Author Chuck Klosterman said, “The simple truth is that we’re all already cyborgs more or less. Our mouths are filled with silver. Our nearsighted pupils are repaired with surgical lasers. We jam diabetics full of delicious insulin. Almost 40 percent of Americans now have prosthetic limbs. We see to have no qualms about making post-birth improvements to our feeble selves. Why are we so uncomfortable with pre-birth improvement?” Despite Klosterman’s accurate observation, there are reasons people are wearisome toward pre-birth enhancement. Iniquitous practices such as genetic engineering could lead to a degraded feeling in a child and conceivably end in a dystopian society, almost like the society Adolf Hitler had in mind. In the minds of some scientists genetic engineering for pre-birth enhancement is a potential for disaster. Disputes surrounding the definition of humanity, a threat to freedom of action, and eugenics question the moral ethics of genetic engineering, yet there is still belief that pre-birth enhancement will benefit society.
Humanity is expressed by distinct attributes that characterize humans. Being able to think, imagine, reason, laugh, and play, and to feel concern are only a few of these characteristics. It means to be diverse and unlike anyone else. Practicing genetic engineering would destroy this. Challenging the concept of what it is to be human should not be allowed. If by introducing genetic engineering and “designer babies” diversity is lost, humanity, too, is lost. No one will be individual and unique if anyone can choose to have the same traits. Humanity will be lost to unethical and immoral practices such as genetic engineering.
Threatening freedom of action of humans could be caused by genetic eng...
... middle of paper ...
... a reminder of why it is dangerous to give humans power over selecting traits by essentially saying that anyone who doesn’t fit into a preconceived model should be is expendable.
To quote Mark S. Frankel, “A preoccupation with genetic enhancement may place too much emphasis on genes and ultimately prevent us from solving problems that are really embedded in the structure of our society.” Frankel is simply saying that problems that are believed to come from ‘bad’ genes are really caused by the mistakes humans make. Trying to fix these problems by modifying human genes will only make the problems worse. Unethical practices should be considered and observed before anything is actually done. Genetic engineering is questioned through arguments about humanity, freedom of action, and eugenics and someday will hopefully halt all considerations for pre-birth modification.
A person's individuality begins at conception and develops throughout life. These natural developments can now be changed through genetically engineering a human embryo. Through this process, gender, eye and hair color, height, medical disorders, and many more qualities can be changed. I believe genetically engineering a human embryo is corrupt because it is morally unacceptable, violates the child's rights, and creates an even more divided society.
SUMMARY: Director of the Ethics Institute, Ronald M. Green, in his article “Building Baby from the Genes Up” discusses why he thinks that genetically modifying babies genes is more beneficial than destructive. He begins his article off by mentioning a story of a couple who wishe to genetically modify their baby so that they could make sure the baby would not develop the long family line of breast cancer. Green then notifies the reader that no matter where they stand on the matter, genetically modifying babies is going to become more and more popular. Even the National Institute of Health is beginning to invest in technology that can be used to genetically modify human genes. He then explains how genetically modifying human genes can be beneficial,
Recent breakthroughs in the field of genetics and biotechnology have brought attention to the ethical issues surrounding human enhancement. While these breakthroughs have many positive aspects, such as the treatment and prevention of many debilitating diseases and extending human life expectancy well beyond its current limits, there are profound moral implications associated with the ability to manipulate our own nature. Michael Sandel’s “The Case Against Perfection” examines the ethical and moral issues associated with human enhancement while Nick Bostrom’s paper, “In Defense of Posthuman Dignity” compares the positions that transhumanists and bioconservatists take on the topic of human enhancement. The author’s opinions on the issue of human genetic enhancement stand in contrast to one another even though those opinions are based on very similar topics. The author’s views on human enhancement, the effect enhancement has on human nature, and the importance of dignity are the main issues discussed by Sandel and Bostrom and are the focus of this essay.
Designer babies are defined by the Oxford dictionary as those whose genetic makeup has been artificially selected through genetic engineering, combined with the In Vitro Fertilization, to ensure that particular genes or characteristics are either included or excluded in the baby. This process involves the fertilization of the egg by the sperm in a test tube which is outside the womb of the mother and alteration of the genes (Masha, 2009). The process of selection of traits and characteristics of children is also referred to as Pre-implementation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD). The process involves checking the embryo for genetic deficiencies before it is returned to the womb of the mother. The purpose of the process is noble as it is generally aimed at eradicating genetic disorders and diseases (Yin, 2005). However, the question on when the human race will draw the line in regards to the alteration of the genes is a big issue. Who will stop the rich families, as this is an expensive procedure, from using this method to change their children’s genes and have them at an advantage against other children? The designer child debate is a raging debate with more concerns of sidestepping nature as to how it could change the society as we know it today (Ronald, 2007).
There has long been argument over whether genetic modification holds the key to our future as a species, or if the risks and downsides of genetic modification outweigh all of the possible rewards . There have been an uncountable number of papers written on the subject, arguing both for and against. Ronald M. Green's article “Building Baby from the Genes Up” argues that genetic modification has many possible benefits to the human race, such as preventing deadly diseases, and eliminating fears that genetic modification would lead to the creation of a selective “master race” where babies are hand picked to be doctors and athletes by their parents. In contrast to Green is Richard Hayes' article “Genetically Modified Humans? No Thanks.” in which Hayes disagrees with Green, saying that genetic modification would no doubt lead to hand picked “designer” babies, which would destroy the free will and futures of children who were born into their destiny. Hayes' final point, saying that although it is a good thing to use genetic modification to eliminate diseases such and cancer and obesity, we shouldn't go any further than that when it comes to messing with the genes of unborn babies. Although both authors make some great points in their essays, Green definitely makes the stronger more persuasive argument than Hayes, who basically just gives his opinion without backing it up with anything.
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.
Genetic Engineering has recently become a contentious topic within medical and social circles. Controversial topics such as Sex Selection and Designer Babies are linked to Genetic engineering. They are destructive in every circumstance. Genetic Engineering is detrimental towards the individual and all posterity.
Human gene-splicing is the alteration of genetic material, as science is rising to create the planet to be a “better” place. Technological advancements have allowed us to clone several animals however, it’s time to take the next step. The next step is human engineering, scientist always find the way to succeed. Scientists are ready to create the accurate humans, stronger, faster, smarter, with no defect. With science moving quicker than ethical understanding, values, morals, and our humanity are thrown at the table, not knowing if we are going to be torn apart our live peacefully in a successful world. First of all, the most goal of human engineering is to be ready to wipe out the planet of every kind of diseases. As long as the world is able to accept in mind, humans are full of several diseases that have an effect on our mind and bodies. That’s when human engineering comes into play, having the ability to stop diseases like CF, TaySachs, and Huntington's to heart condition, diabetes, and cancer from ever happening. Genetic involvement is seen as some way to assist those World Health Organization are in want. Bringing that person back to traditional state of being so that they don’t need to put up the issues that accompany being sick. No pills will need to be taken, not a lot of going into treatments, or any kind of surgery since nobody within the world can have an illness or any reasonably limitation to their health. Scientists can invariably wish to seek out some way to try and do things higher to “fix” things.
If a limit is not set between using genetic engineering for treatment and using genetic engineering for enhancement, then many parents could use it purely for eugenic purposes. This could cause ethical concerns but social concerns as well. If this was allowed to occur, it would also give the rich even more advantages than they already have to begin with and drive the social classes even farther apart. The use of genetic engineering may also lead to genetic discrimination. As in the movie Gattaca, a person could easily get a print-out of his or her genotype, this information could then be used by schools, employers, companies, and others; giving rise to a new form of discrimination based on a person’s genetic profile. As the world is already full of discrimination, genetic engineering would even increase the numbers of discrimination against people.
With all factors put into place the potential benefits of perfecting human genetic engineering far outweigh the negatives. A world with genetic engineering is a world that would be advantageous to all who undergo the procedure to positively modify their DNA. A genetically engineered human race will be able to have defeated all genetic mutations and diseases, rid humans of possible illnesses in young and unborn children, create drastically longer lifespans, and provide generations with a high quality of life. Human genetic engineering has progressed more rapidly than projected; according to Stephen Hawking, when human genetic engineering is consummated he hypothesizes, “With genetic engineering, we will be able to increase the complexity of our DNA, and improve the human race. But it will be a slow process, because one will have to wait about 18 years to see the effect of changes to the genetic code.”(Hawking). The advancements that genetic engineering will provide for the human race is incredible and we will soon benefit from science and technology more than ever
Human genetic engineering can provide humanity with the capability to construct “designer babies” as well as cure multiple hereditary diseases. This can be accomplished by changing a human’s genotype to produce a desired phenotype. The outcome could cure both birth defects and hereditary diseases such as cancer and AIDS. Human genetic engineering can also allow mankind to permanently remove a mutated gene through embryo screening as well as allow parents to choose the desired traits for their children. Negative outcomes of this technology may include the transmission of harmful diseases and the production of genetic mutations. The benefits of human genetic engineering outweigh the risks by providing mankind with cures to multiple deadly diseases.
Many debilitating and severe unwanted diseases, genetic disorders and disabilities can be avoided through the creation of designer babies. A child's quality of life would be drastically increased if they evade Down Syndrome, deformities or heart disease for example. In a sense, it isn’t all that different to hearing aid, medication for an illness or chemotherapy for cancer, but on a larger scale and earlier in someone’s life, before it even really begins in fact. Some people would argue that changing genes is changing who people are, which they view as ‘wrong’, but genes aren’t exactly the only things that make up a person anyway. The way that they grow up and their surroundings also make people...
“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”)
Science has taken another step forward into the future of mankind by empowering parents to give their children the best start possible. We are now presented the opportunity to decide what personality and features we want our kids to have before their even born. Although at first glance, it may seem amazing and feel as if you’re picking the exact candy bar you want at a convenient store. However, are we ready for mankind to play, what some might call “God”? Is messing with the genetic code in our babies morally right? Or is it wrong? These are questions being brought up towards the matter of genetically engineering our babies. Danielle Simmons mentioned in the 2008 Nature Education that “Genes influence health and disease, as well as human traits and behavior”. Well genetic engineering on human genes has been going on for a long period of time now. It has also been performed on babies of women who were having trouble conceiving to prevent birth deficiency and help produce a healthy baby. As time went on, scientist became more precise and accurate in the genetic engineering of human genes (Simmons). Scientist is now able to help parents make their baby exactly the way, they prefer. Now that we are able to engineer the genetic code in humans to this extent, we can now produce a healthier generation that will have our ideal traits and behavior.
The moral conflicts put aside, the process of genetic engineering is difficult. Changing the proteins in people’s body differently is an unnatural action. Scientists state that genetic engineering only works 50% of the time. Also, when a new gene is placed in the gene code, there will be various mutations that will definitely result in change but may not be for the better.