Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Advantages and disadvantages of eugenics and designer babies
Ethics of human modification through genetic engineering
Advantages and disadvantages of eugenics and designer babies
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
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. After the discovery of genetically altering an embryo before implantation, “designer babies” was coined to describe a child genetically altered “to ensure specific intellectual and cosmetic characteristics.” (“Designer Babies” n.p.). This procedure combines genetic engineering and In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) to make sure certain characteristics are absent or present in an embryo (Thadani n.p.). The procedure also includes taking an embryo to be pre-implementation genetically diagnosed (PGD), another procedure that doctors use to screen the embryos (Stock n.p.). An embryo’s DNA goes through multiple tests to obtain an analysis of the embryo, which will list all the components of the embryo including genetic disorders and physical traits such as Down syndrome, blue eyes, and brown hair, for instance (Smith 7). Although the use of PGD is widely accepted by the “reproductive medical community” and the modifying of disorders or diseases is to a degree, once the characteristics are no longer health related “72% disapprove of the procedure” (“Designer Babies” n.p.). At this point the parents make decisions that would alter their child’s life forever and this decision is rather controversial in the U... ... middle of paper ... ...estions." wwww.csm.com. 2012.Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 4 May 2014. "Designer Babies." Opposing Viewpoints Online Collection. Detroit: Gale, 2013.Opposing Clayton Farris Naff. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2013. At Issue. Rpt. from "Designer Babies Debate." http://www.buzzle.com. 2011. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 29 Apr. 2014. Smith, Patricia. "Designer Babies." New York Times Upfront 12 May 2014: 6-7. Print. Stock, Gregory. "From Regenerative Medicine to Human Design: What Are We Really Afraid Of?"http://www.siumed.edu/medhum/electives/HealthPolicyMedia/wk5Stock.pdf 22.11 (2003). Rpt. in Designer Babies. Ed. Clayton Farris Naff. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2013. At Issue. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 2 May 2014. Thadani, Rahul. "The Public Should Oppose Designer Baby Technology." Designer Babies. Ed. Viewpoints in Context. Web. 1 May 2014.
Usage of genetic modification to pick and chose features and personality traits of embryos could conceivably occur in future times. Wealthy individuals could essentially purchase a baby with built-in genetic advantages (Simmons). Ethically, these seem immoral. Playing God and taking control over the natural way of life makes some understandably uneasy. Ultimately, religious and moral standpoints should play a role in the future of genetic engineering, but not control it. Genetic engineering’s advantages far outweigh the cost of a genetically formulated baby and
Suter, Sonia M. "A Brave New World Of Designer Babies?." Berkeley Technology Law Journal 22.2 (2007): 897-969. Academic Search Complete. Web. 3 May 2014.
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
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,
Most people agree, in general, that designer babies are taking over and it is it’s a good thing. A designer baby is a human embryo that parents set , to produce desirable traits. According to Opposing Viewpoints Online Collection , Fertility Institutes in Los Angeles offered to let parents select their children’s hair and eye color. Crazy to think you’d be able to build your own baby. The process of creating this designer baby would be embryos modified to predetermine intellect , physical prowess , and beauty. People may question designer babies but “if you think women have the right to control their bodies , then they should be able to make this choice” right? (Citation?) There is a lot of science into creating a designer baby.
Thadani, Rahul. "The Public Should Oppose Designer Baby Technology." Designer Babies. Ed. Clayton Farris Naff. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2013. At Issue. Rpt. from "Designer Babies Debate." http://www.buzzle.com. 2011. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 28 Apr. 2014.
Picture a young couple in a waiting room looking through a catalogue together. This catalogue is a little different from what you might expect. In this catalogue, specific traits for babies are being sold to couples to help them create the "perfect baby." This may seem like a bizarre scenario, but it may not be too far off in the future. Designing babies using genetic enhancement is an issue that is gaining more and more attention in the news. This controversial issue, once thought to be only possible in the realm of science-fiction, is causing people to discuss the moral issues surrounding genetic enhancement and germ line engineering. Though genetic research can prove beneficial to learning how to prevent hereditary diseases, the genetic enhancement of human embryos is unethical when used to create "designer babies" with enhanced appearance, athletic ability, and intelligence.
While learning in sociology 101, I found an interesting theory that relates to the topic, “Designer Babies”. I will be stating viewpoints about some examples that I researched. In the book, Essentials of Sociology by James M. Henslin, our class identified the interpretation of the word McDonaldization. The definition of the word works perfectly with the principles and understanding tactics of designer babies, or gene editing. The definition of McDonaldization is the process by which ordinary aspects of life are rationalized and efficiency comes to rule them, including such things as food preparation (Henslin,year). Although I 'm not discussing fast food, I 'm discussing how designer babies are unique and are out of the normal tradition .
The designer baby is a new hope for many families. Parents can satisfy anything for their children, even time, money, health and life. Looking children suffer from diseases and disabilities would be parents’ punishment. In addition, many diseases are heritage from generation to generation, such as cystic fibrosis, Huntington’s disease, Down syndrome, Duchene muscular dystrophy, celiac, Noonan syndrome and cancer. All of them cannot cure completely and follow children forever. Moreover, children with genetic diseases would have to spend their lives in hospital, and would miss school, playground and childhood. However, PGD allows doctors to remove disabilities genes from embryo and create a new healthy life. If it gives children better future, would we say no? According to the article “Introduction to Designer Bab...
It is not a simple process to undergo for the mom, either parents, and even the embryo. Some observers say that genome modification is likely to become a routine familiarity as time goes on (Gender Selection of Babies). One major factor of the legalization or illegalization of designer babies is the one of gender selection. If the United States allows anyone, and everyone to choose the gender of their genome, gender balance can become a major problem (Gender Selection of Babies). On the other hand, with selection of genomes, can save people from running into disorders or diseases that only the y chromosome contains, and can excel their chances for a healthier baby perhaps (Gender Modified
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.
“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”)
Children and babies today hold the future. They control what the world’s future will be like and even how their future offspring will be. Many believe that designer babies have the power to change the future and develop a new world filled with “perfect humans.” “With so little control over the situation, most expectant parents say they don’t care what their baby looks like, ‘as long as it’s healthy.’ But secretly, they often have a dream baby in mind” (Bliss, 2012, p. 5). Parents can all agree that if their child is in a healthy condition, they are happy and thankful; however, every parent is guilty of wanting a child a certain way. If a parent could alter a child to be completely healthy with no diseases or ailments, have the perfect features and have the perfect personality, any parent would go beyond any limit to fulfill this. Designer babies are believed to have the possibility to complete this; however, the assertio...
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...
Ronald M. Green answers that there are four major objections to the concept of ‘building babies” through gene engineering, arguing that basic human nature counters the possibility that parental love or people’s appreciation of their nature counters the possibility that parental love or people’s appreciation of their natural abilities will decline; that a society making extensive use of gene manipulation is as likely to move towards egalitarianism as toward oligarchy; and that no religion expressly forbids genetic engineering. Green’s major four points are first, they worry about the effect of genetic selection on parenting. He states that will the ability to choose our children’s biological inheritance lead parents to replace unconditional love with a consumerist mentality that seeks perfections? Second, they ask weather gene manipulation will diminish our freedom by making us creatures of our genes or our parents’ whims. An example Green uses is “In his book Enough, the techno- critic Bill Mckibben asks: if I am a world- class runner, but my parents inserted the “Sweatworks2010 Gene Pack” in my genome, can I really feel pride in my accomplishments? Third, he states that many critics feat that reproductive genetic will widen our social division as the affluent “buy” more competitive abilities of their offspring. Green also states that will we eventually see “speciation,” that emergence to two