Steinbock Designer Babies

What if there was a future where having a child was as simple as selecting desirable genes out of a catalogue? A future where technology granted parents the ability to design and perfect their children. The notion of “Designer Babies” seems absurd; however the rapid development of technology and the potential of gene manipulation could make this a startling reality.

Day by day, an accretion of advancements and improvements are formed across the world. Prominent developments occur rapidly, like the use and creation of technology. Technology has and continues to create an immense effect on how we live our daily lives. Its use is ranged from how information is found, travel, communication, and more. However, the advancements of technology seems to interfere with the circle of natural life, life that is brought into our world. It has changed the lives of unborn children, whom are in the form of an embryo. Altered by a new technique and process of genetic modification, that is commonly referred to as “Designer Babies”. This genetic modification, genetically modifies the DNA of an embryo to achieve desirable traits amongst them. It changes an unborn babies development and future life. While it may seem that designer babies can be a positive life change, there are negative effects that outweigh, due to the fact that it goes against human nature; genetic probability, expectations, diversity, and religious prospects.

Some ethical concerns held by opponents of designer babies are related to the social implications of creating children with preferred traits. The social argument against designer babies is that if this technology becomes a realistic and accessible medical practice, then it would create a division between those that can afford the service and those that cannot. Therefore, the wealthy would be able to afford the selection of desirable traits in their offspring, while those of lower socioeconomic standing would not be able to access the same options. As a result, economic divisions may grow into genetic divisions, with social distinctions delineating enhanced individuals from unenhanced individuals. For example, the science-fiction film Gattaca explores this issue by depicting a world in which only genetically-modified individuals can engage in the upper echelon of

“One need not be deeply religious or oppose abortion to be troubled by the prospect of a society in which, as bioethicist Alexander Capron puts it, ‘The wanted child becomes the made-to-order child’" (Shannon). With rising concerns of building a baby through eugenics and IVF or In Vitro Fertilization, the government, court systems, activists, and public media is starting to take notice. Being able to pick your babies’ generic make up would be an ethical disaster with a slippery slope into an era where one’s child is created by man with build-a-baby qualities instead of the natural creation of a new life. Creating a designer baby through IVF technology would have severe consequences not only affecting this generation by all the future

(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

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.

The term designer children is unnerving at first to many. The idea of parents designing the genetic makeup of their offspring makes children seem like a commodity in a genetic free market. Thoughts of a dystopian society like the one in the film “Gattaca” come to mind. However, taking an immediate repugnant stand against genetic enhancement is not well-founded. A more open-minded inspection of the issue reveals that the idea of parents improving their children’s life prospects through genetic engineering (provided it is safe) is, at its core, not unethical. In fact, some genetic enhancement in addition to correcting deleterious genes to prevent disease is a moral obligation. It is moral to make rational decisions using the science and

Technology has had a huge affect on us humans in how we live our lives starting from anywhere between how we come up or find information to how we have the ability to travel the world. Technology seems to slowly be used for more and more lately, It’s important for us as humans not to overuse or abuse the technology we were given because it may have a negative effect on society and the lives of our loved ones. We have come across a new system of genetic engineering known as “Designer Babies” which genetically modifies DNA to set a goal of creating enhanced traits for the babies to grow up with. What people need to understand is that this expensive process can ultimately change their life. What may seem beneficial

The act of genetically designing babies has been beneficial in The past and may continue to be in the near future.Creating designer babies are beneficial to the society in many ways.Creating designer babies has the possibility of preventing genetic disease,provide a tissue match or stem cells for a sick sibling or help infertile couples to have a baby.“….many more couples have created their own designer baby to save their sick child or prevent their offspring from inheriting a certain genetic disease.”To begin,since the year 2000 designer babies have been created to save the lives of other children. They have been created to prevent genetic disease that may be passed down. the last thing a parent would want is for their child to have a genetic

An article called “In Praise of Designer Babies” ( October 10, 2013) was constructed by Paul Waldman, a columnist and senior writer for the magazine “The American Prospect” for which this article was published in. This magazine covers various topics from a liberal and progressive perspective. Within this source, Waldman claims that the future of Designer Babies may not be as unethical as some people make it out to be, and that society may truly want the potential of genetically modifying their kids more than they think. To fully support his argument, Waldman refutes some of the most prominent ethical arguments with his own thinking about genetically modified embryos as well as what he believes society’s true opinion about designer babies are.

“A baby whose genetic makeup has been selected in order to eradicate a particular defect, or to ensure that a particular gene is present”; the definition of a designer baby is a simple one. A child who, through science and engineering, is given traits desired by it’s parents to resemble their view of a healthier, better baby. Whether that is to treat a mutation in the child’s DNA that could result in Down’s Syndrome or changing the baby’s eye color from brown to blue, science has made it not only conceivable but a very likely possibility, for fully designed babies to be waddling down the street within the century. Though the term “designer baby” is not one recognized by scientists, many journalists across the world have coined the term to explain the quite terrifying potential reality that lies ahead for humanity. Currently, only two types of advanced reproductive techniques can be conducted on humans. One, analyzes the sperm to determine the sex and genes of the baby, and the second screens for various genetic deformities that may occur before birth, thus allowing people to only fertilize healthy embryos.

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

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

This wave of genetics into society was something that shocked many. Advancement had changed the whole concept of birth and in 2004; the term “designer baby” was officially documented into the Oxford Dictionary. It was defined as “a baby whose genetic makeup has been artificially selected by genetic engineering combined with in

How does it sound to walk into the doctor’s office, choose what attributes you want your baby to have, and then having that exact baby 9 months later? Although this may seem quite harmless to most, the negative effects of designer babies are tremendous: the lack of diversity in our population, violation of a specific set of laws designed to protect humans, going against Christian views, and even destroying the roots of human nature. With genetic engineering biotechnology, such as Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats (or CRISPR), new and unique altercations are being done to revolutionize many aspects of our lives. Along with astounding benefits that can come from these biotechnologies, many people have come up with crazy ideas, such as these designer baby ideas, that could be potentially harmful to our society.