Designer Babies

Although the advancement of genetic science has provided humans with the ability to choose their child’s sex, eye color, or even intelligence, some believe that it is highly immoral to commercialize this new found power. The Oxford English Dictionary defines eugenics as the science of improving the (especially human) population by controlled breeding for desirable inheritable characteristics (Suckling, 2000). The original purpose of the trait selection, called eugenics, was to check for certain disease-bearing genes. This allowed for parents to choose non-disease bearing embryos using In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) (Steere, 2008). The technology has recently been developing into detecting various other physical traits that will undoubtedly become abused by the general public if it is brought to the commercial market (Suckling, 2000).

The concept of eugenics was originally advocated by scientific and religious leaders at the beginning of the twentieth century. It was considered utopian and was driven by rhetoric of social reform. At this time, this form of eugenics was not connected to genetic testing but rather used methods such as sterilization, immigration restriction, family planning promotion schemes, and anti-miscegenation laws (Paul, 1995). In the United States, such methods were mostly directed towards immigration and focused on racial issues, whereas in the United Kingdom, class-oriented eugenicists were driven by the fear that if the “lower classes” outbred their social superiors, this would lead to evolutionary regression (Mazumdar, 1992).

Following World War II, eugenics began to be associated with Nazi atrocities. Nazi policies such as infanticide, assisted suicide, marriage prohibitions, forced abortions and ul...

... middle of paper ...

...able or happy. We find ourselves increasingly more freed from the responsibilities that have a strong natural foundation and give life natural direction. Even religious freedom may have to give way to the controlled process of eugenics (Lawler, 2003).

While all of these viewpoints are legitimate, it still does not remove the blatant fact that there could be genetic consequences of these actions. What happens when as a result of trying to “better” your child, the procedure actually does more harm? Another question to ask the proponents is how can you face your child every day knowing you couldn’t just accept them for who they were, but rather who you wanted them to be? When did playing the role of God become acceptable? All of these questions need to be evaluated before we can make a definite decision to allow ordinary human beings to decide the fate of their child.