Creating a designer baby can also increase the mother’s chance of having a miscarriage or other health problems. The science behind making designer babies has not been perfected yet. According to Debolina Raja “The technology that helps to create designer babies is not one hundred percent safe. At the moment, it is still in its experimental stage and there is much to be developed and tested. There are so many unknowns in making your baby perfect that it is not worth taking the risk.” This is a huge con to consider when trying to decide if baby building is right for you.
Although human reproductive cloning should not be banned, they should only be adopted when there are no available alternatives. Parents should state their motivations for cloning which would be reviewed by a panel. If parents have the capability to naturally conceive another child, they should not be granted an opportunity to cloning. An instance where cloning may be obliged involves a couple who have struggled to conceive a child naturally. At one month old, however, the child was lost in an accident.
Although they both share the same viewpoint on how individuals should not use prenatal testing, Greely writes a more persuading and convincing argument due to fewer fallacies. Bonnie Steinbock, a professor of health policy and philosophy at the University at Albany, believes that prenatal testing for potential genetic disorders cannot be justified. She argues that it is almost impossible to determine future life quality with medical advances. In the article, “Prenatal testing for adult-onset conditions is not beneficial” (2009), she claims that prenatal testing is “dubious.” How can a test be helpful for signs of cancer, or diabetes, yet be dubious? This may be confusing to readers since she gives a vague example, and does not have any evidence to back up her claims.
Abortion is a matter of life and death, which took the life of an unborn child. However, the secular worldview believes that a fetus in the womb is not a child or human. Many people claim that a fetus in the womb is not fully developed; hence, it is not considered as a human. According to Sick Matt, a biologist, a baby before 12 weeks of age is only a pile of cells. Therefore, aborting a baby before that period does not result in murder.
So where is the USA on human cloning? Human cloning is legal in the U.S., but there are some Federal prohibitions against research. The George W. Bush regime was especially difficult, and Barack Obama ended the ban on embryonic stem cell research, while remaining opposed to human cloning. Stanford formed a stem cell institute in 2003 and Harvard initiated efforts to clone human embryos in 2006. They initially were attempting to fund this work with private donors without any government assistance.
These opponents to IVF state that the embryos have every right to life that any other human being would have, and regardless of the opportunities in stem cell research it is never right to take a human life. Christians who are part of this opposing viewpoint argue that because humans are made in God’s image, all of them should be treated as though their life has value, including embryos. Those against IVF also state that it increases the risk of the mother becoming pregnant with high amounts of multiples. Some cases of IVF have resulted in a pregnancy of multiples as high as eight, which of course could cause a lot of health complications for the mother and the children. One article on a pro-life website states that allowing for high amounts of embryos to be implanted through IVF “creates a dangerous situation for herself and her babies” and therefore should be
However, in human beings, the percentage may lower and may interfere with the natural biological order of life. Arguments for and against cloning of humans do not make a convincing case since reasons used to back the claims are based on various assumptions and ethical issues. The proponents of cloning argue that the technology can help in solving the problem of infertility; help in cloning dead loved ones, and solving the problem of genetic diseases. Cloning can allow a person to have a genetically copy of oneself with all positive traits. However, such claims have not been proved since no human clone has been produced so far (Melo‐Martín 246).
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.” (Janssens). This would mean that giving an unfair advantage to a so called designer baby would be impossible, because we are unable know if these traits are entirely genetic, let alone isolate and edit them. Another hole in the opposition 's logic is the idea of a fetus needing consent to be genetically modified on. If it’s amoral for a fetus to undergo a process such as genetic modification in order to make it healthy, then it must also be wrong to give baby medicine, vaccines, or surgery. The opposition also commonly thinks that genetic
Testing people would insure safe environments for children growing up with irresponsible parents (Welfare drug testing 2). Children have no control over what family they are born into or where they live. But if we can do more to protect the future generation of America, then why aren’t we doing everything that we can? We should be protecting
There are families who have children with chronic illnesses who need their umbilical cords harvested so that later in life, the cells can help save them. No, this is not a cure but this is a way to better their life. Sometimes, there is just only so much man can do, we are not God, but we do have the resources He has provided us (ncbi.org).