The 's Genetic Information For Medical Or Cosmetic Purposes Essay

Gregory Stock, in his article Choosing Our Genes, asserts that at this point not ethics are important, but rather the future of genetic technology. Stock supports his conclusion by providing powerful examples of how genetic modifications can benefit our population anywhere from correcting genes at the time of conception to extending lifespan. He wants to inform his audience about all of the benefits of genetic technology in order to prove that there are way more advantages in this technology that are highly desirable by people of different ages. He reaches his readers by writing a very detailed yet coherent article that brings awareness to various groups of people from parents to be to older populations.

Humanity is always trying to find a way to make themselves better. In recent news, this has led to a moral debate on weather or not using performance enhancing drugs for sports is morally correct or not. But, what if we had already manipulated the human body to make it better before we were even born? This is what Bill McKibben is referencing in his essay “Designer Genes”, on the morality and the biological arms race that could result when dealing with genetic manipulation and engineering. Though the cat isn’t out of the bag for genetic engineering he references what scientists are doing to skim the fine line that laws and ethics have laid down for us. McKibben’s audience is people who can make laws

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

There have been many advances in genetic applications over the years. These improvements have sparked a slather of controversy throughout the nation. While some are excited about the realm of possibilities genetic engineering provides, most have a hard time finding the morality of it. Genetic engineering focuses on the physical and intellectual parts of life, it does not take into account the emotional and relational aspects. We need to be aware of the unintended social, personal, and cultural consequences genetic engineering provide before we continue to make harmful advances.

Nowadays, people will claim that the world is on the verge of scientific revolution that leads to the most controversial idea; genetic engineering of humans. When science technology grows exponentially faster than moral understanding, therein lies the argument between these two aspects. One can argue that genetic engineering is some sort of vast achievement in technology especially in this modern era whereby people live in full of access. However, if we look closely at the impact of this technology towards human beings, genetic engineering has many flaws and ramifications that can be debated thoroughly. Arguments and points of view are explained by Michael J. Sandel, the author of “The Case Against Perfection” and Nicholas Agar, the author of “Liberal Eugenics”.

Science and technology are always pushing forward and leading us to new discoveries, dramatically altering life as we know it. One of the newest discoveries is the genetic enhancement of infants, also known as designer babies or germline enhancement. Scientists take the human embryo and enhance its genetic makeup to ensure a particular gene is present or to remove the gene altogether. The manipulation of the unborn child’s genes will pose unknown risks and will be done without their consent. The controversy of this deception will further destabilize society and its unity. The genetic enhancement of infants should be opposed because it is unethical and dangerous to civilians and society.

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

The future of genetic engineering results in ethical issues pertaining to the unlawful decision to design a child. D’Souza describes the possibility to design a child: “He envisions that, in the not too distant future, couples who want to have a child will review a long list of traits on the computer screen, put together combinations of “virtual children,” decide on one they want, click on the appropriate selection, and thus--in effect--design their own offspring” (D’Souza, 2010, p.810). Giving parents’ the authority to design their child affects the nature of the children. This authority will place parents’ in power instead of God. Then, D’Souza claims: “Gene therapy has already been successfully carried out in people, and now that the human genome project has made possible a comprehensive understanding of the human genetic code, scientist will possess a new kind of power: the power to design our children, and even to redesign humanity itself” (D’Souza, 2010, p.811).

Over the past decade, the scientific technology of genetic engineering has grown drastically. Online articles propose that the chance to pick the accurate characteristics a guardian wants for their child will be accessible, “Any couple with several thousand dollars to spare can choose the sex of their offspring” (Ehrich and Williams, 2004). Progressed regenerative advances permit people and specialists to screen embryos for a hereditary issue and select solid developing lives. Although Designer babies have been a subject that has been banned in China, UK, and India, it is still a mainstream point far and wide. This subject brings a considerable measure of verbal confrontations about the basic, yes and no, but additionally about when and when not.

One may object that genetic enhancement is unethical because it is not natural and we are losing something precious by

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 birth of a child is supposed to be a time of joy, the uncertainty of life leads to this one point in time. Will she or he be the next president, a star athlete, a genius or just fall into the crowd as another citizen. With recent advancements in science, this uncertainty has become a thing of the past. The human being is now seen as a commodity and no more is valued in the uncertainty of individuality. The parent can now choose how they want their child to come out or develop into. Sandel’s book The Case Against Perfection: Ethics in the Case of Modern Eugenics is a well researched look into examples of modern eugenics and the problems that arise from it. These topics range from the ethics of cloning, athletes using performance enhancing drugs, and other practical uses in everyday life. Sandel’s argument is that there is value in human nature (even with all its flaws), and genetic engineering will forever change human nature. Destroying the very essence of what it is to be human and scarring humanity. The main features of human nature that will be altered: are responsibility, humility and solidarity.

In The Future of Human Nature, Jurgen Habermas is alarmed that human nature is under attack by the advancements in biotechnology. The fairly recent possibility to alter the genetic code of an embryo, puts concept of human nature under the threat of extinction, and in one way or another, fails to recognize the embryo as a moral agent in society and undermines the moral equality, which we are obliged to hold. In addition, there are exceptions in his mind that would see pre-birth genetic intervention as morally acceptable. When genetic intervention is used to prevent a serious illness or disability of a future individual, consent is assumed due to the fact that, no person could reject this prevention, however an individual can in fact deny an enhancement.

Should parent be allowed to genetically engineer their children? : The ethical dilemma of designer babies.

On the most surface level, human genetic engineering and human genetic modification are a new and rapidly developing field of science that deals with directly altering the DNA (genetic makeup) of a living human cell. From early science fiction to the present day, taking control of humans’ gen es and directing the flow of evolution has been a subject of debate for many people. Human genetic engineering or HGE tends to bring up thoughts of dystopian futures where altering DNA has unexpectedly resulted in horrible mutant humans that can’t survive and thus the human race perishes, but this is not necessarily the outcome. Since genetic engineering is an emerging field of science, there are still many moral and ethical issues that need to be addressed before continuing research. Atheists and theists both have valid reasons to support / resist the continuation of this field of science. For the purpose of this paper, it will be assumed the reader has a reasonable understanding of the terms atheism, theism, DNA, genes, genome, and how a persons DNA (their genotype) essentially dictates the physical appearance and abilities that person portrays (their phenotype).