Arguments Against Genetic Enhancement

not be allowed because it does more harm then good. They may be right, but once genetic enhancement is available, it will generate a lower cost for the government to enhance their citizens, and not only for the government, for the parents this will be an avaible option to give their children a better and secure future. In fact, genetic enhancement would give the opportunity to end with discrimination by leting scientist enhance our genes. Genetic enhancement would give everyone the opportunity to succeed and compete at the same level. There are many natural disadvantages that we cannot compete with, for example when someone is faster or more inteligent. Genetic enhancement will eradicate those disadvantages and give the oportunity to have the same level of all the capabilities and this way have equal

Technology is developing every day. The automobile was revolutionary, and then they introduced the plane. Cell phones can connect us with people around the world. Self-driving cars are in development today! Revolutionary inventions are the expectation nowadays, but a new discovery is sparking controversial questions in the science world. Is it acceptable to alter a baby’s genes to make it a better human? Genes are the instruction book of the body, and they determine everyone’s attributes and how people act in their environment (Medical News Today). Some people say that everyone is different for a reason, and others think customizing the genes of children was meant to happen. Altering an infant’s genes is acceptable to prevent hereditary diseases, but the line should be drawn at making an artificially smarter, stronger, or prettier human.

The morality of genetic enhancement (GE) differs from person to person. The stance Michael J. Sandel’s takes is that eugenics and GE has no morality. He states in his work, “The case against Perfection”, that manipulating ones genes makes one less human; since, humans are not perfect which is what makes one human and by designing a perfect person one is taking away their humanity. He thinks eugenics are morally problematic in the cases of abortion; in which the mother would be free to determine if she would like to abort the baby by looking at its genes for illnesses, physical appearance and sex, this would test and even change ones moral values. Sandel is opposed on the quest of perfection due to the fact that one is not looking at the big picture, human life is a precious gift. He argues that one’s faults and quirks are what makes one unique from the other seven billion people on earth. And if one takes away what makes one who they are and becomes the perfect person there will be no originality since many would want to also become perfect. Imagine how many parents would want their child to become the next Einstein or Shakespeare. The freedom to become one’s own person would be taken away. For example, a boy that was GE to love soccer and no other sport and a boy that gets to pursue whatever he chooses, the other boy never had the opportunity or liberty to choose what sport he would like he was programed to love soccer for the rest of

Genes are a complex part of human life, and make each of us different and special. But what if there was a choice where you could genetically alter your child, making them disease free and astonishing athletes? It sounds almost too good to be true, to have your very own designer baby. For the good of human species, we should be allowed to alter human genetics. With all these amazing abilities and unlimited changes we could make to our children, it would be like shopping for clothes at a mall. This may sound like a dream come true, but it can lead to many problems in the near future. Trying to change human genes takes away each person's own individuality, and could cause people to segregate the people who were not genetically altered. Even if it can make beautiful, healthy children, it has too many problems than benefits to actually be any good for humans.

Julian Savulescu wrote Genetic Interventions and the Ethics of Enhancement of Human Beings and in this article he clearly states his position on the issues as well as providing supporting and opposing sides to the matter. He starts off by explaining this issue is focused on biological enhancement and more specifically genetic enhancement. Then the thesis statement is provided, “I want to argue that, far from it’s being merely permissible, we have a moral obligation or moral reason to enhance ourselves and our

I’m treated differently than everyone else because of my race. I don’t understand it, though, because I look exactly the same as my peers. They mock me and tell me I’m inadequate, fake, and alive only due to the organ crisis. I tell them I have no idea what they are talking about, because my doctors told me that I’m just like everyone else. They laugh in my face and spit on me, ruthless in their play. I run home to my living center and cry myself to sleep.

Working for a science technology company that creates designer babies, the product I decided to form is an advertising poster, which promotes the use of designer babies to families with diseases being passed down through generations. Through the heavy use of techniques, my poster sends a message that using the new technology, which the company has developed will eliminate heretical diseases, so that the disease does not cause pain and suffering for the person and will also break the chain of disease misery that has haunted the family for many generations. Additionally, the message emphasizes that if the technology of creating designer babies is not used, more than thousands of baby will be born with diseases each year, whom will further

A Guardian Online opinion piece, entitled “‘Designer Babies’: the ultimate privileged elite?”, was written by Heather Long and published pm 9th July 2013. Long claims through critical, alarmed tones that a ‘designer’ baby trend is in the development due to existing technology, which may support discrimination in society.

In a video about genetic engineering for human enhancement, on JasonRezaJorjani’s page, some of the possibilities of genetic engineering are listed along with how easy it is to clone humans. In the video it says, “Human cloning could happen now. All you need to do is spilt an embryo and freeze one of the identical twins and implant it. And some years later you’d have two genetically identical individuals of different ages.” and that is a scary reality knowing that people able to change human nature itself, in order get ahead in life, remake themselves so that they can be more ideal, or even clone themselves so they can have “eternal life”. All of these things unnatural and wrong and even adds an unfair advantage to those that are already ahead

Imagine yourself in your doctor’s office. He hands you a clipboard and you start checking off what you want… green eyes, blond hair, artistic, female. Congratulations, you’ve just created what you think is the perfect child. However, there is one small problem with this plan; someone has already tried to create the perfect human. His name is Adolf Hitler.

I would consider one of the strongest arguments against genetic engineering was the statement given by the European Parliament in Cass R. Sunstein’s argument, The Constitution and the Clone. The following is an excerpt from the text book given by the European Parliament “The cloning of human beings… cannot under any circumstance be justified or tolerated by any society, because it is serious violation of fundamental human rights and is contrary to the principle of equality of human beings as it permits a eugenic and racist selection of the human race, it offends against human dignity and requires experimentation on humans”. I believe that most of the world probably shares these same views and I agree with the statement wholeheartedly.

Every story, article and paper is set up it its own little way. The authors do this to keep their piece more interesting and make it from others. Two papers from the book “Science and Society” called “My little brother on Drugs” and “Designer Babies”. Both have many similarities and differences.

Scientist propose that we alter our genetic code through genetic engineering. We can remove genes we do not like and replace them with genes that carry our trait of choice. However what they don 't considered is what mutations can occur down the bloodline, David King state 's, “Most scientists say that what is preventing them from embarking on HGE is the risk that the process will itself generate new mutations, which will be passed onto future generations.” This furthers the point against human genetic engineering. With minimal research on the effects on genetic engineering there must be extensive research prior to implementation of genetic engineering, even though it 's been around for some time with some restrictions.

Imagine you were alive back in the 80’s and were told that computers will soon take over every facet of life from dating, shopping, and the stock market, and that literally billions of people would be connected in a web of an information highway that is access from a hand held devices that have more processing power than the technology we use to fire ICBMs.It would seem absurd, but then all of it happened. Science fiction became our reality and we don't really think about it on a daily basis.Today we’re at a similar point with genetic engineering. Recently scientist has hit a huge innovation in which they have the means to modify genetic material which can change every aspect of an organism, now the question is should we use this power to design the future generation.

First of all, genetic engineering is simply a way of altering oneself. The enhancement may bring great skills to have, but unfortunately this is not only changing the child’s mind completely, it is also giving them no self-actualization ability. I agree with Baylis and Robert’s idea of, “Enhancement technologies having a deleterious impact on the genetic variability characteristic of the human gene pool” (Baylis and Robert) because every human is different and unique in many aspects. This process literally weakens the authenticity of one’s accomplishments and diversity throughout society. It holds that the engineered person’s abilities and talents are no longer his or her own, but are simply because of the alteration. Children are supposed to be different in order to find their struggles and strengths, building themselves. If they are accelerated in everything possible, they will never find their paths in life. According to Baylis and Robert, “The essence of humans is to nurture and protect the natural