One-Child Policy and Designer Babies

China's population problems stemming from it's origin as an agrarian state leaves behind an interesting ethical dilemma for us to consider as human beings.

Do humans have a natural right to have children?

Biological principles such as what constitutes as a distinct species is defined by whether or not one group of organisms is able to mate with another. In fact, evolutionary principles stipulate that a species is superior based on fecundity: ability to produce more offspring than other species. Yet in the case of China, births must be limited in order to prevent population explosion and an inconceivable amount of unemployment. Certain individuals stipulate that it should not be the fault of Chinese citizens to bear responsibility for the sake of their government. If an action is moral it should be cross-applicable. People have the right to bear as many children as they want in the United States therefore this should also apply to China. The disjunction is due to immorality.

Meanwhile the strong counter-opinion is that it is ethical to only have enough children to support. With the development of sperm donations and the selling of eggs it remains an ever-evolving question of whether or not we have the right to give birth, but whether or not our potential children have the right to have a natural birth and to be raised by their natural parents. Rather than to be the result of a selected test-tube experiment by an egg from a supermodel and sperm from a weight-lifter. Is there a limit to how far is too far when it comes down to restriction of reproduction and designer babies?

It's pretty complicated to say. See, everyone should have the right to decide how many children they wanna have. But in the context of China, a super overpopulated country, it's different. This sentence: ''Meanwhile the strong counter-opinion is that it is ethical to only have enough children to support.'' makes sense as well, because that's one of the main reasons for poverty. I don't know, you tell me and I'll give it a little more thought.

The one child policy doesn't mean you can only have "1 child" it means there will be huge fine if you want to have a 2nd child. The fine varies by province, but the government have set a limit of between 5000 yuan to 50000 yuan ($700-$7000)
This is the opposite of Canada where people gets paid for having child (and this is the reason why my sister was born)

In most countries where government doesn't reward you for having a child. You'll need to consider if you can financially support your child before you give birth to it. This is the same in China except you also have to put into consideration the additional fine.

OCP:
As Horus said, its not as if you'll be kid for having more kids.
I don't like it, but China is overpopulated and kind of needs it.

Designer Babies:
Lawl, no such thing exists. It does, in the sense that you -think- you can design babies. But in the end the rest of the world will look at grown up designer baby and tell them-
"Am I suppose to care about you?"

Also the fact that not everything comes from genes, you can only design looks (I guess).
But the person's life will suck anyway, because they will eventually find out that their existence was bought. They were basically a product.
I don't know, I'm spewing thoughts. DB will probably go down two paths: Not being outlawed or being outlawed. 50/50 chance

Procreation among sapient creatures is a responsibility, not a right.

Depending on the population density children should be limited to no more than two per couple, three per mother.

I don't approve of tinkering outside of attempts to protect, preserve, or prolong the life of the child but ultimately we are born with no say in who or what we are, so letting the parents have that degree of control isn't too offensive to me. It does lead to opportunities to blame your parents for who you are if you don't like yourself.

Also the fact that not everything comes from genes, you can only design looks (I guess).
But the person's life will suck anyway, because they will eventually find out that their existence was bought. They were basically a product.
I don't know, I'm spewing thoughts. DB will probably go down two paths: Not being outlawed or being outlawed. 50/50 chance

knowing how some conservatives, religious fanatics, and other groups think/act, they will protest against it, saying its tampering with life, stepping into the boundaries of god, so on and such shi't.

personally, i think people should go for something like this. being able to modify some aspects of a child on a genetic level could be a good thing, say, take the gene for immunity to HIV, and spread that around the younger population, and in 50~75 years AIDS/HIV will mostly be heard of only in areas where people couldnt get the procedure on their children. this will of course lead to population control and increased thoughts of racial superiority insofar that those with will laugh at those without. being able to eradicate some forms of disease would also be a good thing, but all things considered strengthening the immune system should take paramount presidence, because if the immune system is comprimised for just one disease, it could lead to another outbreak of plague for something as simple as the flu.

The one child policy doesn't mean you can only have "1 child" it means there will be huge fine if you want to have a 2nd child. The fine varies by province, but the government have set a limit of between 5000 yuan to 50000 yuan ($700-$7000)
This is the opposite of Canada where people gets paid for having child (and this is the reason why my sister was born)

In most countries where government doesn't reward you for having a child. You'll need to consider if you can financially support your child before you give birth to it. This is the same in China except you also have to put into consideration the additional fine.

The fine is based on how much the couple earns, and seems to vary from region to region, but many families just pay up.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7002201.stm

According to the BBC there are no set unified prices. The fine for having one child can vary based on a % of how much money you make. Even though the article does claim that middle-class to high-class families are able to pay off the fine. Even though I agree that a child show grow up in a financially stable home, poor families that want to have children have had them secretly in the rural countryside. The second child born is often times hidden or estranged due to social engineering. Comparing this second child to the child of middle-high class families is drastically different as these families simply pay the fine and have no fear of facing punishment for their second child. Again this is discrimination against the child before they are even born due to the social wealth of their parents. In addition it remains questionable whether or not low income families are stuck in a liquidity trap. For Chinese farmers especially who produce crops, it could be that they are unable to pay such fines as they tend to engage in trading products rather than having yuan currency.

430222]OCP: As Horus said, its not as if you'll be kid for having more kids. I don't like it, but China is overpopulated and kind of needs it.

India is also vastly overpopulated, but has not yet relied on a policy such as one-child.

Designer Babies: Lawl, no such thing exists. It does, in the sense that you -think- you can design babies. But in the end the rest of the world will look at grown up designer baby and tell them- "Am I suppose to care about you?"

I was born in vitro due to the fact that my mother miscarried her first three children. The first two had anencephaly. Using an extracted egg from my mother and sperm from my father I was born. Now if my mother wanted she could have bought sperm and inseminated her eggs. For example if there was someone she thought had a good physique, she might want to give me the sperm of that man so that I end up being strong and healthy. She would design me to be an ideal baby. This is not considered to be a "designer-baby" process as it is macroscopic. But this is realistically what we can do right now when it comes to creating desirable children.

Also the fact that not everything comes from genes, you can only design looks (I guess). But the person's life will suck anyway, because they will eventually find out that their existence was bought. They were basically a product.

Everything comes from genes. The environment acts on a genotype to establish a set phenotype. Phenotypes range from everything ranging from skin pigmentation to cancer to physique to intelligence. If you have a genetic predisposition for a disease such as Huntington's Disease or Phenylketonuria (pku) which causes mucus to clog up the logs on a daily basis then why wouldn't you try to knock those genes out in order to create a baby with a better future. You are basically a product of your parents. A result of their wonderful upbringing and an indicator of their wisdom. They feed you, raise you, and have certain expectations because they love you. All children are products of their parents.

I don't know, I'm spewing thoughts. DB will probably go down two paths: Not being outlawed or being outlawed. 50/50 chance

... it's not a 50/50 chance. If you don't know anything then how do you know it's a 50/50 chance. This is not like we're flipping a coin for approval. There are scientific, social, political, and economic factors that are worked out in order to determine statistically what would happen in the future. I think it's pretty gutsy to issue a statement like that and the circular logic is misplaced in this situation. But nice try...

knowing how some conservatives, religious fanatics, and other groups think/act, they will protest against it, saying its tampering with life, stepping into the boundaries of god, so on and such shi't.

personally, i think people should go for something like this. being able to modify some aspects of a child on a genetic level could be a good thing, say, take the gene for immunity to HIV, and spread that around the younger population, and in 50~75 years AIDS/HIV will mostly be heard of only in areas where people couldnt get the procedure on their children. this will of course lead to population control and increased thoughts of racial superiority insofar that those with will laugh at those without. being able to eradicate some forms of disease would also be a good thing, but all things considered strengthening the immune system should take paramount presidence, because if the immune system is comprimised for just one disease, it could lead to another outbreak of plague for something as simple as the flu.

The immune system works by... ... ... ... it works by exposing the body to some live weakened form of the pathogen. Usually in vaccines the pathogen is tagged with molecular markers to help the body's immune system recognize the foreign invader and to establish memory B cells which will counter the pathogen in the future. Usually when immunity it discussed with genetics it is post-birth due to the fact that we are addressing a primarily memory based system dependent on growth. I don't know how "racism" would play a role in designer-babies. I think people are looking way too far into the shallow asthetic application which is far away into the next millenium. Finally I don't know how it would lead to population control. If anything people would live longer with ideal genes and cause it to expand and grow unstable. Usually diseases, wars, and famines help out the world by killing humans and lessening the demand on resources. If anything, designing our future is an act of increasing entropy and chaos rather than maintaining control and order.