Persuasive Essay On Genetic Engineering Babies

Imagine a world where having a baby was like looking through a menu at some fancy restaurant. Imagine being able to choose how a baby will look and act. As mind-boggling as it sounds, scientists and researchers came across an unbelievable discovery: it is possible to design and edit a baby however a person may like. Hanson asserts that personality, gender, appearance, intelligence, hair color, and height can be changed using technology that was originally used for animals (Hanson). These babies are called designer babies. Phillip Ball, a science writer, claims that it is possible to change the genetic makeup of an unborn baby using bio-technology. However, these changes can have more negative effects than positive. Although most countries have not legislated the use of genetic modification, studies have been done on human embryos in China (Ball).

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.

Dan W. Brock makes a few interesting points in defending genetic engineering, while being observant of the possible downfalls and negative views of the science. Brock starts of his commentary by addressing how the limits to our genes can not "confidently predict the rate at which that understanding [of genetic engineering] will be achieved in the future nor the ultimate limits on it" (pg. 615). Also, the author states how genetic engineering could help parents ensure their children the abilities to live healthy lives, create new treatments for disease, and produce stronger immune systems.

The altering of human genes could save lives. You could cure cystic fibrosis or alzheimer's. This would save the lives of many (Doc. 3). This technology could also give you children with specific traits of your choice. Also, this engineering can leave people painfree. This is not good because they can’t detect danger. As a plus side, scientists will eventually take the gene that causes this and help cure those with chronic long lasting pains (Doc. 2). This would make more people happy and healthy across the nation! Eventually we could go so far as to make a genetically engineered nation. As you can see, Genetic Engineering also could have a positive effect on

First of all, it could be possible to change disease genes and change the risk of getting diseases for future generations (Doc. 3). It might also be possible “to install genes that offer lifelong protection against infection.” (Doc. 3). It is also voted most popular to genetically change humans for the cause of reducing the risk of serious diseases than to make the baby more intelligent (Doc. 4). Lastly, germline editing could also potentially decrease or eliminate many serious genetic diseases, which would reduce human suffering worldwide (OI).

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.

Though it is evident that the concept of “Designer Babies” would prove unpopular amongst the majority of society, there still remains to be advocates for a future compromising of GM children. It is argued that gene technology will bring about a new age of human beings who are happier, smarter and healthier. Supporters look forward to a future when parents could quite literally assemble their children from genes listed in a catalogue. A future in which the health, appearance, personality and life span of our children become mere artefacts of genetic modification.

This is why i think it would be a good idea to have kids to be genetically modified. No parents wants to hear that their kid won’t make it so this eliminates this issue as we saw in the movie the genetically modified kids grow up to be healthy individuals.

Renowned Physicist Stephen Hawking once said the following regarding genetically engineered babies, “With genetic engineering, we will be able to increase the complexity of our DNA, and improve the human race. But it will be a slow process, because one will have to wait about 18 years to see the effect of changes to the genetic code.” Like Mr. Hawking stated the potential negative effect of having a baby through this process would not only take eighteen years to see a minimal effect of babies procreated this particular way. Although we strive to

Human genetic engineering can save people's lives now and could save more in the future. According to a New Scientist article (Le Page, 2015), Layla was three months when she was diagnosed with acute lymphoblastic leukaemia, a kind of cancer in the bone marrow. She underwent other treatments like chemotherapy, but those failed so she underwent gene therapy by using the TALEN protein to edit her genes to produce a cancer fighting T cell called UCRAT19; She survived and thrived (Le Page 2015). Saving someone’s life through human genetic engineering doesn’t even have to be as complicated as altering genes. According to TIME Health (Park, 2014), Mya Burkhart was six months old when her parents started to look for a cure to her rare mutation in the gene for citrate. This mutation prevented certain parts of her from getting enough energy, causing breathing and development problems, and after having no luck with any other diagnosis, a genetic scan figured out what the issue was and gave her citrate supplements (Alice Park, 2014). Both Layla’s and Mya’s lives were saved because of human genetic engineering. Layla was cured of cancer because of human genetic engineering, which is one toughest diseases for humans to cure right now, while Layla’s cancer was cured, but Mya’s condition was only treated so maybe if human genetic engineering could continue a cure could be developed to improve her life.

You may have not thought about issues that come along with genetics and the genetic makeup of a human being. This includes but not limited to how your child will look, will the offspring have your features, the fathers features, or even one of the grandparents' features. This has caused many stakeholders to debate on whether genetic engineering should be allowed and to what extent. Meaning, should we be able to design our children based on how we want them to look or to prevent them from obtaining some detrimental conditions? Most would base their opinions on the “fun” part of designing your baby and how cool that may seem. In a study by Salah, Yaz, a publisher for Emaze

I believe that human selection, whether implemented through genetic engineering or through the selection of embryos, should be used by parents only in consideration of the health of their offspring.

October 2000 - A child conceived in part to provide therapeutic tissues for an earlier-born sibling is born; techniques of preimplantation genetic diagnosis are used to ensure that the child does not itself carry the disease

Why live a life with average abilities when we can enhance our abilities through genetic engineering on our DNA for the greater good? Genetic engineering is “the artificial manipulation, modification, and recombination of DNA or other nucleic acid molecules in order to modify an organism or population of organisms.” It is not exactly a science in a broad sense, but a branch of biotechnology, which uses methods of molecular and biology, virology, and genetics. Genetic engineering on the human genome should be approved because it has the potential to make lives and the world better. Genetic disorders could be permanently eliminated, certain genes could be reactivated for regrowth of necessary cells, eliminating many neurological disorders, and delaying ageing, which would expand scientific research in order to many world complications.

Genetic engineering is currently a growing field in which people are obsessing over. This is new and upcoming technology that combines genetic and Nanotechnological enhancements, which completes the direct manipulation of DNA to alter an organism’s characteristics in a particular way. In my opinion, it may very well be a great improvement, but it should only be used when necessary. If I were a parent of a child under 12 years of age, I would not sign up for the enhancement.