Should Parents be allowed to choose the Genetics of their Child?
There are constantly new technologies that permit ideas most people have never even encountered. One of the most recent ideas consists of parents changing the genetics of their child; designer babies. These genetic alterations were first produced with a revolutionary technique, preimplantation, in the U.S in 2000, when Adam Nash was born. This event occurred to save his older sister, Molly Nash. She needed saving because she obtained the genetic disorder called Fanconi Anemia which causes bone marrow deficiency. Doctors produced Adam by screen testing the embryos from the parents, Lisa and Jack Nash. Scientists used genes that were a perfect match with their daughter and did not
…show more content…
Therefore, a financial gap between the wealthy and middle class would be formed. Prejudice would occur between these parents who did not agree to this treatment versus those who agree. This would also cause a gap between the designer babies and non-designer babies within society. Social classes would most likely be formed just like they have always been, such as those based on race, religion, or gender. Gender could become a big issue, especially in China where parents typically prefer to have male children instead of female. The government would then have to figure out regulations or even come up with a quota system. This could result in an even bigger government issue. Moreover, designer babies would most likely have the “better” traits. In result, the non-designer children would be looked down upon, and they would ultimately believe that they are not good enough, compared to the designer babies. Unity should be the goal to reach in society, not to be pushed …show more content…
Nature should take its course, because there are many consequences with every action taken. The human species have continued to thrive for thousands of years, so why change how we develop now? Not only nature, but the economic funds will be impacted such as where the government puts their money. The social climate will become less unified, which is a great deal considering history of trying to unite the country. The funds and time should go toward to cure diseases of people who are already living, without changing their genetics which makes them who they
The second article I have chosen to evaluate for this topic is The Designer Baby Myth written by Steven Pinker. This article starts off by explaining how many people fear the idea of genetic enhancement. Several citizens are concerned about creating the ultimate inequality or changing human nature itself. Many will say technology in medicine is increasing to the point where genetic improvement is inevitable. Steven presents his position on the matter in his thesis statement; “But when it come to direct genetic enhancement-engineering babies with genes for desirable traits-there are many reasons to be skeptical.” He makes it clear that genetic enrichment is not particularly inevitable or likely in our lifetime. He bases his skepticism around three sources; the limits of futurology, science of behavioral genetics, and human nature.
Once altered, the baby will have no say in how its cells are used, or traits they wish to keep but no longer will have the chance too. Some designer babies are created to help others through transplants. Even though the intention may be decent, it is still taking away the child's chance to have a choice in his body. Certain transplants are painful, such as a bone marrow transplant, and creating the child to be used as a donor could possibly put him through involuntary pain.
Designer babies are just like any other child and will grow up just as any other child will. The only difference between designer and normal babies are that designer babies are genetically modified. The genetic modifications would ideally include immunity to illnesses, choice of sex, physical characteristics, and mental and physical capabilities. The genetic modifications could be as little or as extensive as the parent would like but the doctors in charge would be able to recommend certain modifications in order to combat certain common family diseases. All of this would ultimately lead into more popular genes being passed down to the children and less and less modifications will be needed. This is able to be done because DNA or genes are the basis of all characteristics in organisms. As of yet, humans lack the technology and ...
As a boy Adam lived a pretty good life. He had a small family, he lived with his brother Scott, mom Judy, father Stan, and two sisters Elizabeth and Valerie. Bio 1) Adam’s dad was born April 5, 1935 and died September 9, 2003. (IMDb 1) Adam’s family lived in a small town in New Hampshire where there was not a lot to do.
Most people agree, in general, that designer babies are taking over and it is it’s a good thing. A designer baby is a human embryo that parents set , to produce desirable traits. According to Opposing Viewpoints Online Collection , Fertility Institutes in Los Angeles offered to let parents select their children’s hair and eye color. Crazy to think you’d be able to build your own baby. The process of creating this designer baby would be embryos modified to predetermine intellect , physical prowess , and beauty. People may question designer babies but “if you think women have the right to control their bodies , then they should be able to make this choice” right? (Citation?) There is a lot of science into creating a designer baby.
After the discovery of genetically altering an embryo before implantation, “designer babies” was coined to describe a child genetically altered “to ensure specific intellectual and cosmetic characteristics.” (“Designer Babies” n.p.). This procedure combines genetic engineering and In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) to make sure certain characteristics are absent or present in an embryo (Thadani n.p.). The procedure also includes taking an embryo to be pre-implementation genetically diagnosed (PGD), another procedure that doctors use to screen the embryos (Stock n.p.). An embryo’s DNA goes through multiple tests to obtain an analysis of the embryo, which will list all the components of the embryo including genetic disorders and physical traits such as Down syndrome, blue eyes, and brown hair, for instance (Smith 7). Although the use of PGD is widely accepted by the “reproductive medical community” and the modifying of disorders or diseases is to a degree, once the characteristics are no longer health related “72% disapprove of the procedure” (“Designer Babies” n.p.). At this point the parents make decisions that would alter their child’s life forever and this decision is rather controversial in the U...
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.
...nology would be put to greater use, as well as save society. All in all, instead of designer babies becoming an enhancement, society would be devastated by destruction.
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).
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.
Being born into an economically disadvantaged family causes dilemmas before the kid is even born. According to Gulick, “Economically disadvantaged students have it tougher before they are born because they have less prenatal care if any at all” (1). Because the babies do not even have the care they need before they are born they end up being born with things that aren’t good. “Children born into poverty have lower birth weights, and many suffer from hunger and poor nutrition. When the youth suffer from poor nutrition and low birth rates it causes many complications for the hospital staff, the babies family, and causes stress on whoever pays the medical bill because the baby possible has to stay at the hospital longer. Once the kid is born the dilemmas go on and on. So how does being economically disadvantage affect people?
“It 's not easy as “I want to buy and egg,” states, the director of the Donor Egg Bank, Brigid Dowd. “Not everyone realizes what 's involved, and then when they hear the cost, many just pass out.” (CGS: Designing the $100,000 Baby,” par. 13) It is a fact that having certain traits are valuable, so this shows that the mere modification used on the designer baby, the more the cost. “If you are too rigid or become too obsessed with finding the perfect image you have in mind, the choice can become more difficult,” says Dowd. (“CGS: Designing the $100,000 Baby,”par. 16) The practice of human genetic modification will not be fair because only the wealthy will have enough money to spend on designing a baby. Therefore, the wealthy will have much more advantages such as longer, healthier, and successful lives. If only people of high class are able to afford designer babies, it will cause an even greater inequality between the rich and the poor (“The Ethics of Designer Babies”). It will also create a society based on “Social Darwinism”- The survival of the fittest. If creating designer babies will cause more inequalities and Social Darwinism, why should we allow this practice? (“The ethics of Designer Babies”)
The concept of designer babies is a highly disputed topic. Some say that it is mainly beneficial because it can enhance and cure, but some would say otherwise because they see it as unethical and ultimately causing problems within society. Most parents would want the best for their child, so ‘improving’ them or ‘making them better’ makes sense. Which school a child goes to and which hobbies they take part in can be choices that a parent makes, which in turn hopefully makes the child’s life better. Genetic engineering could become a common practice and be another choice for parents to make, but is it just going too far?
But I found that every source that I looked at was giving the issue great reviews.