Nature vs. Nurture is the long lasting debate about whether people inherit their personality traits from their parents or if they are developed through their environment. Neither position has been proven because it is hard to find solid, irrefutable, scientific evidence to support either one. Nature vs. Nurture can deal with many aspects of a person’s personality, such as intelligence and how a person is able to be as smart as they are. Intelligence is something that can be inherited, just as people inherit physical characteristics. However, some feel that children are raised to be intelligent, and that kids cannot inherit something that is not visible or tangible.
Because the technology used to create designer babies is so recent it is unsure whether genetically altering the babies will effect the gene pool. This can cause problems later on in the baby's family tree. Some genes have more than one function. For example the gene that's in charge of intellect could also control anger, so you would have a very smart but very irritable child. Because geneticists cannot 100% evaluate every gene it is almost positive that mistakes will be made.
Being able to make clones of humans is a goal that researchers and scientists alike have sought to reach for many years. However, the majority of people in the world would consider it to be a terrible and immoral idea, and with good reasoning. With the amount of complications, danger, and religious contradiction that could be associated with cloning, it definitely does not uphold good moral standards. Cloning involves creating a genetic replica of another already existing cell, tissue, or organism. By the definition of cloning, it is now evident that cloning not only involves making replicas of an organism (for example an individual), but it also involves making duplicates of organs inside the body.
The question on whether adoptees should have the knowledge on their birthrights has remained a food for thought and has been debated at different capacities. The debate has not only taken political direction but it also has a major impact on the psychological, emotional and social development on the child's well being. The existing laws do not allow the adoptee to have access on information pertaining to their birth history. Therefore, various groups and individuals have been concerned about this matter and have expressed their contempt towards such laws. The question that many have asked is, why should the adopted person not be given access to their birthright information?
The idea of genetically modifying an embryo poses the immoral view that humans, who are seen as abnormal, are not as important in today’s society. Expanding from Choice Eugenics, the idea of modifying an embryo has become a process that many scientists are trying to normalize. This process of gene therapy, also known as germ-line engineering, is a fairly new topic of discussion that has been criticized by many for a variety of different reasons. The genetic modification of an embryo poses large threat to the fetus and demonstrates harmful affects which can lead to negative health defects in its future. Many of the technologies used in this process of gene modification are dangerous and can cause significant risk to a fetus.
Medical risks are a huge deal that everyone needs to be aware of, but especially those who are not sure where they came from. Donor children who do not know who their donor is or are looking for their biological parent, may grow up to have problems psychologically. Children have the right to know their biological background. There are many views on sperm and egg donation. Some people would say that the donor child has no legal right to know their donor parent.
Human embryo cloning should not be done because of the religious, moral, ethical, and social concerns that it places upon the human race. Although there may be some positive affects to cloning humans, there are far too many opposing factors in this situation. Many religious leaders of expressed their concern and condemnation of human cloning. The moral and ethical aspects outweigh any scientific evidence, and the social concerns are frightening. The most important question that needs to be asked, is whether the gains out weigh the losses--the gains being scientific research and the losses being the religious, moral, ethical, and social concerns that it poses on today’s society.
This process will also affect the “designed baby” emotionally for the child may think they are not real in the sense that they were created for selfish purposes. Altering an embryo's genetics affects the child physically and emotionally. As well as affecting the society as a whole in the long run. Designer babies, a term used by journalists, are described as “advanced reproductive technologies allowing parents and doctors to screen embryos for genetic disorders and for selecting healthy embryos” (Bionet). There are three ways that can be used to create this “designer baby”.
The final step is intervention; this is the deployment of an external party into a conflict where the external party has not been invited. The many moral and ethical implications set by such a precedent is subject to much debate and poses one of the toughest philosophical problems today. It is the contention of this thinker that the practice of intervention is one that should never have been used and furthermore must be seized as it is not fit for practice today in our world for the following points of reason: the concept is altruistic in theory but is practiced by political players, there is a dangerous standard set into place that could possibly be used maliciously by parties against the sovereignty of other nations and finally it is very difficult to determine the legitimacy of a nation state considering that the countries of the world do not share the same philosophical criterion to define "legitimate government". The question of involvement in any sort of intervention is a difficult one to approach because the implications of the ideology are idealistic and altruistic to the point that the notion is completely hypothetical as opposed to being plausible phenomen... ... middle of paper ... ...yers to serve any interest but there own, making intervention something selfish and not altruistic. The compromising values of self-interest and benevolence are clear reasons in themselves to abandon intervention policy.
The question of how to regulate potential uses and misuses of the aforementioned ideals is of much debate. Several acceptable answers have been suggested, but each has its own weaknesses and group of detractors. As an answer to the moral questions that the advent of cloning has raised, several coun... ... middle of paper ... ... will be formulated. With the exploration of various solutions and issues that arise when dealing with these approaches to the moral dilemma faced, one can only conclude that the best solution is already being developed. The human race is not ready to control the formation of life, for there are too many potential abuses and no way to control them.