Is Selective Breeding Ethically Acceptable?

DNA stands for Deoxyribonucleic acid. Deoxyribonucleic corrosive is an atom that conveys a large portion of the hereditary guidelines utilized as a part of the improvement, working and propagation of all known living creatures and numerous infections. The National Institutes of Health and Welcome Trust from the London UK and Craig Vendor of Celera Genomics from Maryland USA at the same time exhibited the grouping of human DNA in June of 2000, finishing the first significant attempt of the Human Genome Project (HGP) (Ridley 2). As researchers connection human attributes to qualities fragments of DNA found on one or a greater amount of the 23 human

DNA are like legos, they work together to build the traits of living things. They are the building blocks of the body. Many scientists today have been figuring out different ways to manipulate, change, add, and subtract genes from the DNA in living things; this is process is called genetic engineering. Some of the living things being experimented on are live people, plants, and animals. Today scientists are debating on the morals of genetic engineering due to what the community thinks of it, because of the christian 's viewpoint of genetic engineering. To some christians it may pose a threat to their, but to others it may be a blessing or a gift. Genetic Engineering is a growing breakthrough in the science community. “Over the last 30 years, the field of genetic engineering has developed rapidly due to the greater understanding of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) as the chemical double helix code from which genes are made. The term genetic engineering is used to describe the process by which the genetic makeup of an organism can be altered using “recombinant DNA technology.” This involves the use of laboratory tools to insert, alter, or cut out pieces of DNA that contain one or more genes of interest.”(Pocket K No. 17) Scientist have yet to unlock the full potential of genetic engineering, but the information and the use they have found for it today has reached farther than anyone 's expectations.

Do you think it is ethical to design and conceive a child that meets specific genetic requirements?

I support the guidelines outlined by Kitcher for the use of genetic information because of their responsible and ethical nature. I believe that future generations will benefit as a direct consequence of these guidelines. I shall begin by defining eugenics as the study of human genetics to improve inherited characteristics of the human race by the means of controlled selective breeding.

Genetic Modification is often perceived as the answer to humanity’s faults because it will enhance human abilities, prevent the survival of incapacitating disabilities, and guide the innovation of the future. Sounds pretty good, right? That is not the reality. Genetic modification is not the solution to the ubiquitous problems of the human race, but rather infringes on individual rights, decreases diversity, permits too much power to the human race, and contributes to overpopulation.

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

Firstly, the number one reason why purebred breeding purely for profit is unethical: puppy mills. A puppy mill, as defined by the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), are “commercial kennels where profit counts more than the dogs’ well being”

Beginning in the late 19th century, eugenics was a social and health reform movement aimed at refining the genetic quality of the human population. Although the apparent goal of the movement was improving the human race, a desire to preserve white middle and upper class power also existed. This is evident in the policies implemented, as the unfit were confined to institutions and stringent marriage laws were established. Even more aggressive measures were applied in the Progressive Era. As immigration increased and the birthrate of Anglo-Americans declined in the 20th century, compulsory sterilization of the unfit was constructed to combat the threatened merit of society.

This is possible during genomic selection and embryo transfer because we can scan and evaluate the DNA of both the individuals to be bred together and also the embryos created so that we can look for deformities and undesirable traits. These individuals or embryos will then be eliminated from the reproduction process. This is advantageous because even if the dairy cow offspring produced has all of the desirable traits of being a dairy cow (e.g. large udder, high quality milk) but also has a disease, they will die before being able to be biologically successful and pass on their desirable genes. Therefore, this is a positive implication for the health of the

Artificial selection could not only be good for the environment but can help people as well. From the article “Pros and Cons of Artificial Selection” they state, "Farmers who engage in artificial selection can create crops that are bigger, more plentiful, or more resilient to local pests. When more of a crop can be grown to completion on a regular basis, then this allows for more profits to be achieved.” If the farners where to cross-breed the species, it can create a new species, and could make one that hasn't been existed yet. The farmer could then sell this and make a great deal off of it. When related to a food chain, the artificial selection can live longer and grow to be more powerful. In the article they also explain, “Horses can become faster. Chickens begin laying eggs sooner or laying more eggs. Even cats or dogs can be bred through artificial selection for better companionship.” Artificial breeding will not only cause different types of breedings, but by doing so it can cause crops, animals, and even people to maybe even make there life easier. Lastly, another example of artificial breeding is that they can be used in every industry. There isn’t any plant that can’t get something out of the breeding process. If you pick animals that have the most beneficial traits, a life can be developed that is better suited to meet the needs of a changing

Medical professionals today can screen for certain genetic traits (genetic diseases and sex) with in vitro fertilization and preimplantation genetic diagnosis to obtain a healthy child, and reproductive technology continues to improve. With this in mind, the question arises whether sex selection is ethical. Julian Savulescu, Uehiro Professor of Practical Ethics at Oxford University, argues that sex selection is moral, based on his ethical principle of Procreative Beneficence: that “couples (or single reproducers) should select the child, of the possible children they could have, who is expected to have the best life, or at least as good a life as the others, based on the relevant, available information” [Savulescu 1]. Savulescu claims

From evaluating the history that eugenics has imposed, its negative practice has been marked in ways of unrighteous holocaust and genocides worldwide. The word “eugenics” has been worldly defined and seen as the destruction of undesirable traits, in all reality people. However, the practice of altering or ridding of specific genes or minority group has changed through the evolution of time. Subcategorizing, eugenics has modernized and has advanced to the use of prenatal screenings, intentional selective breeding within agriculture, gene therapy, and possible human genetic engineering. Both articles that will be discussed, centralizes around the idea of genome sequencing. Specifically by focusing on the discovery of specific variant traits

Eugenics is a contentious topic of issue with many ethical implications, especially with advancements in current genetic science. It harbours different definitions to describe it, but they all subscribe to improve the human gene pool through selective reproductive practices, including prenatal testing or preimplantation genetic diagnosis (Wilkins & Garrard, 2). These practices are designed to reduce undesirable traits, such as genetic disease, or to increase desirable ones, such as effective immune systems or intelligence. In this paper, I discuss different controversial issues and ethical dilemmas in regards to pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) practices and why PGD practices should not be supported.

New technological advances and scientific methods continue to change the course of nature. One of the current controversial advances in science and technology is the use of genetically modified embryos in which the study exceeds stem cell research. Scientists have begun planning for research involving human embryos in the genetic modification field. Many technological developments are responsible for improving our living standards and even saving lives, but often such accomplishments have troubling cultural and moral ramifications (Reagan, 2015). We are already beyond the days in which virtually the only procreative option was for a man and a woman to conceive the old-fashioned way (Reagan, 2015). Genetic modification of human embryos can be perceived as a positive evolution in the medical process yet it is surrounded by controversy due to ethical processes. Because this form of genetic modification could affect later born children and their offspring, the protection of human subjects should be a priority in decisions about whether to proceed with such research (Dresser, 2004). The term Human Genetic Engineering was originally made public in 1970. During this time there were several methods biologists began to devise in order to better identify or isolate clone genes for manipulation in several species or mutating them in humans.

Genetic engineering has to do with manipulating organisms and DNA to create body characteristics. The practice of genetic DNA has shown an increasing amount over the past years. The process of genetic enhancement involves manipulating organisms by using biotechnologies. The technique is by removing a DNA from one life form and transferring it to another set of traits or organism. Certain barriers are conquered, and the procedure involves changing a form of cells, resulting from an improvement or developed organism. GMO which is a (Genetic Modified Organisms) is the operation done in a laboratory where DNA genetic from one particular species or animals is directly forced into another gene from an unrelated subject of plants or even animals.