Brandi Booth Professor Cross RCI 1311 10 November 2014 Designer Babies The concept of designer babies has been around for some time, with the first gene therapy test occurring in 1990. It is still in a developmental stage, but in recent years, people have begun to pay more attention to this technology. It is expected to be ready for business, to some extent, in the coming years. Aside from medical concerns, people also question the morals of the process. Is it okay for us to play god and dictate the genetic makeup of unborn babies? Ian Barbour, winner of the Templeton Prize for his efforts to create a dialogue between the worlds of science and religion, writes about 4 models of relations between science and theology in his …show more content…
"I don't think there's anything wrong with the attempt to make our children smarter or kinder," Steinbock told Live Science. "If we did think that was wrong, we should give up parenting, and put them out on the street." But there are still many people who have concerns about the rightness of this science. Tilley, a respected theologian and professor at Fordham University, defines moral in his book Faith: What it is and What it isn’t as something that you believe will have a positive outcome, helping others. Thus, manipulating the genome of fetuses to correct diseases or other conditions is moral, while changing the skin color and gender of a baby isn’t necessarily moral, as it’s not helping the baby, it’s just selfish, and we shouldn’t try to play god in such matters. With these new technologies, society has an obligation to determine whether the technologies used will actually benefit or harm the infant. It's even possible that giving parents the ability to select such specific traits of their offspring could cause problems in the relationship between parents and children. "One of my concerns is if we let parents think they are actually choosing and controlling [their child's outcome], then we set up all that dynamic of potentially tyrannical expectations over what the child will do or be," Murray …show more content…
The technologies that are a little farther in the future, such as dictating intelligence level, eye color, skin tone, and height of babies crosses the line from moral to selfish, or land in the con flight model (Barbour). This technology benefits the baby in no way, it only gives the parents a child that they benefit from. This isn’t helping the baby and is, in the eyes of some religions, taking the place of god. This isn’t “moral” (Tilley). So there can’t really be just one answer to the question “Is the concept of designer babies moral?”, it depends on which category of designer babies you look
Science and faith are generally viewed as two topics that do not intermingle. However, Andy Crouch’s work, Delight in Creation, suggests that there is an approach to both faith and science that allows support of scientists in the church community. There is an approach that can regard science as a career that can reflect the nature of God.
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.
One of the particular areas of interest is prenatal genetics. In this field, many new and outstanding innovations have been made. A mother and father can now check for a large array of disorders that could occur in their child; sexual preference has now been shifted from the hands of a higher being to that of someone with a Ph.D.; and in the near future, a couple will possibly be able to choose the physical features of their child, such as hair color, eye color, etc. Scientifically speaking, all of these new options that parents have is amazing. Not only can they have a healthy baby, but one that is going to be stronger, and better looking. Yet, ethically speaking, many people would dislike the “playing” of God. And when it becomes possible to create a perfect child, what will prevent us in society from doing so? The field of genetics in prenatal situations has become very advanced over the past few years, yet many of these advancements have given arise to unethical applications.
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.
To choose for their children, the world’s wealthy class will soon have options such as tall, pretty, athletic, intelligent, blue eyes, and blonde hair. Occasionally referred to as similar to “the eugenics of Hitler’s Third Reich” (“Designer Babies” n.p.), the new genetics technology is causing differences in people’s opinions, despite altering DNA before implantation is “just around the corner.” (Thadani n.p.). A recent advance in genetically altering embryos coined “designer babies” produces controversy about the morality of this process.
Hemmy Cho, the author of “Enhancing Humans Through Science in Beneficial”, believes that “all people should be able to benefit from important and worthwhile advancements in human technology” (Cho 1). By claiming that enhancing humans through science is beneficial, she is a strong believer that scientist can “select the gender, hair colour, personality, IQ, and eliminate any diseases and 'negative' traits such as anti-social tendencies” (Cho 1). She also thinks that now that we have advances in human technology, we don’t have to rely on evolution, (In this case, evolution is referring to parents passing on genes to the child), parents can choose what traits they want their child to have. Cho makes the point that, “many people feel uncomfortable
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.
Imagine a parent walking into what looks like a conference room. A sheet of paper waits on a table with numerous questions many people wish they had control over. Options such as hair color, skin color, personality traits and other physical appearances are mapped out across the page. When the questions are filled out, a baby appears as he or she was described moments before. The baby is the picture of health, and looks perfect in every way. This scenario seems only to exist in a dream, however, the option to design a child has already become a reality in the near future. Parents may approach a similar scenario every day in the future as if choosing a child’s characteristics were a normal way of life. The use of genetic engineering should not give parents the choice to design their child because of the act of humans belittling and “playing” God, the ethics involved in interfering with human lives, and the dangers of manipulating human genes.
Usage of genetic modification to pick and chose features and personality traits of embryos could conceivably occur in future times. Wealthy individuals could essentially purchase a baby with built-in genetic advantages (Simmons). Ethically, these seem immoral. Playing God and taking control over the natural way of life makes some understandably uneasy. Ultimately, religious and moral standpoints should play a role in the future of genetic engineering, but not control it. Genetic engineering’s advantages far outweigh the cost of a genetically formulated baby and
It is not a simple process to undergo for the mom, either parents, and even the embryo. Some observers say that genome modification is likely to become a routine familiarity as time goes on (Gender Selection of Babies). One major factor of the legalization or illegalization of designer babies is the one of gender selection. If the United States allows anyone, and everyone to choose the gender of their genome, gender balance can become a major problem (Gender Selection of Babies). On the other hand, with selection of genomes, can save people from running into disorders or diseases that only the y chromosome contains, and can excel their chances for a healthier baby perhaps (Gender Modified
Many debilitating and severe unwanted diseases, genetic disorders and disabilities can be avoided through the creation of designer babies. A child's quality of life would be drastically increased if they evade Down Syndrome, deformities or heart disease for example. In a sense, it isn’t all that different to hearing aid, medication for an illness or chemotherapy for cancer, but on a larger scale and earlier in someone’s life, before it even really begins in fact. Some people would argue that changing genes is changing who people are, which they view as ‘wrong’, but genes aren’t exactly the only things that make up a person anyway. The way that they grow up and their surroundings also make people...
Children and babies today hold the future. They control what the world’s future will be like and even how their future offspring will be. Many believe that designer babies have the power to change the future and develop a new world filled with “perfect humans.” “With so little control over the situation, most expectant parents say they don’t care what their baby looks like, ‘as long as it’s healthy.’ But secretly, they often have a dream baby in mind” (Bliss, 2012, p. 5). Parents can all agree that if their child is in a healthy condition, they are happy and thankful; however, every parent is guilty of wanting a child a certain way. If a parent could alter a child to be completely healthy with no diseases or ailments, have the perfect features and have the perfect personality, any parent would go beyond any limit to fulfill this. Designer babies are believed to have the possibility to complete this; however, the assertio...
Barbour writes, “Changing cultural presuppositions also affect perception of what is significant in the social world.” (pg.137) It becomes so simple to say that science and religion are completely different, and while they may share differences I think that it is unfair to say that science and religion are separate from one another. If careful consideration is taken you can take notice that may issues that arise in the Bible such as consuming red meat, banning pork, discarding fat within meat are all backup by scientific facts. Issues that arise within science such as Einstein’s seven invisible dimension that are left unexplained, however many religion believe in the seven levels of “the heavens”, “the invisible”, “the afterlife”, and “the everlasting”. Issues such as the ones mentioned above are ones that connect science and religion on such as deeper level than many care to reveal. I think that it is fair to say that both science and religion have become so reluctant in their own stubborn, self-centered ideologies. Both science and religion have become so consumed in their own ideologies, and understandings that neither allows attention from the others research of teachings. I whole heartedly believe that if science and religion were used to approve one another rather than disprove one another there could be more of a mutual balance and connection between the two. There are numerous similarities in the processes that are taken when achieving new understandings, and knowledge. Also if we allowed ourselves to be honest if science and religion worked together rather than against each other there could be so many new discoveries that could be made, and so many debates that could be put to rest. Like I mentioned before but I think it is important, it either side stopped trying to disprove one another and rather
Stenmark, Mickael. How to Relate Science and Religion. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2004.