According to report given by UNICEF, around 130 million babies are born each year. Some of these infants may born with diseases such as down syndrome but, what if with recent technologies, all of these unwanted aspects could be prevented prior to the baby’s birth? Through Tom Purcell’s “Genetically Engineered Children”, it shows near future world where parents of babies have the options to modify their child’s DNA. By doing this, not only it allow the doctors to prevent any gene related diseases but also it gives the parents options to decide outer features of their baby. They can decide to delete unattractive body parts or unintelligent brain and choose from array of genes from “good looking Ivy League students”. However the parents in the …show more content…
context question the meaning of beauty if everyone is “beautiful as supermodel won’t beauty lose some of its meaning..”. Which is why Purcell criticizes morality through the use of tone/word choice, dialogue and audience. Purcell shows rude and ignorant tone of the doctor by use of varieties of word choices.
This can be easily seen as how the doctor shares his expression to the parents without any hesitation. “If you say so. But we’ll have to do something about your noses. You and your wife have some big honkers. We have a range of celebrity noses you can choose from in our catalog.” The author chooses the word “honker” which means a wild goose. The tone of this sentence is insulting because the doctor impolitely told his patients that they both have same nose as a wild goose and recommends different celebrity noses they should choose from for their baby. By this the audience can recognize the ignorance and how bad-mannered the doctor is. After looking at this, the readers can view contrasting opinion between the doctor and the parents from their …show more content…
dialogue. By analyzing the dialogue between the doctor and the parents, Purcell shows two different views on morality. “Do we really want the power to manipulate the genetic makeup of our children?” “Hey, most parents want intelligent children who are as attractive as a supermodel. What is wrong with that?”. The parents does not feel the necessity to genetically modify their child using someone else’s genes just because their child might not have good looks. However, the doctor shows his materialistic idea which he will even trifle with nature in order to produce genetically modified child who will look like a supermodel. The parents feel that there are more in a human being than to have just pretty face and that without good look, their natural born child will be still be able to achieve great things. The doctor however, does not appreciate meaning of gift from God and is blinded by just pure beauty. The author wants his readers to know this different view of morality between these two characters. Purcell conveys this issue of morality to his audience who are young adults and soon-to-be parents or people who are interested in parenting.
“But if everyone is as beautiful as a supermodel, won’t beauty lose some of its meaning, doctor? If parents can custom-create the life of their child, won’t life itself lose some of its meaning?”. Being original is one of the matter most teenager have thought about. They wander and question who they are and some might decide to copy someone else such as celebrities or popular person on how to act, what to eat, what kinds of music to listen to. Purcell proposes the same problem stating that if everyone is equally beautiful and same, there would not be any originality which is the whole basic meaning of life. For the parents or soon-to-be parents, do they really want a dashing beautiful child even though that child is not 100% theirs. Would the love for the child same if one has down-syndrome and the other one has face of
goddess. Many people want to be prettier,taller and smarter which is completely for a human being to desire for a better aspect in their life. However, is it morally to right to create a baby with these options even though they aren’t completely from their parents. The author of Genetically Engineered Children, Tom Purcell utilizes tone/word choice, dialogue and audience in order to question the morality of human being. Purcell used the word “honker” in order for the doctor to have rude tone because honker means a wild goose. The doctor basically insulted the parents by comparing their faces with a goose. Two different moralities is shown in the dialogue between the doctor and the parents. The parents believes being unattractive or stupid is not the end of the world and that those kinds of people still be able to shine. However, the doctor is a materialistic person who does not appreciate what is inside of a human being. Lastly the author questions the issue of morality to his reader who are young teenager, couples who are thinking over expecting a baby. He talks about meaning of life as if everyone is same there really won’t be any meaning in living. Life is special because a person can be just themselves and that they don’t have to be or act like someone that they are not. People should not be discouraged by their looks because they have bigger attraction just by being themselves.
Stem cell research has been a heated and highly controversial debate for over a decade, which explains why there have been so many articles on the issue. Like all debates, the issue is based on two different arguments: the scientific evolution and the political war against that evolution. The debate proves itself to be so controversial that is both supported and opposed by many different people, organizations, and religions. There are many “emotional images [that] have been wielded” in an attempt to persuade one side to convert to the other (Hirsen). The stem cell research debate, accompanied by different rhetoric used to argue dissimilar points, comes to life in two articles and a speech: “Should Human Cloning Be Allowed? Yes, Don’t Impede Medical Progress” by Virginia Postrel; “Should Human Cloning Be Allowed? No, It’s a Moral Monstrosity” by Eric Cohen and William Kristol; and “Remarks by Ron Reagan, Jr., to the 2004 Democratic National Convention” by Ron Reagan, Jr. Ethos, pathos, and logos are the main categories differentiating the two arguments.
The second article I have chosen to evaluate for this topic is The Designer Baby Myth written by Steven Pinker. This article starts off by explaining how many people fear the idea of genetic enhancement. Several citizens are concerned about creating the ultimate inequality or changing human nature itself. Many will say technology in medicine is increasing to the point where genetic improvement is inevitable. Steven presents his position on the matter in his thesis statement; “But when it come to direct genetic enhancement-engineering babies with genes for desirable traits-there are many reasons to be skeptical.” He makes it clear that genetic enrichment is not particularly inevitable or likely in our lifetime. He bases his skepticism around three sources; the limits of futurology, science of behavioral genetics, and human nature.
What is the equivalent to Hell on Earth? Lewis Thomas, a 1970’s biologist and physician, addresses this question in his essay On Cloning A Human Being. For Thomas, the answer is simply the result of trying to create a beneficial system of human cloning. Throughout his essay, Thomas explains in order to create a successful version of immortality, one would not only have to create a genetically identical specimen but also create an identical environment for that individual in order for them to advance and progress their predecessor’s works. By the means of rhetorical strategy, Thomas is able to efficiently affect the reader and successfully argue an alternative approach to human cloning.
Bullying is a serious issue that can occur to various people of different age and background. It is considered a serious problem because of the long lasting health problems that comes with it. The many effects of bullying such as, depression and alcoholism can cause changes in our genes which can possibly be passed on to the future generations. In Sharon Moalem’s essay “Changing Our Genes: How Trauma, Bullying, and Royal Jelly Alter Our Genetic Destiny” he discussed about the effects of bullying on the victims and how it causes gene changes. It is important to know how to prevent bullying as the effects can influence a person mentally and genetically which can be passed on to future generations later on.
Neoeugenics is the idea of new, “neo”, eugenics or a new way of creating a healthier race. Eugenics was first defined in the late 1800s by a man named Sir Francis Galton who said that it was basically the study of traits that will cause an advantage or disadvantage in the traits of future generations. Eugenics soon turned from being about the use of artificial selection of breeding to create a stronger species, to being about the advancement of certain races over others. When talking about neo eugenics, it is believed that it may turn into something similar to that of eugenics in that the use of artificial selection would now be used to bring the upper class higher in standards of health and wellbeing as well as beauty. Others believe that the use of neo eugenics will help create a healthier, more stable species. Whether bad or good, the way that eugenics will advance will be in designer babies.
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,
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 increased the average human lifespan and improved the quality of life for individuals. Medical science and biology are steadily arriving at new ways to alter humans by the use of advanced genetic alteration. This technology gives rise to the question of how this new technology ought to be used, if at all. The idea of human enhancement is a very general topic, since humans are constantly “enhancing” themselves through the use of tools. In referring to human enhancement, I am referring specifically 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 a morally obligatory. In this paper, I will argue that it is not morally obligatory to intervene genetically even if such intervention may be permissible under certain criteria. I will show, in contrast to Savulescu’s view, that the moral obligation to intervene is not the same as the moral obligation to prevent and treat disease. In short, I will show that the ability of humans to intervene genetically is not sufficient to establish a moral obligation.
The idea of eugenics was first introduced by Sir Francis Galton, who believed that the breeding of two wealthy and successful members of society would produce a child superior to that of two members of the lower class. This assumption was based on the idea that genes for success or particular excellence were present in our DNA, which is passed from parent to child. Despite the blatant lack of research, two men, Georges Vacher de Lapouge and Jon Alfred Mjoen, played to the white supremacists’ desires and claimed that white genes were inherently superior to other races, and with this base formed the first eugenics society. The American Eugenics Movement attempted to unethically obliterate the rising tide of lower classes by immorally mandating organized sterilization and race based experimentation.
In the 1920s, a company in New York started a movement known as “The Eugenics Movement.” The idea of eugenics was eventually picked up by Germany, China, Peru, India and Bangladesh. The movement is still in effect till this day; however, it is not as prevalent as it once was.
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.
But I found that every source that I looked at was giving the issue great reviews.
“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”)
Genetically modifying human beings has the possibility of greatly reducing/completely eradicating disease and could allow for longer lifespans within the near future. However, there are many issues associated with genetic engineering including being misused for ulterior motives and ethical problems. While there is good that can come from genetic engineering, the many detriments associated with it far outweigh the few positive outcomes. In his novel Brave New World, Aldous Huxley’s idea of genetic modification is far more extreme and unethical than any current real world technologies, but if the technology continues to rapidly grow, Huxley’s future may not be that far off from the truth.