Genetically Engineering ‘Ethical’ Babies
It is a dream of each and every parent to have their own children grow up to be decent, well discipline, non-violent, health rational and a successful adult. As a parent we all do everything to groom and ensure that our kids become the best, all these can be done but still the future of any human being cannot be predicted.
Genetic engineering is the adding of new DNA to an organism; the goal is to introduce new traits to the organism. In the article, the author claims that genetic screening of offspring makes them better people with good morals and health thus is an excellent show of good parenting.
The author argues that parents have the sole responsibility to decide the future traits of their offsprings while they are still in
…show more content…
The author has employed Professor Julian Svulescu’ arguments that restructuring the genetic set up of an individual will not only prevent the harming of others but also themselves. He goes on to state that it is the parents themselves who make the choice to screen out the unwanted traits as no one would want children who are physically or morally defective. The author further backs up his claim by saying that the screening to either add or delete defective gene is a rational thing to do and should be viewed as a natural extension.
In my opinion, the article is not well balanced as it considers the process of producing genetic babies from only one perspective, it only talks from scientist’s point of view, in parent opinion that does not cover much, but in the community or country that legal framework on genetic coding. The fact that the author tried to mention in the article that there were protests in the mid-2000 is a clear indication that genetically manipulated babies are not fully accepted into the
White, Mary. “Making Responsible Decisions: An Interpretive Ethic for Genetic Decisionmaking.” The Hastings Center Report 29.1 Jan./Feb. (1999): 14-21.
Neoeugenics is the idea of new, “neo”, eugenics or a new way of creating a healthier race. Eugenics was first defined in the late 1800s by a man named Sir Francis Galton who said that it was basically the study of traits that will cause an advantage or disadvantage in the traits of future generations. Eugenics soon turned from being about the use of artificial selection of breeding to create a stronger species, to being about the advancement of certain races over others. When talking about neo eugenics, it is believed that it may turn into something similar to that of eugenics in that the use of artificial selection would now be used to bring the upper class higher in standards of health and wellbeing as well as beauty. Others believe that the use of neo eugenics will help create a healthier, more stable species. Whether bad or good, the way that eugenics will advance will be in designer babies.
Julian Savulescu tries to argue on the grounds of Utilitarianism that parents have a moral duty to improve their children’s genetic makeup in the same way that they would improve the child’s “environment” or prevent diseases (The Ethical Life, 443). Julian thinks this is a duty because it will yield the most positive outcomes or consequences. He believes that failure to use genetic enhancements, when a parent has an opportunity to benefit their child, is neglecting the child’s needs which is morally wrong (The Ethical Life, 443). Julian also defends his position by claiming that it would be inconsistent to “train our children to behave well”, but then refuse to seek genetic enhancements for our children so they have the tools to succeed, when
What do one think of when they hear the words “Designer Babies”? A couple designing their own baby of course, and it’s become just that. Technology has made it possible for there to be a way for doctors to modify a babies characteristics and its health. Genetically altering human embryos is morally wrong, and can cause a disservice to the parents and the child its effecting.
Picture a young couple in a waiting room looking through a catalogue together. This catalogue is a little different from what you might expect. In this catalogue, specific traits for babies are being sold to couples to help them create the "perfect baby." This may seem like a bizarre scenario, but it may not be too far off in the future. Designing babies using genetic enhancement is an issue that is gaining more and more attention in the news. This controversial issue, once thought to be only possible in the realm of science-fiction, is causing people to discuss the moral issues surrounding genetic enhancement and germ line engineering. Though genetic research can prove beneficial to learning how to prevent hereditary diseases, the genetic enhancement of human embryos is unethical when used to create "designer babies" with enhanced appearance, athletic ability, and intelligence.
Scientists have edited the DNA of non- viable embryos. It is argued that it’s the first step for parents being able to design their own children. Sarah Knapton (April 23) stresses the risks of Genetic Engineering by questioning the motivations of Genetic scientists. By stating that these genetic scientists want their names in a history books. Genetic engineering implies ethical issues and safety issues. Oxford professor conducted a test. 71 embryos survived and 54 were genetically tested. 28 were spliced and some of the contained a replacement genetic material. It was found that there was unexpected mutations that shouldn’t off been effected by the technique. However, the Chinese scientist states that the embryos were non-viable. Is this a safe practice if the researchers are contradicting themselves? Universal laws guided by ideologies that help promote the health and wellbeing of society using principles of equality and justice. Equality and justice are two values that need to be incorporated in this practice to make sure the focus on genetic engineering will be utilized for life saving reasons.
People should not have access to genetically altering their children because of people’s views on God and their faith, the ethics involving humans, and the possible dangers in tampering with human genes. Although it is many parent’s dream to have the perfect child, or to create a child just the way they want, parents need to realize the reality in genetic engineering. Sometimes a dream should stay a figment of one’s imagination, so reality can go in without the chance of harming an innocent child’s life.
Julian Savulescu in “Genetic Interventions and the Ethics of Enhancement of Human Beings,” discusses the importance of giving our children the opportunity to excel in everything they do, and how it would be morally wrong being the opportunity given, that we deny them this chance, as being genetically enhance would be like taking a vitamin pill, or going on a diet. Savulescu is all towards genetically enhancement and in his essay he explains how parents sometimes fail to achieve their children’s maximum potential and how this affects the children in their future.
In order to fully argue against Savulescu there must first be a thorough explication of his arguments for the permissibility and obligation of genetic enhancement. The first argument given for the permissibility of genetic enhancement is the postulate of the “Neglectful Parents”. Savulescu considers the case of two types of parents, the neglectful parents, and the lazy parents. The neglectful parents have a chi...
What is Designer babies? It is a baby whose genetic makeup has been selected in order to get rid of a particular defect, or to ensure that a particular gene is present. Even though there are many questions about genetically modifying babies for being ethical. There are many pros to making a desinger baby.
In their research article, “Genetic modification and genetic determinism”, David B. Resnik and Daniel B. Vorhaus argue that all the nonconsequentialist arguments against genetic modification are faulty because of the assumption that all the traits are strongly genetically determined, which is not the case. Resnik and Vorhaus dispel four arguments against genetic modification one-by-one. The freedom argument represents three claims: genetic modification prevents the person who has been modified from making free choices related to the modified trait, limits the range of behaviors and life plans, and interferes with the person 's ability to make free choices by increasing parental expectations and demands (Resnik & Vorhaus 5). The authors find this argument not convincing, as genes are simply not “powerful” enough to deprive a person of free choice, career and life options. In addition to that, they argue that parental control depends not on genetic procedure itself, but rather on parents’ basic knowledge of what the results of the modification should be. In a similar fashion, the giftedness arguments, which states that “Children are no longer viewed as gifts, but as
Could you imagine your parents designing you? Picture your parents being able to go into a room and design you just like that. They could choose what you would look like, be like, and even what abilities you may have. It sounds crazy, but science is advancing and soon this will be possible, that is, if we allow it.
In referring to human enhancement, I am referring specifically to the use of genetic intervention prior to birth. Julian Savulescu, in his, “Genetic Interventions and the Ethics of Enhancement of Human Beings,” argues that it is not only permissible to intervene genetically, but is morally obligatory. In this paper, I will argue that it is not morally obligatory to intervene genetically, even if such intervention may be permissible under certain criteria. I will show, in contrast to Savulescu’s view, that the moral obligation to intervene is not the same as the moral obligation to prevent and treat disease. In short, I will show that the ability of humans to intervene genetically is not sufficient to establish a moral obligation.
Genetic Engineering is the deliberate alteration of an organism's genetic information (Lee 1). The outcome scientists refer to as successful entitles the living thing’s ability to produce new substances or perform new functions (Lee 1). In the early 1970’s, direct manipulation of the genetic material deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) became possible and led to the rapid advancement of modern biotechnology (Lee 1).
The study of eugenics has been around for many years. China runs the largest and most successful eugenics program in the world. This is becoming more common and accepted by many people. However, simply because it is accepted does not make it right. Eugenics comes from the Greek word meaning “good” or “well born”. It is the belief that some people are genetically superior to others; and that one inherits their relatives’ mental and psychological traits. Eugenics started off as a positive theory, encouraging educated people (positive eugenics) to bear more children and raise them in a constructive manner, but has become a negative theory threatening the sterilization of people with unwanted traits (negative eugenics).