful effects right away sometimes it can take several generations to discover a major error. Also giving this power to our leaders who are sway with the wind does not give me a lot of confidence. 2) Also on the disease part is debatable as well, especially some of the mental ones because you would inadvertently be taking away all the Savants away from society (look up the word if you don't know what it is). Also diseases like sickle cell anemia has applications. I don't find it coincidental that sickle cell sprung up in regions with high levels of malaria randomly, if given a more generations sickle cell might have evolved into a more functional condition with the benefit of being immune to malaria. By controlling genetics you also prevent any new evolution from occurring, as the strict definition of standard genetics as understood as being right or normal would replace any deviation from that, which would limit the human gene pool thus making humans less adaptable to potential changes. The fact that literally none of the authors negative options even tough any of these subjects instead its delegating them to issues of morality makes me wonder if they at least thought the question through. To stress this point though, I'm not entirely against/hostile to the idea but the con side was severely inadequately expressed.
guylaquit says2014-07-19T23:27:51.3406427-05:00
Well put
Stalin_Mario says2014-07-19T23:31:06.8706098-05:00
Guylaquit, clearly I wasn't talking about superpowers such as telekinesis. I was talking about more of preventing disorders and diseases, and being able to choose what hair, skin, eye, etc color and features they want.
PetersSmith says2014-07-19T23:33:09.0833600-05:00
You know, there's a "yes, but there should be limits" option, right?
guylaquit says2014-07-19T23:34:17.1162683-05:00
I just think tampering with the natal process is a bad idea
Stalin_Mario says2014-07-19T23:34:44.9078073-05:00
Grayscale, this is why we would do tests first, before giving it to everyone in the population. But I do see why you would be concerned over the idea, and I respect your points.
Grayscale says2014-07-20T00:03:25.6758938-05:00
@Peters, I don't know if I would even commit to a yes either but that is irrelevant my issue which I stated before with the cons provided was that it was entirely based on upsetting morals, which is nothing compared to the real damage a worst case scenario could bring. @ Stalin, much appreciated, I think my strongest critique I had in my first post was that this would cut down the human gene pool (what happens if we actually need to be aggressive/violent to save ourselves) and by our definitions of "healthy genetics" any deviation will be cut out of the equation as looked upon as defective when in turn could have been a natural forum of evolution (my sickle cell anemia example)
Formerland1 says2014-09-08T09:44:11.2190352-05:00
That's why we would do tests .

Freebase Icon   Portions of this page are reproduced from or are modifications based on work created and shared by Google and used according to terms described in the Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution License.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.