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.
This article seems to be overtly endorsing designer babies without presenting any opposing positions.
'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)
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).
-- Mais oui! ( talk) 09:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
I watch over 125 articles and Designer baby seems to be one that attracts the most vandalism. Why is that? And is there anything we can do about it? -- Loremaster ( talk) 15:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Designer baby → Trait selection — Whereas the term "designer baby" is pejorative, I propose that the article be renamed to "Trait selection". Bob A ( talk) 07:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Where articles have descriptive names, the given name must be neutrally worded and must not carry POV implications.
For instance, a recent political controversy in the United States was nicknamed "Attorneygate" by critics of the George W. Bush administration. The article discussing the controversy is, however, at the more neutrally worded title Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy. A descriptive article title should describe the subject without passing judgment, implicitly or explicitly, on the subject.
Loremaster, why did you move the page to Designer baby (disambiguation) when it isn't a disambiguation page? Bob A ( talk) 19:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Now that I think about it, there's not really any need for this article. The articles on Preimplantation genetic diagnosis and Human genetic engineering are much more developed and cover the same topic. This article could even be seen as a POV fork. Bob A ( talk) 21:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
This statement "Lastly, humans have never experienced the effects of genetic structure alteration." is simply not true. Humans experience genetic structure changes every day. That is to say that we are constantly experiencing mutations. Unless this is suggesting that people who are pro-designer baby seek to convert genetic transition to a molecule that is not DNA (which, if true, would need a citation)this phrase needs to be reworded, clarified, or removed. --DFM III
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.
This article seems to be overtly endorsing designer babies without presenting any opposing positions.
'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)
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).
-- Mais oui! ( talk) 09:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
I watch over 125 articles and Designer baby seems to be one that attracts the most vandalism. Why is that? And is there anything we can do about it? -- Loremaster ( talk) 15:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Designer baby → Trait selection — Whereas the term "designer baby" is pejorative, I propose that the article be renamed to "Trait selection". Bob A ( talk) 07:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Where articles have descriptive names, the given name must be neutrally worded and must not carry POV implications.
For instance, a recent political controversy in the United States was nicknamed "Attorneygate" by critics of the George W. Bush administration. The article discussing the controversy is, however, at the more neutrally worded title Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy. A descriptive article title should describe the subject without passing judgment, implicitly or explicitly, on the subject.
Loremaster, why did you move the page to Designer baby (disambiguation) when it isn't a disambiguation page? Bob A ( talk) 19:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Now that I think about it, there's not really any need for this article. The articles on Preimplantation genetic diagnosis and Human genetic engineering are much more developed and cover the same topic. This article could even be seen as a POV fork. Bob A ( talk) 21:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
This statement "Lastly, humans have never experienced the effects of genetic structure alteration." is simply not true. Humans experience genetic structure changes every day. That is to say that we are constantly experiencing mutations. Unless this is suggesting that people who are pro-designer baby seek to convert genetic transition to a molecule that is not DNA (which, if true, would need a citation)this phrase needs to be reworded, clarified, or removed. --DFM III