Is It Morally Wrong?

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.

The escalating supremacy and receptiveness of genetic technology to engineer and "design babies," now gives parents the option to modify their unborn children, consecutively to prevent their offspring's from receiving genetic disorders such as: "sickle cell diseases, cystic fibrosis and down syndrome ," or conceivably, make them blue eye coloured, intelligent or else blessed with enviable qualities. Would this mean there will be an increase in the superiority among the rich, both physically and mentally, or will this modification be available for all to exploit, or would we be evidencing engineered babies facing unexpected genetic predicament? The highly contentious issue of designing unborn children to be a perfect "epitome" is thoroughly investigated and examined in the article of, lead author of

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

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

Children hold the future today and they will create what 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.” but in order to prevent this from happening, parents must understand that they do not have the right to choose their child’s appearance or health. Since the embryo is already considered a living being, it should therefore be accorded the same right to life as a human being. If every child had the same amount of intelligence and athleticism, they would have relatively similar characteristics as everyone else does and thus, would not stand out(THE

Genetic enhancement has long been a controversial topic between those who believe that enhancing society is beneficial to individuals and those who believe that it is debilitating. With progressive advancements in the medical field, the argument over genetic enhancement has become more complex as there is a constant shift towards genetic self-improvement. Self- improvement is a problem between those who can afford to enhance themselves or their offspring and those who cannot afford to so. While those who oppose genetic enhancement believe that it transforms important features of social life including humility, responsibility and solidarity, those in favor of enhancement believe that it improves what individuals are born with.

(Introduction) Imagine that children were genetically engineered to accustom parent’s exact desires of both physical and mental characteristics. Would parents choose physical traits such as blonde hair and green eyes, or choose mental traits such as athleticism and intelligence? Scientists are now able to genetically engineer a human embryo to the traits that a parent desires. Designer babies are usually seen as beneficial due to the eliminating chances of genetics diseases, however, they are also seen as playing God in the eyes of some. How are human embryos genetically engineered to fit the desires of parents, and what are the controversies behind it?

Many wonder if it is ethical to use genetic information to alter natural processes of procreation to give people the best genes they can get. There are already ways to predict the presence of a genetic disease in a child based on the parents and in vivo testing. Eugenics is “increasing the number of genes in the human population responsible for improving intelligence, beauty, musical ability and other traits we value” (Munson, 2012 272-273) Eugenics is often confused to just be for consideration of the parents and the child. However, the definition of eugenics is reliant on the outcome for the entire human population. The two types of eugenics include positive and negative; positive eugenics is “The aim of increasing the number of

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

The process is aesthetic in nature and unnatural. This carries more weight than the fact that an individual can eradicate certain genetic diseases (Wivel&Walters, 1993).Through the process of genetic modification, doctors can even change the sex of a fetus as long as their clients pay for it. That is very unnatural. As the technology advances, it will be possible to change many features of a fetus like its eye colors and even develop certain desirable traits in them like a good personality, height, skin color, hair color, academic abilities, athletic skills, and so forth. The ethical aspect of such developments is questionable. The born child will be unnatural (Kogan, Doherty,&Gitschier, 1987). Thus, the morality of the technology is not acceptable. Moreover, since the science is imperfect, the desired traits in a child may fail, and the parents would develop resentments towards the child in future. It is also worrying how a genetically modified kid would behave once it learns that it is not natural like everyone

Is it morally acceptable to impose a legal ban on burning the Qur’an? I believe that this issue is the central ethical issue to be resolved because it looks at the morality of taking away an American freedom. It also looks if it justifiable to do so if the action is taken out of hand, which goes against the moral foundation of what the United States was founded on. I believe that the banning of the burning of the Qur’an is morally justifiable even if it restricts the freedom of some of the American people. The United States has always been founded on the tolerance for all, and burning the Qur’an is hate and bigotry that should not be allowed because it can cause division among people, violence and backlash from other countries, and goes

Genetic engineering not only offers the possibility of eliminating birth defects and terminal illness, but also presents the moral uncertainty of eugenics, the whole concept of eugenics; in using for desires such as appearance eye colour and skin and sex type is morally wrong because it encourages discrimination based on sex and physical appearance. .

As a species we’ve always looked for ways to be faster, stronger, smarter, and live longer. Many enhancements we take for granted today; blood transfusions, vaccinations, and birth control, seemed unnatural or immoral when first introduced. Yet over time we’ve become accustomed to these controls over our minds and bodies, and have used them to better ourselves and our world. Imagine a society without disease, cancers, or heredity disorders. Life span would increase and IQ raised. Mental illness eliminated. Alzheimer’s gone. Hereditary problems, like baldness eradicated. Technology exists to diagnose flawed DNA in pre-implantation embryos, empowering humans to create a stronger, healthier child. Scientists place a new/modified gene into a

Science is a field of study that has progressed over the years. Humans have advanced in ways that even our own ancestors could not imagine. It was over 350 years ago that a cell was first discovered by humans. Now, scientists have mapped the entire genome of humans and even other organisms. Why might this be important? With this accomplishment, scientists can now peer into a person and see their genetic makeup or rather their “identity.” This information in hand, scientists can find genes for specific traits or abnormalities. However, with this technology, there are ethical problems that are associated with it. Should humans have the power to select what genes an offspring should have and if so what specific genes can they alter? Should humans have the power to “play God?” These questions indeed are difficult to answer. Regardless, this issue must be addressed for the unborn children who will be involved in this ongoing controversy.

When talking about intuitions, I will consider them as being automatic and immediate emotional responses that are rigid and inflexible (Greene 2013: 15; Sidgwick 1907: 97). In this way, intuitions can be thought of as the 'gut feelings ' we experience when faced with different scenarios, which act to prompt immediate judgements and exert pressure on behaviour (Sidgwick 1907: 97). That is, our intuitions work as automatic processes which tell us what to do, without us having to consciously think or reflect (Greene 2013: 135). When considering moral intuitions, in particular, we are merely narrowing our focus to the intuitions that we encounter when faced with moral problems. For example, when our gut tells us that something like incest is