Movie Analysis: Designer Babies

Many great things can be accomplished through genetic engineering, but scientific progress is being halted by the opposition 's use of arguments with questionable logic. Most notably is their fear of designer babies. The problem with designer babies is that complex beneficial traits such as height, strength, intelligence, and attractiveness aren’t determined by one gene, and are also dependent on many other variables that aren’t genetic. Some traits such as the shape of an earlobe, eye color, or an individual’s susceptibility to certain diseases are determined by a single gene, and that specific gene can be identified and isolated by scientists. Professor of translational epidemiology at Emory University, Cecile Janssens states, “Even when all genes and their complex interactions are completely understood, our ability to use gene editing for favorable traits will remain limited because human traits are just not genetic enough.”

The outcome of trying to help cure a disease is millions of dead people. Is it worth it? The outcome of human cloning gives people too much power; they can regulate who is in the world and pretty soon, things like what characteristics they possess. I believe that medicine is a gift from God that we can use to try to save people and I think the means of therapeutic cloning are good, but we shouldn’t commit an immoral act like taking someone’s life to try to save another.

According to “‘Goodbye Dolly?’ The ethics of human cloning”, many people that are carriers of genetic diseases, such as X-linked and autosomal recessive diseases, as well as mitochondrial disease, choose not to have children because of the risk of them having the disease that they carry. Cloning can be used to give these people children that are genetically related to themselves, without the risk of having the diseases, or can be used to provide a twin embryo for biopsy in order to see whether or not their child has the genetic disease. With mitochondrial disease, cloning by nuclear substitution removes the possibility of it being passed down, as the mitochondrial DNA is left in the cell that the nucleus is taken from. With the possibility of giving these people genetically related

I am on the affirmative, and I agree with human experiments. The facts speak for themselves. Not only has the human lifespan increased, but we have cured multiple diseases that could have wiped out the human race as a whole. Smallpox is a distant memory thanks to human experimentation. We are less susceptible to what used to be common illnesses.

There are a few appealing aspects to the act of eugenics. If eugenics were applied, the world could potentially see a decrease in disease, a rise in intelligence, and heightened physical aesthetic in humans. But, ethically it crosses many boundaries that have prevented this idea from going into world-wide effect in the past. A benefit to eugenics is it could lead to the reduction of genetic diseases in the gene pool.

Should or should we not prohibit genetically engineered babies is the question to ask. After years and year of trying to figure out the cure for a disease like a mitochondrial disease, a group of professional on the topic believes that it would greatly benefit the baby ’s outcome exceptionally if their parents has harmful genetics. Most people concern would be how the baby would turn out because there have not been any clinical trials that prove that the genetics that is engineered properly work like they should. I personally believe that the genetics of baby should not be engineered, but I do believe that it should be up to the parent of the children since it is their child in the first place.

Even though the embryonic stem cells might not have life to it straight away, there is possibility in killing a potential life. I personally do not have a religion, but I still think it is looked at as a way of murder. Also, if a person was to get extremely sick, no one is responsible and it is therefore no one’s job to try and cure this person. As human beings we should not try to play god and think we can save every human life on this planet. Scientists claim to develop ways of treatment and cures, but it is yet uncertain to what extend this will have (positive) impact on the illness.

According to the author Arthur Caplan one of the possible benefits of genetic engineering is eliminating genes known to cause cancers and hereditary diseases, “This would allow us to eliminate heartily diseases (sickle anemia, type one diabetes, and so) allowing our children to live a better life” (Caplan). By being able to cut out a certain genes that are connected to cancers and hereditary would lead to lesser amount of people dying and suffering from something that they have no say over. The author Gordon Dillow argues that a possible discoveries would lead to more of a perfect population, “The results of such discoveries could benefit humans immensely, possibly eradicating genetic defects” (Dillow). With many benefits of Genetic Engineering there are still those who oppose to it.

The adoption of genetic engineering as a logical next step in the advancement of agricultural technology will enormously benefit society, the economy and the environment. Opposition to Genetically Modified

Unfortunately, the anti-vaccination movement is becoming increasingly popular due to individuals’ unfounded fears and imagined consequences associated with the idea of purposely inserting a disease into one’s body. However, despite one’s beliefs, vaccines are essential not only to a person’s well-being, but to the health of those around them. Mandatory vaccinations do not cause autism; rather, they save lives while upholding values of

Last, the scientists should respect embryos just like they are human beings. People today are still debating if the embryonic stem cells are the best fit for the unborn. Scientists have used embryos to test on for the use of trying to find cure to diseases. The treatment may not really work but they are still putting people through risks. Scientist are taking humans

It would eliminate intellectual competition and therefore could eliminate innovation and progress. For these reasons I think it is immoral. However, in certain cases, biomedical enhancements of intellect can be justifiably moral. People with attention deficits are given medication to aid their concentration: this is not immoral in my opinion, it simply evens the playing field: it doesn’t simply give everyone the same level of intelligence, it gives everyone an even opportunity to attain a higher

How would you feel if your parents constructed you, would you feel dehumanized, or how about deprived of your individuality? Advances in medicine, like designer babies, are not beneficial because designer babies can only be used by the rich, babies lose their individuality, and genes are not perfect. The only reason the rich can use this is because it cost $100,000. If you decide to create your own baby you could change anything from their hair color to what diseases they get. Genes are not perfect because not all diseases can be cured by this process and people think this process can cure any diseases they do not want their child to have.