Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Controversy of stem cell research
Discursive essays on the ethics of "stem cell" research
What effects do designer babies have on society
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Controversy of stem cell research
From horsepower carriages to magnet levitation trains, technological advances have aided the superior development of countries at a breakneck speed. This unstoppable process leads to a continuous strand of new innovations in modern USA that could lead to life altering changes. However, with advanced medical technology now becoming more conveniently available to the masses, people are further exposed to the idea creating a more idealistic and flawless society. Ideas such as genetically modifying children to acquire traits that contribute more toward a more socially acceptable and superior human being is the result of the advancement of technology. Despite parental liberty to genetically modify their children in order to help prevent disease and improve living conditions, the process of creating designer babies through free will violates and artificially creates the nature of humans that ushers people toward a technological dependent world.
Families are granted the opportunity to create a designer baby that will live normally without the risk of inherited diseases or disabilities. As a result of the free market, sophisticated medical technology and medical personnel are employed in increasingly fashionable cosmetic surgery; and at the same time, due to aggressive marketing by its makers, genetically engineered human growth hormone, developed to remedy the medical condition of growth hormone deficiency, is routinely prescribed in the USA to normal short children with no hormone deficiency. If these pressures already exist, how much stronger will they be for a technology with as great a power to manipulate human life as GLE? And of course, once the technology was described in the scientific literature, it would be possible for, for...
... middle of paper ...
...r drastically with the new-found breakthroughs in genetic engineering; the capabilities of changing human characteristics will become irrefutably unpredictable. Thus with the rapidly advancement in technology, it is the people’s will to acknowledge how far and to what extent humanity should invest in and to know exactly when to stop to prevent future discontinuities of the nature of human kind.
Work Cited
Bailey, Ronald. "Hooray for Designer Babies!." Reason. Dec. 27 2002: n.p. SIRS Researcher. Web. 31 Jan 2011.
Naik, Gautam. "A Baby, Please." Wall Street Journal. 12 Feb 2009: A.10. SIRS Researcher. Web. 03 Feb 2011.
Pavlat, Eric. "Superhuman." Crisis Magazine Vol. 25, No. 4. May 2007: 10-18. SIRS Researcher. Web. 31 Jan 2011.
Singer, Emily. "Choosing Babies." Technology Review Vol. 110, No. 2. March/April 2007: 86 87. SIRS Researcher. Web. 03 Feb 2011.
With the rise of new genetics neglecting the idea of human dignity, or what it means to be human, we will see a hierarchical system ruled by genetically modified people and the oppression that will follow.
However, with genetic engineering this miracle of like is taken and reduced to petty “character creation” picking and choosing what someone else thinks should “make them special”. An unborn child that undergoes genetic treatments in this fashion is known as a designer baby (“Should Parents Be Permitted to Select the Gender of Their Children?”). By picking and choosing the traits of a child these designer babies bear similarities to abortion, choosing to get rid of the original child in favor of a “better” one. It is also unfair to deprive a child of their own life. By removing the element of chance and imputing their own preferences, children become treated more as an extension of their parents than as living beings with their own unique life. Parents could redirect a child’s entire life by imposing their wishes before they are even born, choosing a cookie cutter tall, athletic boy over a girl with her own individual traits, or any other choice that would redirect a child’s
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.
In recent years, great advancement has been made in medicine and technology. Advanced technologies in reproduction have allowed doctors and parents the ability to screen for genetic disorders (Suter, 2007). Through preimplantation genetic diagnosis, prospective parents undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF) can now have their embryo tested for genetic defects and reduce the chance of the child being born with a genetic disorder (Suter, 2007). This type of technology can open the door and possibility to enhance desirable traits and characteristics in their child. Parents can possibly choose the sex, hair color and eyes or stature. This possibility of selecting desirable traits opens a new world of possible designer babies (Mahoney,
If you could ensure that your future children would be healthy, would you? This is a trivial question because most parents would stop at nothing to ensure that their children are healthy. Human germ-line engineering may soon make it possible to alter the genome of human embryos—permanently changing the genetic blueprint for every cell in an embryo’s body. Through human germ-line technology we could eradicate many debilitating genetic diseases (e.g. Tay-Sachs disease, cystic fibrosis etc.), prevent cancer, and even increase the average life span. Human germ-line engineering is prenatal and produces genetically modified traits that can be passed along to subsequent generations—so the resulting genetic alterations are permanent. The utilization of human germ-line engineering technology, however, is analogous to Pandora’s Box. As attractive as it may seem, opening Pandora’s Box and unleashing human germ-line engineering technology could have severe consequences including negative medical or economic ramifications and a potential amplification of social and economic stratification. In this paper I will present views on the consequences and possible regulation of human germ-line engineering. I propose that the risks of human germ-line engineering technology outweigh the potential benefits and therefore this technology needs to be banned.
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.
When James Watson and Francis Crick discovered the structure of DNA in 1959, they could not have known that their discovery would one day lead to the possibility of a human factory that is equipped with the capabilities to mass produce perfectly designed, immortal human beings on a laboratory assembly line. Of course, this human factory is not yet possible; genetic technology is still in its infancy, and scientists are forced to spend their days unlocking the secret of human genetics in hopes of uncovering cures for diseases, alleviating suffering, and prolonging life. In the midst of their noble work, scientists still dream of a world—a utopia—inhabited by flawless individuals who have forgotten death and never known suffering. What would become of society if such a utopia existed? How will human life be altered? Leon Kass, in Life, Liberty and the Defense of Dignity: The Challenge for Bioethics, acknowledges genetics technology’s greatness, and applauds it for its invaluable, benevolent contributions to mankind. However, Kass argues that if left to their devises and ambitions, geneticists—with the power of their technology—will steal away society’s most precious asset; genetic technology will rob society of its humanity. Genetic technology can, and will, achieve great things, but unless it is regulated and controlled, the losses will be catastrophic and the costs will far exceed the benefits.
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
"Eugenics, Genetic Engineering Lite." The Future of Human Evolution. Humans Future, 2010. Web. 14 Feb 2012.
Good morning, listeners. Welcome to Future Forum. I am Millie Shan. An exciting topic for us to discuss today is the challenges for the future. What concerns could our future generations confront? It is undeniable that rapid technological and scientific progress not only improves convenience and efficiency of our daily life, but also causes ethical concerns to humanity where science and technology intersect with society from different disciplinary aspects. In particular, preimplantation genetic technology could have alter society into a genetic hierarchy establishing a dystopian society accompanied by genetic discrimination. GATTACA made in 1997, an intriguing science fiction film directed by Andrew Niccol, delivers an insight into how the
The evolution of technology has been hand in hand with the human subjugation of earth, but the question persists, when does the use of technology go too far? Advances in medical science have tremendously improved the average human lifespan and the quality of life for individuals. Medical science and biology are steadily arriving at new ways to make humans superior by the use of advanced genetic alteration. This ability raises the question of how ought this new technology be used, if at all? The idea of human enhancement is a very general, since humans are constantly “enhancing” themselves through the use of tools. In referring to human enhancement, I am specifically referring 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 genetically intervene, but may be permissible under the criterion established by Savulescu. I plan to argue that the argument used by Savulescu for the obligation to genetically intervene is not the same obligation as the prevention and treatment of disease. The ability for humans to genetically intervene is not sufficient to provide a moral obligation.
“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”)
Savulescu, Julian. “Genetic Interventions and the Ethics of Human Beings.” Readings in the Philosophy of Technology. Ed. David Kaplan. 2nd ed. Lanham: Roman & Littlefield, 2009. 417-430.