Just ask them what kind of designer baby the state would create. If the reply isn’t anything like “supersoldier”, mock them for their gullibility towards the state’s real operations.
Brilliant. Thanks.
In a market economy getting rich is only possible through serving the needs of the many. Despite the fact that we live in a hampered market economy there’s still a good reason that Wal Mart and McDonalds are bigger than any producer of caviar.
Given this, so what if the rich do genetically engineer their children in a way that would help them become richer? It helps the poor regardless.
Sooner or later the ‘poor’ will also be able to afford genetic engineering. That’s how the market works. Not to mention that in a really free society the gap between rich and poor will be smaller.
Its purely anecdotal from my own experiences (as I said). I don’t know how you support the statement that all that you would be attracted too is images in your head. People value many different things, some rational and some irrational, I have been convinced that you can value anything in anyway (not consistently though). So If I manage to adopt some sort of male only traits as a value necessary in a sexual partner I could be attracted to the same sex. Those can be superficial male properties or “deeper” ones that are more than just images.
Perhaps it is hasty to say that it is NOT a genetic thing, but I will say that orientation is not permanent in anyway.
There was one incident a few years ago in which two deaf parents had their child genetically modified so that he would be deaf. They did so because they had gotten so close to the ‘deaf community’ and wanted their child to do the same.
Do parents have the right to genetically engineer their child to being deaf? How about being blind? Or missing one hand?
Because that is the source of arousal, not the person themselves. No amount of “male” traits in a female could render her attractive to me.
There’s too much information left out to critique this in depth, but you can still address the principle of the claim, that is: things whigh give rich children a competative advantage to poor children should not be legal, in this case genetically modifying them. What makes that any different than a rich couple enrolling their child in a very good private school where they can learn things poor kids cant? Should private schooling be controlled by the state? What about the fact that rich people can afford healthier foods than poor people which helps their child behave and proform better? Should the market for food be controlled by the government?
To address the idea that the “American Dream” is somehow jeopordized by a market for genetic modification of offspring I would say this: In all the stories of men and women rising up in corporate america (I’d reference Chris Gardner who was the basis behind the movie The Pursuit of Happyness, as it’s probably more familiar to people), striking it rich through hard work, the core element has been their desire to make a better life for their children than they had themselves. So why remove the incentive for that? Why make others pay for procedures which can’t be afforded by the patients, only to remove the incentive for those patients to work harder or save up to afford them?
Well its personal evidence against personal evidence. I don’t think this conversation can be continued without crossing comfort zones.