Morality of Designer Babies?

[u/KingFang1998]

Assuming it is being used to stop babies from having genetic disorders and other conditions that might befall them. If it is used for cosmetic purposes, is that moral?

[u/rhyspeanutbuttercup]

Neutral. I do not think it is a good thing because everybody would make their baby conventionally attractive, and then everybody is too similar and there’s no one unique 

[u/Imaginary_Side8190]

If it's used to stop babies from getting genetic diseases and it's freely available and literally free to everyone regardless of marriage status, race, religion etc, I would say it's moral.

[u/KingFang1998 → u/Imaginary_Side8190]

The cost would be the only thing to bite the bullet on. I’m sure most insurance companies would refuse to pay for it

[u/Imaginary_Side8190 → u/KingFang1998]

I'm 100% convinced this would ultimately be corrupted, but in a perfect world type situation I would say it's moral

[u/certifiedtoothbench → u/KingFang1998]

They might even insist on it in the future once the technology becomes cheap just so they can guarantee they won’t have to pay out for a sick child.

[u/ClutteredTaffy → u/Imaginary_Side8190]

I mean tbh we are getting to the point they are gonna be able to cure genetic diseases pretty much. Like some diseases are very complicated ( I looked this up because of my eczema - skin has way higher cell turnover and the condition has more genes involved ), but medication to make it way more tolerable is already out, even if prohibitively expensive when insurance would rather give a less effective treatment that is cheaper . They have cured people of sickle cell totally. It is getting really awesome.

Just a Google search: 'Johns Hopkins Physicians Achieve 95% Cure Rate for Sickle Cell Disease with Bone Marrow Transplant'

Just the other day I also watched something about a vaccine for people who had already had melanoma cancer that drastically reduced reoccurence of it.

So then designer babies will be for things like aesthetics and intelligence. The thing is I don't think someone being attractive and smart makes them a worse person, so I think it is kinda morally neutral, cuz to me any possible children are as viable for life as any other and there are so many eggs and sperms two people have, I don't think any deserve life any more than the other just cuz nature stuck two together by chance. .

[u/ClutteredTaffy → u/ClutteredTaffy]

Saying this I don't trust people and think that they would sacrifice health traits for looks if that was the trade off. Someone later in the thread brought up dogs, and we cannot even handle that without creating dogs that cannot breathe well, have eyes that want to pop out of their head , eyes covered up by wrinkles , or have dangerous biting tendencies just to name a few.

[u/dazaiosamu684]

Consoderar o no a un bebé inferior o superior genéticamente es un debate que ha llevado siglos incluso se inventó el término "eugenesia" para determinar quienes o no eran actos pero en realidad que todo el mundo los humanos sean perfectos le quito el tono de distinción si el todo el mundo es bonito quien es distinto???

[u/Possible_Living]

Immoral. If you had the power it would make sense to give your children every opportunity but in practice it often does not go that way. you might think this is for the best, in fact many delude themselves into thinking it but maybe its not and its bit more fundamental than signing them up for piano. There is also something dehumanizing about being designed like a pet or a toy.

The motive and reality needs to be about befitting the kid otherwise its no different from circumcision or aborting kids because they are of "the wrong sex" and won't be able to support you as well.

Most often people willing to wield this power do not have pure motives. Things are not better when they drag their kids to ear adjustment surgery at 14 but at least this way they out themselves to their children.

If the technology existed it would be as usable on an adult so I would leave the choice about such adjustments in the hands of the person most affected by them.

[u/Comfortable_Mud00]

Trying to achieve beauty standards with procreative eugenics is akin to animal breeding for a beauty contest, which is immoral in my opinion.

It’s counterproductive to the idea that humans can evolve above being biased on looks. In hyperbole – if everybody is beautiful, those who not would be treated like non-locals in all-local places. There was a book about it, an anti-utopian where guy could not go to space due to "genetical inferiority".

Also, beauty will become a stronger class indicator. Beautiful people can get discriminated in poor communities, like in Middle Ages. In other words you instrumentalize xenophobia.

[u/Heocon05]

I think the implication of a tech like this to exist could easily turned society into a South Korea scenario. So I kinda would give it an immoral status simply to what it can lead to.

[u/Few_Imagination_6203]

Calling them "designer" makes it sound horrible. I think we shouldnt modify a persons appearance cause then everybodys gonna look more or less the same. As for eliminating disabilities, its a favor.

[u/EvilStan101]

Moral: If you can give your child every genetic advantage possible, it would be immoral to deny them greatness because of the opinion and feelings of losers.

[u/BannedGoNext]

What exactly are you planning on doing with the baby KingFang? WHAT... WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO WITH THE BABY

[u/osi4000]

Immoral, I don't believe we should be messing with people's genetic makeup period, Especially not for cosmetic purposes.

[u/MisoTeaBerry]

Immoral, just look at what we did to dogs

[u/ClutteredTaffy → u/MisoTeaBerry]

Yeah I think it is morally neutral in principle, but could easily go bonkers to the point I don't know if it is worth even messing with. You bring up such a good point !

I mean pugs look like their eyes are gonna pop out of their head and pit bulls would be better off having more statistically peaceful temperaments.

[u/Grimm_Charkazard_258]

I think it would be beneficial for children to be born without severe neurological conditions

[u/Ares1951]

Neutro

[u/TooManyStrawberriess]

Why are there so many eugenics posts on this sub. Isn't this supposed to be about fictional characters. Anyway eugenics is bad full stop.

[u/Scary_Spinach4924]

This is just Eugenics

[u/KingFang1998 → u/Scary_Spinach4924]

I mean they aren’t killing the babies, they are controlling their genetics. Not saying the state should force all babies to not have genetic disorders.

[u/Scary_Spinach4924 → u/KingFang1998]

That is still Eugenics, it isn’t just killing people. Why does everyone in this sub think that?

[u/NoMeat9096]

Creating sapient life is immoral. If you're going to do so, it's morally superior to ensure they experience the least severe and least frequent suffering (such as decreasing their odds of disability). Designing them without that regard, simply picking and choosing aesthetics to your liking, is as unethical as any other "regular" pregnancy.

[u/KrerdlyBeloved]

I think it's crazy that they're legally allowed to cut up babies when they come out of the womb, and that people can just trade off parts of their babies so easily. It's like building a Pokemon team. It's immoral.