Physical And Personality Traits For A Child

It can be said that we live in a world where there is a constant desire for perfection in the different aspects of life. Some people desire to have the picture-perfect life: loving family, dream house, career, social life, and car to name a few. In an attempt to construct a perfect life that some desire, there recently have been developments in the medical world that allow parents to know if their fetus has any chronic diseases. This ultimately allows the parents to make the decision of whether they want to keep the fetus. With the continuous advancements in the medical world, it would not be shocking to think that parents would be able to select desirable traits for the children in the future.

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.

As we stand in the world today, we as humans have never been more technologically advanced or scientifically intelligent. We have the ability to explore outer space and the depths of the oceans. We are even in the process of developing organs using 3D printing technology. But there is a limit to the extent of advancements that humankind can reach before some begin to pose dangers to humanity or become unethical. Currently, technology is being developed to expand the procedure of in vitro fertilization to genetically modify embryos. The products of this engineering are commonly known as “designer babies”. This technology, when fully developed, would grant parents the opportunity to select against possibly life threatening or altering conditions such as cystic fibrosis, schizophrenia and Alzheimer’s. Using this technology, parents would also be able to make extensive selections regarding their baby’s gender, physical characteristics, and possibly even personality traits and talents. While it is positive advancement to be able to select against life-threatening diseases, the creation of an a-la-carte baby is unethical and crosses the line between positive sociological developments and immoral manipulations of nature for many reasons.

What if you could pick your child’s traits? Sounds like a fantasy doesn’t it? Well you might be wrong. Scientists around the world are working on Genetic Modifications in human beings. This allows a specialist to pick the strongest traits in an embryo and get rid of the bad ones. Imagine a world where there would be no cancer, no diabetes, no everything. A world with the strongest, fastest, and smartest human beings would be the outcome. I personally think this is a great idea for the advancement of the human race. I think it would be amazing to have my asthma taken away as an embryo. The positives outweigh the negative and Ronald Green agrees with me. In his article he includes Logos, an understanding tone, Satire, and Pathos.

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.

Living in such a fast paced society people look at new technologies as almost being something that they are forced to try. Biological and technological advances become so over bearing that we almost can’t resist. Although Stephan L. Baird in his article Designer Babies: Eugenics Repackaged or Consumer Options? And Bonnie Steinbock in her article Designer Babies: Choosing Our Children’s Genes, take issue with “designer babies”. Baird believes that this technology has already enabled “designer babies” and now the concern should be over regulation. Steinbock, on the other hand, is both critical and dismissive of “designer babies” and doesn’t believe parents have

Most parents would do almost anything for their children to be the best and know that in life they will be successful and ahead of the game, but what if even before they are even born you could alter their genes to give them an even greater advantage. This would allow one to “create” a child who is smarter, taller, and prettier, even if the parents never carried any of these traits. As the human race continues to develop and modern technology continues to advance, we have been able to create new inventions that could potentially help us overcome daily issues linked with diseases and mutations, but although to some this seems like an incredible idea, the motion of one day being able to modify your unborn baby to look and be who you want is not only morally wrong, but could result in drastic environmental changes. Genetically engineering has influenced many debates as to whether the ethics behind the motion are right, and like most scientific discoveries comes with many advantages and disadvantages.

Parents may have to make difficult decisions like whether or not they want their children to have a specific disorder or not. In addition, not everyone finds specific traits as “undesirable”, and may proceed to make the child have that trait. What becomes tricky is the idea of giving a child a defect or condition that makes life difficult, like “should a deaf parent who embraces his or her condition be permitted to select an embryo apt to produce a child unable to hear?” (Para 6) Some parents may find giving their children a specific condition will prepare the child to handle more challenges in life.

(Thadani 2). The process of “Designer babies” involves fertilizing the egg by the sperm in a test tube outside the mother’s womb, and altering the genes. This procedure is also called Pre- implantation Genetic Diagnosis, known as (PGD). It is noble to eradicate disorders and diseases. Some people use the process for non- health reasons. When the screening is opened up to non-related health, 72 percent disapprove of the procedure, (“Introduction to Designer Babies: At Issue.”). According to a June 2006 paper published by Kathy L. Hudson of the Genetics and Public Policy Center, many people wanted to enforce a line between acceptable and unacceptable uses for PGD. (Hudson 1). By 2009, the Fertility Institutes in Los Angeles were letting parents select their children’s hair and eye color. The procedure brought over 4 billion dollars a year to the clinics. Clinics were focused on the money and no the important things, like the patients. They did not have the best interest in their patients, as much as they did in the money. (“Introduction to Designer Babies: At Issue.”). The public had a very negative view about using PGD for personal traits. (“Introduction to Designer Babies: At Issue.”). The clinic changed their policy after the outbreak of the public. (“Introduction to Designer Babies: At Issue.”). Also the procedure is very risky. The procedure involves some risks to the embryo, and some parents with no personal history of disease or disability. (Briggs 2). If the process is not done correctly and carefully, the embryo may have a chance of being terminated. (The Ethics of “Designer Babies”). The procedure also causes a chance of mutation. (“Preface to ‘Genetic of Enhancement of Human Abilities’”.). The technology

As a result of further advances in genetic testing, parents may be able to select embryos on the basis of particular desirable traits. Parents who want their child to be a mathematical prodigy, for example, may select the embryo on the basis of such desirable academic traits. This is where an ethical dilemma presents itself. Do parents have a right to choose embryos on the basis of non-medical traits? I believe the answer is no. While parents definitely influence the personality of their children and, in turn, their interests, deciding the genetic makeup of the child is a violation of the child’s

For instance a couple is able to alter the sex, screen for diseases, pick an embryo based upon their specific traits and alter many other characteristics. For many, some of these procedures are necessary in order to check and prevent hereditary diseases; yet many advocates present the more ethical issues of designer babies. The pursuit for the perfect child many begin to grow wildly out of control as parents vie to make their child exactly what they want. Since this is a new process we are unaware of the possible future consequences. I feel that allowing people to design a baby will begin to take away the uniqueness of having a baby; knowing exactly what your baby is going to be like will take the fun out of it.

Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis is a technology that “has steadily expanded its scope, often in contentious ways. Embryo screening, for example, is sometimes used to create a “savior sibling”-- a younger sister or brother whose healthy cells can be harvested to treat an older sibling with serious illness, It is also increasingly used to weed out embryos at risk of genetic diseases” (Robinson). After awhile of using PGD to help a child or make sure nothing was to happen to a child they realized that the could even change the appearances of children. By doing this they take away racial diversity and end up making the world have genetic consequences. By letting this happen this means the world would be okay with only having a few races and children who are either made without being genetically engineered or being genetically engineered and feel like they are a better

Science is now able to better improve human health and safety thanks to the advanced modern technology and medicine that are available. Yet with today's technology being implemented into science comes the questions of human morality, or bioethics. One of the bioethics debates is on the coined term “Designer babies”; on if or where society should draw the line on genetically altering our children before they are born. With the technology able to stop hereditary diseases, the scientific development’s are able to change the child’s “eye color, hair color, social intelligence, right down to whether or not your child would have a widow’s peak” before the child is born. From the options on choosing whether or not your child will look or act a certain

The idea of designer babies has been present in science fiction literature and films for decades. From Huxley’s novel Brave New World, in which babies are grown in vats and there is no such thing as family, to the 1997 film Gattaca, in which children who are genetically engineered are considered superior and a person’s value is based entirely on their DNA (Molina, 2016).

However, while all of these reasons might be valid to some parents, they are always people who oppose these modern technologies. Hilary Freeman disagrees. She feels parents would want to be able to choose merely for social reasons. Plus, she values the ideal that “babies are not commodities. They are not born to satisfy our desires or dreams and we cannot dispose of them if they don’t meet our requirements” (2). She feels that there is one and only one condition in which the parents should be able to choose; and this is on the basis of medicinal purposes. If the child is likely to inherit genes for a condition which is harmful to them such as hemophilia or muscular dystrophy. She also adds that wanting a balanced family is a shallow concept. She doesn’t agree with it, or see any value in it.