posted
We already subconciously do this. We pick a partner based on the traits we'd like to see in our children. Nice smile, nice teeth, nice hair, tall, good looking ,healthy...blah blah blah. We all sort of know what our kids will look like. We all try and hold out for the person we think will be the a combination of the right genetic match as well as has the means/ability to take care of the child.
-------------------- If she won't indulge your fetish, I bet you that cuter, smarter girl across the bar will. Lets go find out. Posts: 1877 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by A&F_FootDude_05: Absolutely.
I'm with you on this one. If I were given that option, all I need is the contract for me to give consent to the changes that will be made.
But no one (so far) has really answered the two follow-up questions I asked. Would a baby designed in this way still feel like my child? Absolutely -- no question about it. Parents still do what they can to make sure their child look as presentable as possible in front of other people. Adults everyday go under the knife for plastic surgery to alter or enhance a part of their bodies. Even after doing that, you still love yourself, right? You still have unconditional love for yourself. The same goes with a child. Physical changes are applied to them such as putting braces on their teeth. We have parents trying to doll up their daughters as barbie-like as possible so that they can win these kiddie beauty pageants. They still love them unconditionally. If they go through all this trouble to make their kids look as good as possible, then choosing the sex and appearance of your yet-to-be-born child is not so bad after all.
Which leads to the second follow-up question. Who wants a child that's ugly, stupid, or crippled? Certainly, not me. With this procedure, you prevent all of that from happening in the first place. If I decline the option to alter the appearance of my child, and it grows up to be ugly, I will regret not having done my child the favor of giving it a jump-start in life.
----
You might ask, "Well, what if the child resents you for deciding how it will look like 'artificially'?" My answer, I'll show her (I would like a girl instead of a boy) a composite of how she *could've* looked without the touch-ups. Then she'll be relieved and say, "I love you, Daddy!"
----
What GQ said also contributes as a deciding factor of how you want your child to look in the future. Which good-looking person would want to mate with someone who's anything but? I certainly wouldn't. You put those two together, plus the procedure to chance your child's look and ... Voila!
----
I'm NOT saying that not wanting to do this is the wrong idea. Your reasons make sense and are understandable. For me, the opportunity is too sweet to pass up.
quote:Originally posted by National: If you could choose the sex and physical appearance of your soon-to-be-born child, would you do it?
Exactly what do you mean by "physical appearance"? That's pretty vague. Like, just eye and hair colour? Or like, on the other end of the spectrum, do you imagine creating a computer generated image of your ideal adult and then be able to genetically guarantee that the child will grow up to look exactly like that idealized design? Your hypothetical was woefully lacking in detail...
quote:Originally posted by vanderfeet: Or like, on the other end of the spectrum, do you imagine creating a computer generated image of your ideal adult and then be able to genetically guarantee that the child will grow up to look exactly like that idealized design?
Good question. That above quote I just highlighted was pretty much what I was aiming after. My apologies for not making myself a bit clearer. When I mean physical appearance, I mean the entire package. With this genetic advancement, you have what you would want it to look like once it reaches adulthood. Along the way, as that child grows, it will genetically alter itself so that it can fit that ideal form by the time it reaches 18 or 21. Your child will look a lot better than the other kids his or her age, no matter what the age (assuming you don't have it set up so that your child will look ugly).
If we're dealing with just hair and eyes for what we want the baby to look like, it will still grow up and look like whatever it wants to look like. I can grow to look ugly, even with the blond hair and blue eyes. If you're dealing with the body, none of this will become a matter to worry about.
----
If people prefer not to have the genetics of their child tampered with, then that's perfectly fine. What this is is an option to give your child attractive features (according to what you deem is attractive).
quote:Originally posted by National: If people prefer not to have the genetics of their child tampered with, then that's perfectly fine. What this is is an option to give your child attractive features (according to what you deem is attractive).
I have to admit that when you put it that way, the whole thing sounds vaguely incestuous. What I "deem attractive" is not something I would ever want to speak of in the same breath as discussing my child. Not wanting your kid to be butt-ugly is one thing, but attempting to engineer her to conform to your preferences of sexual attractiveness sounds a tad creepy, particularly if you're a guy who wishes to bear a little girl.
In any case, I can't see this as anything but problematic. Personally, I see nothing wrong with letting nature take its course -- if your grown child is unhappy with her natural appearance, she can always elect to undergo the necessary cosmetic procedures herself. Willfully imposing your aesthetic fantasies upon a helpless child by dictating her genetic structure and entire appearance is perhaps the height of arrogance.
Logistically speaking, it would be a nightmare as well! Suppose we in fact had the technology to mold a human being's appearance to our exact specifications. That would necessitate, among other draconian measures, a colossal facial recognition database with entries for every last human being, living and dead, all to ensure that you weren't reproducing a duplicate of someone who already exists/ed. It is interesting to think of this and the other legislative/technological measures that would be needed to facilitate such a dream, but also quite frightening and rather dystopian!
posted
Your points are very well taken. I can clearly understand the backlash and controversy had such a procedure ever became a common practice. It would also be naive to say that the whole idea has an incestuous slant. I especially loved your last sentence in your last post. It is worth repeating it a few times just to stress the point that something like this is not a simple game of cat and mouse. A lot of loopholes can be injected in order to throw this whole thing into disarray.
----
If I were to say that this topic is just about the facial features, and how we are setting up of how a child will look like once it reaches adulthood, we are already setting up how the rest of the body will look like without ever even talking about it. If someone were to show you a portrait of a very attractive or ugly and/or fat person, we will have a great idea of how the person's rest of the body could look like. Just from the portrait alone. If this procedure was only for the face, we are already setting up the rest of the body. And in doing it that way, we don't really see it as a means of getting too intimate with the child.
Even if you opt not to do this, you already don't want your child to look and be retarded. You want that child to look as great as possible. But that does not mean that you have incestuous thoughts running through you head or that you have any intentions of doing that kind of harm to a little person. And if you wait out on someone who will be our ideal partner to share a child with, we are already setting up of what the child could very much possibly look like. If the two of you are 9s or 10s, that child could very well look like a Glamour Girl/Boy. If the two of you are 5s and 6s, you are already setting up the child for what it could possibly look like.
All of that can be done without any futuristic experiment.
Is all of this a revelation of how arrogant a person can be? Yes. But with or without that procedure, we are setting them up from Day One.
Yes, by doing some tampering with project, we are going against nature, and we are cheating the systems of natural physics. Yes, we are giving them an edge in the looks department as opposed to just letting the child grow and let it look however it was supposed to look in the first place. But I'll still go for it.
Before I go, you also brought up a very good point, Vander. It was about how a person can be an exact replica of another person dead or alive. In terms of that, each of us will be as unique as a snowflake. No duplications here. That could very well be the only reason why I would be against this whole thing. Other than that, I would pretty much go for it.
posted
im gonna choose to not comment in this thread, b/c of course no one wants an ugly, stupid, or crippled child
-------------------- "Nina, this is my house, you work for me, and I want to suck your toes." -Big Trouble (2002) Posts: 1855 | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nope I wouldn't. She/he would be mine no matter what pops out that cootchie
-------------------- "When this baby hits 88 miles per hour, you're gonna see some serious shit" - Dr Emmit L. Brown (Back To The Future) Posts: 7894 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
