Perhaps, in some cases, these will do some good; others may end up doing injury. But at least these people have, through their free choices, done it to themselves (D’Souza, 2010, para. 23). Attempting to fit their children into the role of “Model child”, parents employ bio-technology. They then utilize bio-technology to alter their children before they are even born, taking away the children’s will and putting themselves in the position of designer. Bio-technology affects the entire existence of the child that undergoes “designing”.
In today’s world, you can have your baby with blue eyes, perfect height, and how you want your baby to look when is old. Now we can even make a baby be born smart because now scientists are more specialized in genetic and how the genes work. For example, if women can’t have babies she can rent a belly from another woman so she can have the baby but the baby is going to have the DNA of the women who can’t have babies, not of the other woman. Is pretty impressive how today scientist can modify genetically the genes of babies before they are even born. Now in today’s world is almost possible to create the perfect baby if we want.
Designer babies have been the debate for a few years now, placed upon a shaky moral platform. With human science pushing the boundaries of human genetics further and further, many are questioning if designer babies have finally crossed the line in science. The problem is that people view designer babies on a moral perspective rather than a medical one. Designer babies should be tolerated because they can help parents prevent their offspring from having certain diseases and disabilities.
There have been multiple “designer baby” procedures in order to fix diseases or to create a child that is a specific copy of a deceased sibling. Many have heard of the book My Sister's Keeper, which later became a movie. There have been multiple accounts where families have edited their unborn child's DNA in order to provide copies what their sick child needs. In one case parents of Britain’s first “designer baby” projected an attack on the critics of these procedures. This Whitaker’s had a four year old child, Charlie, who suffered from Anaemia.
Some of my reasons are it can increase the human lifespan by 30 years, can help prevent genetic diseases, and it reduces the risk of diabetes and cancer. (“list”). Based on the evidence I found I know believe that designer babies are good because a designer baby can be protected from genetic diseases. If you can prevent a genetic diseases from happening that would be a good thing. The evidence I use to support this is there are all sorts of genetic diseases the one I learned about is genetic blindness.
If we were able to make our children smarter, better looking, or more athletic, should we? Amy Sterling Casil had that exact scenario in mind when she wrote her short story, Perfect Stranger in 2006. Written in the first-person narrative that takes place in the distant future, Casil weaves a terrifying story of genetic alteration to “fix” our children’s flaws. What harm can it cause if gene therapy is performed as an elective procedure rather than medical necessity? Gary and Carolyn, expecting parents, find out their little boy will need gene therapy while still in the womb if they hope to spare him from a fatal heart condition.
Designer babies are “children who develop from embryos that are selected or genetically modified in vitro (outside of the human body, usually in a laboratory setting) to ensure that the resulting children possess certain desired characteristics or traits” (“Designer Babies”). When using this technology scientist will be capable of “manipulating the [entire] human genome”, affecting the appearance of future offsprings”
As technology advances, more things become possible. One of these things is genetically modifying a baby, this is very wrong. Genetic modifying or genetic engineering is altering someone or something’s DNA. Scientists hope to cure diseases with this method but doing this can lead to some harmful effects. This process is very unethical.
but what about the child. How do you think that they would feel about it. Knowing that they aren’t who they actually thought they are. Wow that would be hard to life like that. Studies say that, “There is a debate that says that creating designer babies can lead to a gap in
This procedure’s purpose is to switch out genes for more preferred ones, especially to improve the health of the child. Genetic engineering could permit selection of desired physical and pleasurable traits for non-medical reasons, which has created concern in some people. The process of switching out the genes of a fetus to install genes that are more preferred has brought up debate about whether or not parents should be able to alter their babies genes to make them more appealing to the parents interests. There are many different ways of looking at this procedure and in contrast to other scientific procedures it can be for greater good or for unnecessary enhancement that could potentially create problems in society. Designer babies aren’t morally correct or incorrect, but are in between depending on what it is being used for.
Editing of the human genome in the past has been only a sight seen in dystopia works such as Brave New World. Now, genetic enhancement is a prevalent today and people are beginning to realize the issues that can arise from creating these designer babies. Gene editing can be helpful to eradicate life changing disabilities. Yet, the term disability does not correctly label these differently abled people, as the idea of what is considered disabled has changed overtime. To fully understand the consequences and implications of genetic selection and enhancement of human embryos, society must mature and declare lines of what is and is not ethically moral.
There are so many pros and cons to go over so let’s begin with the pros. The pros of having a designer baby are that the can reduce the risk of genetic diseases. This means that the baby will have a less chance of getting diseases more than others. Also they can reduce the risk of inherited medical conditions. So whatever the generation of the parents had the baby won’t have the parent choose the baby not to have.
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.
In 1932, Aldous Huxley imagined and wrote about a world where designer baby technology is prevalent in his science-fiction novel, Brave New World. The technology would not come until many years later, but his ideas still hold up today. In the book, there were different classes depending on how genetically modified one was, including Alpha or Beta (“The Public Should Oppose Designer Baby Technology”). Outside of science fiction, though, is real science where an actual baby can be genetically modified before even being born. A designed baby is one that is purposefully shaped to be one way or another through processes including In Vitro Fertilization (IVF), where an egg is fertilized and genetically altered, and preimplantation genetic diagnosis
In many countries, it is illegal to create a designer baby, but in the United States, there is no law against it (Knoepfler, The Ethical Dilemma of Designer Babies, TedTalk). In his TedTalk, “The Ethical Dilemma of Designer Babies,” stem cell and genetics researcher, Paul Knoepfler, states the long-term risks of designer babies, describing it as “a kinder, gentler, positive eugenics.” He also touches on government involvement in this researcher; “I also think it 's not that unlikely that governments might start taking an interest in genetic modification. So for example our imagined GM Jenna child who is healthier, if there 's a generation that looks like they have lower healthcare costs, it 's possible that governments may start trying to compel their citizens to go the GM route.” I agree with many points Knoepfler makes in his TedTalk.
