Is it morally acceptable to genetically design children?

Question

I asked this in Philosophy and now I would like to get your opinions.

Answer 1

no !

Answer 2

Like preventing disease and mental retardation stop things like that instead of making super babies

Answer 3

That depends. One thing that would be morally unacceptable is what would happen right away. The first thing that would happen, is the rich would then have genetically advanced children, and the poor would stay the same. This would cause a huge gap between the super human, and the humans that have become like dinosaurs. We would then have a new kind of discrimination.

Answer 4

Geez - what a question!  Is it morally acceptable to improve our children's physical conditions?

Is it MORAL to make our future generations smarter, healthier and more attractive?  I find it incredible that anyone would or even COULD question that!

Why do I get the distinct feeling that we should, rather, be asking (given that we had the capability to do so) if it is morally acceptable NOT to?

If we pass an accident and fail to render aid, THAT is not only morally wrong, it is LEGALLY wrong as well.  Yet, to be morally right, we should fail to help our children have the best quality of life that they can?  I DON'T THINK SO!

Of course, we will pass our own moral prejudices on to our kids, so maybe they will figure that it is okay:

"That's alright, Mom, I don't need to be prettier, smarter and healthier.  I don't care if I look plain, dull and mousy.  Yeah, and it's perfectly okay that Cs and Ds are the best I can do in school - after all, why shouldn't I be happy with a lower middle-class semi-skilled McJob?  You bet, Mom and Dad, it's mediocrity for me all the way!

Oh yeah, and I don't really mind that I might get that degenerative nerve condition that killed Uncle Charlie last year.  After all, we've all got to go sometime."

Sorry, but I just CAN'T feel that way, myself!  

Suppose these options had been available to YOUR parents?  Would YOU not rather be smarter, healthier and better looking than you are?

You may say NO, but if not, then WHY do we all spend millions of dollars every year on products and services that say they will do that very thing for us?

What if all those cosmetics, tutoring sessions and expensive health aids were totallyn unnecessary?  Gee, wouldn't THAT be terrible and immoral?

If MY parents would have had the option to improve my physical lot in life and turned it down for the sake of some kind of bogus social self-righteousness, I think I would be so far beyond outraged over it that there would be no word in the English language to describe how I would feel!

Answer 5

I would support this for crippling &/or life threatening genetic disorders. Other than that, absolutely not.

Answer 6

In my opinion no.

Answer 7

Well since women are having babies alone because they're unable to maintain functional relationships, and essentially having babies for the same reasons they would get puppies, I don't see genetically designed children too far off into the future? Is it morally acceptable? Not yet. But I'm sure feminism will find a way of justifying it.

Answer 8

No, I don't think so.

Answer 9

I would say yes for when it is for the purpose of preventing a disease, disorder, or illness but not when it comes to appearance.