Genetic Enhancement Should Be A Phenomenal Asset

We are living is a world where very soon it will be possible for people to create ‘designer babies’ that have all the features they wish for. In the article Building Baby from the Genes Up, Ronald M. Green talks about all the positive impacts that genetic modification of human beings can have on our future generations. Green acknowledges some of the negatives such as parents creating perfect children and being able to give them any trait the parent wants. However in the end he comes to the conclusion that the positive impacts of getting rid of genes that cause obesity, cancer, learning disorders, and many other diseases and disorders, outweighs the negative aspects. Richard Hayes, author of Genetically Modified Humans? No Thanks, takes the stance that we should not be able to change anything about human beings through genetic modification. He believes that once we start modifying a few features, it will slowly turn into every parent altering as many of their babies’ genes that they want. While he does acknowledge the positive impacts of getting rid of negative genes such as Tay-Sachs, he believes that it is not worth the risk of having parents manipulate all their future children’s genes to their liking. Green and Hayes stand on opposite sides of the debate about genetic modification of human beings and this essay will explore the similarities and the differences of their articles.

Sandel does a wonderful job of refuting many of the common arguments against genetic enhancement before presenting us with his own case which revolves around three negative outcomes he thinks will come as a result of human genetic enhancement. Sandel argues that the first negative outcome, is a severe reduction in human humility, which he claims is necessary human emotion. He argues against what he calls “the drive to mastery” (27); since we would have complete control over our genetic makeup, and could manipulate it to our liking, we would no longer have to be grateful to some higher power

First of all, Savulescu presented to the readers the idea of “If we do not choose to enhance ourselves, it is wrong.” In the article he used the neglect parents as an example, and if the parents neglect their child’s stunning talent and choose to raise their kid as a normal person, they are making a very wrong decision. Also, Savulescu presented that biological enhancement can bring a big solution to the problem of poverty, and if us humans do not take actions onto introducing the enhancement to the world, it is a very wrong decision. Therefore, for the better goods of the future generations, and for solving many world’s biggest problems, genetic enhancement is the only right thing to do.

Throughout our lifetime we are in constant change, many of those changes are ones that you don’t notice. However permanent we set a change to ourselves, one thing we hardly notice change is our DNA. Just growing recently in popularity is genetic engineering , along with its immense potential which can do very much for us, in the future and today. However, with all the potential that genetic engineering carries many people have begun to resent what genetic engineering could become instead of focusing on the great capabilities, and what lies ahead of its bright future. Regardless of what others believe, Genetic engineering will renovate the way we do things today, genetic engineering is a tremendous step to accept, and without a doubt a step

Although this may be the case in many areas of people’s lives today, it is not always beneficial, or necessary. People may have trouble deciding whether messing with human genes and cells is ethical. Designing the “perfect child” in many parent’s eyes becomes a harsh question of reality. The concept of a parent’s unconditional love for their child is questioned because of the desire to make their child perfect. If genetically engineering humans becomes a dominant medical option, people could have the chance to create their child however they like: from physical appearances, genetically enhanced genes, and the possibility to decide what a child thinks and acts, parents have access to designing their entire child. Naturally, people could be creating a super-human. Issues between different races, and eventually creating new prejudices against genetically engineered humans may increase. People may not realize how expensive genetic screening is at first. With only the rich being able to “enhance” their children, another social issue might occur, giving the world another type of people to outcast.

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

Scientist are researching genetic modification for many reasons. Some people think we are not good enough the way we are, and want to create a ‘perfect’ person. We have been given the ability to learn how to heal sickness and fix wounds with science. However, we have a responsibility to use this information wisely. We have been created with unique gifts and those gifts are important to the enhancement of life. Likewise, while researching about the Author of “The Perfect Stranger”, Amy Sterling Casil, I have discovered that she also has similar feelings about the gifts that we have all been given. We need to consider a few things as we review Casil’s story “The Perfect Stranger”. First, medical advancement is a great thing. Next, we need to make sure we are taking responsible steps while advancing and not creating even more division in our society. And lastly, we need to make sure we don’t lose our diversity and unique qualities. Although, some people believe genetic modification is what we need to better the human race, in actuality genetic modification can be dangerous, because overstepping our boundaries will produce something that is no longer authentic or that is unable to relate on a genuine level.

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

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

Why are humans stuck how they are? Why do some have lethal flaws? Why do theses flaws exist? The correct answer is they don’t have to: Human genetic engineering can solve some of theses lethal issues now and can solve more in the future. It can help the next generation experience what everyone strives to achieve. Human genetic engineering research should continue because it can save people's lives, improve human’s lives and improve the lives of the next generation of children.

　　In “The Case Against Perfection”, Sandel points out that parents could improve and choose their child’s muscle strength, growth-hormones, memory and sex. They can select traits for their children and design their own babies. Further, method of in vitro fertilization also make it possible to choose the sex of the child before being born and Sandel claims that it is a kind of sex discrimination. This will lead to a social distinction and creation of two different standards of human beings that Sandel distinguishes as “those with access to enhancement technologies, and those who must make do with their natural capacities”(Sandel 2009). On the other hand, Agar thinks that people should be free to use enhancement

In the first portion of Sandel’s paper titled, The Case Against Perfection, Michael Sandel discussed the moral and ethics debate surrounding the notion of in the future designing our offspring by altering their genes prior to conception. Within his argument, Sandal focuses on four main arguments surrounding the following realms of enhancement: muscles, memory, growth hormone treatment, and reproductive technologies (Sandel 52). Firstly, Sandel argues that genetic modifications in improving muscles whether it be to aid in the elderly population, a majority whom struggle with immobility and must rely upon medical devices such as wheelchairs, walkers, or are restricted to their homes and consequently often have a decreased quality of life.

According to author Michael J. Sandel in his piece, “The Case Against Perfection,” the main ethical problem with genetic enhancement does not have anything to do with human autonomy. Rather, Sandel believes that the “deepest moral objection to genetic enhancement lies less the perfection it seeks than in the human disposition it expresses and promotes” (Timmons, 505). In other words, genetic enhancement is morally questionable because of how it affects our attitudes toward human beings. He claims that each case began as an attempt to treat

While the previous ethical dilemma is more cut and dry, Sandel also grapples with the morality of futuristic technology that can engineer children to be a product of their parents’ will. Sandel mentions the Gattaca scenario, of a society that can remove any malignant gene from an embryo, creating perfectly healthy children with greater potential physically and mentally. Gattaca focuses on ethical issues such as the polarization of society between the genetically enhanced and the naturally normal, and the value of human individuality; however, Sandel chooses to focus on the morality of engineered progeny in terms of personal relationships (Philosophical Films, 1997). Sandel suggests that parent creating children exactly how they want them to be is immoral because it turns children into an object of man’s will, rather than a gift of life. If a child turned out exactly how a parent wanted it to, the experience of raising a child would be irrevocably altered. Normally parents have children with inevitable shortcomings, but this is good for two reasons; it teaches the parents humility and unconditional love for their child no matter what shortcomings they have, and it emphasizes the talents the child may have, allowing parents to appreciate the natural gifts and talents that the child is endowed with. If a parent engineers the perfect child, they never develop empathy for their child and unconditional love in undermined. If the child is perfect in all aspects,

As well as there is people who believe perfection is not attainable, there is also people who believe that it is possible to reach that, when they give everything they have. It is a much divided opinion, which will perhaps never come to one only general conclusion. To succeed in life people must always work hard and sometimes sacrifice some things they think are important, but putting them in front of another type of situations they would not be taken as a priority. The majority of these people who believe in perfection