Social Argument Against Designer Children

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.

Designer babies are children with genetically modified makeup before birth. Parents go to a geneticist to choose to get rid of any hereditary disease that keeps passing down their family’s lineage and free them from any adversities. This can help prevent many untreatable illnesses and diseases to create perfect healthy babies however, what other genes are scientists able to alter? Is it ethical? No. and how will it affect our society and future generations.. Designer babies are created in vitro which is placed in a culture dish and embryos with desired traits are chosen and placed in the mother's ovum. They need no more than fifteen embryos and they wait until about the second to third day when the embryo has split from a single zygote to

Darnovsky suggests that although many genetic scientists support germline engineering because it can potentially resist transfer of hereditary mutations, these scientists fail to mention that preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) does the same effect in allowing a technician to screen embryos for traces of diseases and simply deliver any non-infected embryos to the mother’s body. In conjunction, Darnovsky endorses the alternative of prenatal screening with the option of abortion to avoid the use of in vitro fertilization. Cohan, however, observes that it would dubious for the Court to restrict a woman’s reproductive rights to use germline technology while people are already using reproductive technologies such as in vitro fertilization, artificial insemination, and surrogacy. He asserts that the right to use these reproductive technologies is protected by law, and implies that it would be hypocritical for the government to restrict use of germline technology while these other reproductive technologies are still in effect.

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.

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.

Genes are a complex part of human life, and make each of us different and special. But what if there was a choice where you could genetically alter your child, making them disease free and astonishing athletes? It sounds almost too good to be true, to have your very own designer baby. For the good of human species, we should be allowed to alter human genetics. With all these amazing abilities and unlimited changes we could make to our children, it would be like shopping for clothes at a mall. This may sound like a dream come true, but it can lead to many problems in the near future. Trying to change human genes takes away each person's own individuality, and could cause people to segregate the people who were not genetically altered. Even if it can make beautiful, healthy children, it has too many problems than benefits to actually be any good for humans.

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.

Among the few benefits are humans that have limited diseases, families that have children that they can raise into adulthood that never would have had this opportunity before, and options that have never existed before. The process is dangerous in the sense that it can quickly get out of hand. Putting limits on designer babies is the key. Humans are only humans, not perfect beings. The thought of trying to create a perfect human sounds very ridiculous. No matter how many operations and procedures one baby is given, they can only be a human. Limits and regulations should be applied to genetic mutations to end the possibility of getting out of hand. A baby should not be able to have every part of them changed, what good would this do for the parents or for the baby? A baby is only a baby, no matter what. A baby will have no choice in the way they are mutated. The process, as advancing as it may be, may lead to many issues in the future. This means that we must be wary in the proceeding

Even though pre-implantation genetic diagnosis is used to terminate genetic disorders in babies, the severity of said diseases should be taken into consideration as it can push disabled people who already have those diseases into a corner full of reinforced discrimination and stigma from society. We live in a world where discrimination against the disabled or ill exists, yet by creating a legion of designer babies, disabled people will look at themselves and see that they are ” less” than the other humans who have been genetically modified to be “perfect” (onlinelibrary.wiley, pre-implantation genetic diagnosis). Disability and illness will always be a prominent issue, but to terminate small diseases and disabilities will make the disabled and ill feel as if they are “faulty”. The selection of children on the basis of less serious traits is not an acceptable practice. 38% of people feel as if disabled people are a burden on society (brandongaille, 20 amazing disiability discrimination facts.), imagine how high the rate will increase if a creation of perfect beings were to be in place? More discrimination and bullying will target those that have unfixable disabilities and illnesses. Pre-implantation genetic diagnosis stirs up even more social issues in mankind. Another instance where designer children can lead to an increase of social issues can be seen in social classes. Since the procedure of pre-implantation genetic diagnosis is a costly one, not everyone will be able to afford it which can lead to an increased gap between the lower, middle and upper class (explorebiotech, pros and cons of designer babies). This ties in with the discrimination aspect mentioned before. Designer babies would be seen as the “better, improved “ versions of humans, which would create a new set of social classes, those who are designer and those who are non designer. The social

This will increase the segregation between the richer and poorer parts of society. Also this could create prejudice and discrimination between the “Designer” and “Non-designer” children, with “classes” created between them. The non-designer babies could miss out on opportunities, such as jobs because people are more likely to take the “optimum” candidate for something. The use of designer babies could also create a gap in society, as there will be a loss of individuality and diversity. This is because parents will choose the prime characteristics such as intelligence or athleticism resulting in everyone being relatively similar. The means the ability to “change” and evolve as humans will falter. Who would want a world with everyone the same? It is also concerned that these techniques will be developed with innocent intention, for example repairing a faulty gene, but will be marketed to people or abused by the government and turned more into a business rather than a medical

Finally, my last reason why I do not support genetic engineering is because it will make some people enter a bad emotional state. In the movie GATTACA,when a person was perfect, but then later found out he had mistakes they would enter a suicidal state of mind. This happens because the person thinks they’re perfect but when they realise they are not they think they’re a failure. If we start genetically modifying our children they could experience something similar to this. We should just let everyone be

For years the discussion on designer babies has been up surging and is now at the forefront of many medical and academic discussions. An experimental technique, known as gene therapy, birthed the idea of designer babies (“Gene Therapy”. GHF). This very experimental technique, why, uses healthy genes to treat, or rather prevent diseases that could be passed down from parent to child. However, scientists have ventured to further expound on the concept of preventing disease to a more cosmetic and superficial approach. The more imposing science of gene therapy would attempt to take science further into the realm of altering physical characteristics ultimately allow parents to choose their babies eye color, gender, and other physical characteristics that have no bearing on the child 's well being or health. The term now coined as “Designer Babies” is used to describe how by using gene therapy, parents can quite literally design their babies employing genetic screening combined with in vitro fertilization to alter otherwise naturally occurring physical appearances. Whether or not this revolutionary new science should be banned in the United States has become a very controversial topic in the U.S. igniting the strong opinions of scientists and politicians alike. Those in opposition believe that gene therapy is unethical, arguing that science is pressing toward a level that is morally perverse by allowing science to create the next generation instead of

One now has the ability to alter their child’s hair and eye color which Hitler tried to do with killing the men, women and children that didn't fit the look of his ideal “Aryan race”. With the availability of choosing a child’s characteristics there could essentially be a more popularized and desired look that become the trend, and could lead to the type of segregated beliefs as pushed in Nazi Germany. The ability to have people choose their unborn child’s genetic makeup will most likely be only available to the wealthy from the cost of this procedure, and may lead to segregation from the ideal look that the wealthy would choose. A comparable look at this concept would be “The climate in Nazi Germany from 1939 onwards, if not earlier, was dangerous for those who did not fit the ideal Aryan race, and those who did not conform to Nazi beliefs were under the threat of work camps or even death”. Changing a society's characteristics could accidentally rank the people of our society from their wealth, the Nazi’s eliminated the races and unfit characteristics they felt were below them by killing off them. Giving the opportunity to make the wealthy look even more considerably different from the poor and have alike traits would create a more civil divide that could be compared to the divide in Nazi Germany. People would don’t have the traits chosen

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.