New York Times Ads Offer Designer Babies

This is getting very much like the movie Gattaca... and very disturbing....


Over the past few months, the New York Times has repeatedly printed advertisements for the Genetics and IVF Institute (GIVF), a Virginia-based clinic that promises parents the ability to choose the sex of their babies. This marks the first time that a eugenics procedure has been marketed openly in a mainstream American publication.

GIVF claims that its sperm-sorting sex-selection technique, called Microsort, is currently offered for two reasons, as a method of "balancing" the composition of a family's offspring, as well as to avoid conceiving babies with gender-linked diseases. GIVF charges $2,300 for its services.

However, some observers worry that the advertisements signal an increasingly widespread acceptance of eugenics, of efforts to improve the human race through breeding and genetic manipulation. In this regard, GIVF's Web site also allows customers to shop for human eggs based upon race, eye and hair color, and education level of the donors, raising the prospect of a future of "designer babies."

newsmax.com...

I think that 'designer' babies... and all eugenics programs... are extremely wrong, however, I think that this company has the right to advertise their 'product' up until the point that it is made illegal. It's their right, as codified by the 1st Amendment.

I dont dispute the right to advertise... I do dispute the right to modify embryos for any reason however....

Pros and Cons

+

If society remains sexist this can be a preventative measure to stop the horrific mortality rates for unwanted daughters in nations with heavily policed population control programs.


-

And that's not really a plus either. There is a gender imbalance in the population bubble of those countries that will be too hard to repair in 10-30 years.

But realistically speaking, I think this is just the tip of the iceberg, and like it or not, more and more factors will be selected for by parents happy to part with their money in the search for the 'perfect child'.

I believe the level of genetic experimentation on human gametes is far, far more prevalent and morally reprehensible than anyone here would care to imagine.

AS I've been saying for years already...The next step in evolution is gengineering...

...For better or worse, what God started, humanity will alter...

IMO, we've already been trying to adapt ourselves to our technology when we should be adapting our technology to *us*...Now we're going over the point-of-no-return...


[Edited on 9-10-2003 by MidnightDStroyer]

Interesting thread.

what about the soul matrix of an engineered human?

is it okay is it normal?

do we know or care?

how much longer is heterosexual marriage producing a family going to be the accepted manner of producing offspring?

are they pushing this technology on gay marriages first? as a way to give these people what nature cannot.

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar
Pros and Cons

+

If society remains sexist this can be a preventative measure to stop the horrific mortality rates for unwanted daughters in nations with heavily policed population control programs.


-

And that's not really a plus either. There is a gender imbalance in the population bubble of those countries that will be too hard to repair in 10-30 years.

But realistically speaking, I think this is just the tip of the iceberg, and like it or not, more and more factors will be selected for by parents happy to part with their money in the search for the 'perfect child'.

I believe the level of genetic experimentation on human gametes is far, far more prevalent and morally reprehensible than anyone here would care to imagine.

Well said MA, I also believe it's wrong to mess with the human genetic code, as most people are. (I hope)

I'm probably the only one here who's excited about the prospect of designer babies. I'd personally would like to choose the characteristics of my child and weed out any birth defects. Actually, I'm more interested in the ability of genetic engineering to change the characteristics of people already born....but that's another thread completely.

Like it, don't like it. Doesn't matter, it's going to happen. If not in the US, then somewhere in the world.

playing with your babbys DNA isnt right....

but i do think "scanning it" to apoint to help avoid genetec "defects" or viruses/desises should be fair



thats just my opionen

The reliablility factor of actual "tinkering" is still pretty low, so I think we should limit ourselves to scanning for now. Eventually, I think correcting existing genetic faults would be acceptable, but I would *never* agree with actual alterations for cosmetic reasons (eye color hair color, etc) or for some "perceived improvement" on the human genome (water-breathing capability, etc).