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.

Genetic Modification is often perceived as the answer to humanity’s faults because it will enhance human abilities, prevent the survival of incapacitating disabilities, and guide the innovation of the future. Sounds pretty good, right? That is not the reality. Genetic modification is not the solution to the ubiquitous problems of the human race, but rather infringes on individual rights, decreases diversity, permits too much power to the human race, and contributes to overpopulation.

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).

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.

Safety objections come into play when there is a new technology, especially with a product that has an unforeseen side effect (563). She indicates that parents who are willing to go through a costly process of choosing in advance their children’s traits, may be the ones that are perfectionist (565). Steinbock states that “parents that go to such great lengths to control their future child’s abilities would be guilty of parental tyranny” (565). Steinbock declares that even though the parent would be able to choose the specific talents their child may have, not all children will end up using their inherited gifts (564). Steinbock adds an example, “by cloning even if you choose all of the genome in your child it is not fact that you will have complete control over the traits the child inherits” (564). Steinbock gives a very clear example on this issue, “just because a child was born with a musical talent, but does not practiced he won’t become a musician no matter what his genetic make-up may be” (564). For instance she learns from Princeton microbiologist Lee Silver “all that anyone will ever get from cloning, or any other reproductive technology, is an unpredictable son our daughter, who won’t listen to his parents any more than my children will listen to me” (564). She believes it is not possible to say all parents wanting a “designer baby” would abuse the technology for selfish reasons

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.

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.

(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

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.

While the two stand on opposite sides of the fence, it can be agreed upon by both authors that genetic modification could change the world with it’s ability to eliminate disease. “New human genetic technologies have real potential to help prevent or cure many terrible diseases” (Hayes, 500) states Hayes, as he supports genetic modification through this service. Green, the advocate for the process, is quick to provide examples of how the practice could improve the lives of future children. “If we understood the genetic causes of obesity, for example, we can intervene by means of embryo selection to produce a child with reduced likelihood of getting fat” (Green, 496).

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

In the Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, Powell, Russel, and Buchanan pose the idea that human genetic engineering of babies can overcome many natural impediments for the sake of the human race. They declare that natural selection “never gets the job done” and “does not achieve perfection.” However, natural selection is not designed to make human beings perfect. Humans adapt to what best fits their surroundings, but they can never be perfect. With designer babies, the traits that are seemed optimal will accede to the future generation, which eventually allows humans to change without process of natural selection.

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.

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.