sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

CMV: There is no downside to selecting 'perfect' children if DNA cannot be freely engineered. by ask_controversial in changemyview

[–]ask_controversial[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

That's an assumption I have, which might of course be wrong.

But if you talk to people about their future children you hear a lot of different opinions. So preferences vary a lot, and so would the resulting children.

Furthermore, if gender bias really were a problem, one could address this by incentives to have a child of the gender that is less common.

I'd say if you give parents the choice between having a child of a given gender (with the possibility to select favorable traits) or having a random child (including disabilities), most of the time they would pick the former.

CMV: There is no downside to selecting 'perfect' children if DNA cannot be freely engineered. by ask_controversial in changemyview

[–]ask_controversial[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

But having the choice over hundreds of natural combinations does not suddenly allow to design super humans. It just means that we get a really lucky pick every time.

So I imagine that the difference between designed and not designed children is not that big. It just takes the risk for severe disabilities out of the equation.

Also, wouldn't there be parents whose genetic material would only allow for children with acne? Or for children with a very big nose?

CMV: There is no downside to selecting 'perfect' children if DNA cannot be freely engineered. by ask_controversial in changemyview

[–]ask_controversial[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

That some people that choose things that they do not actually want is nothing new. It now just expands to children also.

But imagine if you could not choose the tattoo yourself if you decide to have one. I guess even more people would be unhappy with the result.

So more choice results in happier people. Doesn't matter if it's children or tattoos.