1

PRIOR TO THE CHILDBIRTH, THW JUSTIFY PARENTS

TO GENETICALLY ENGINEER THEIR CHILDREN
1. BACKGROUND
Picture yourself sitting in a doctors office wile !eing infor"ed tat you and your s#ecial
so"eone is #regnant. $our "ind is racing wit tougts on ow you will lo%e tis cild
no "atter wat& no "atter wat tis !a!y loo's li'e or te #ersonality tis !a!y as. Now
#icture te doctor telling you tat if you would li'e( you can cange your !a!ies loo's
and #ersonality. $ou can coose te se)( te air color( eye color( frec'les or no
frec'les( *+( and e%en #esonality traits. ,ould you do it-
*"agine a world free of genetic diseases( were #arents control all a!out teir offs#ring.
.e science "ay !e closer tan you tin'. if te science could !e #erfected( is it "orally
wrong- ,ould tis cange "ean e"#owering #arents to gi%e teir cildren te !est start
#ossi!le-
/. D01*N*.*ON
Genetically engineer !a!ies is te a!ility to #ic' a#art an e"!ryo( coose s#ecific traits(
and ad2ust te" to for" te cild in accordance wit te wises of #arents.
we should justify parents to genetically engineer their children in England if they do that to make
their children to be a good person and appropriate with their want
3. ARGU40N.
A. GO50RN40N.
Gender selectin !ill "re#ent incidents $ in$%nticide
Some cultures place great importance on having at least one child of a particular gender. We
can help realise this aim. We can prevent the trauma and stress of not having a child of a
particular gender, which can have negative cultural connotations. If a state's population became
seriously imbalanced, one might have to rethink but given that most countries, including all in
the West, have balanced populations, and given that many families in most countries will choose
to have roughly as many of the other se!, this should not stop this proposal being put into effect
in many countries. Even in England, the problem is largely due to the "one#child" policy which
has been rela!ed in many areas since the mid#$%%&s. 'ver time, a scarcity of one gender will in
any case produce new pressures to rebalance the population, for e!ample the paying of dowries
may change, and women will achieve higher status.
/
It is for the individuals to decide whether this treatment is worth the e!pense. (he anecdotal
evidence from parents who have gone through the process suggests that pre#selecting the se! of
their children was not a )frivolous purpose*. +sked whether her three boys had not been enough,
Sharla +llen replied )(hey are. (hey*re totally everything I could ever want,but why not have
two daughters that will be just as wonderful as they are-* $. .o#one is harmed in this process, the
parents know the risks beforehand and it should be their prerogative to have the treatment.
It is hardly shattering the mystery of childbirth, given how common ultrasound scans are.
Sharla /iller, who went through gender selection, refutes the suggesting it is like playing 0od,
arguing 'it's just like every other procedure the medical field can do for you. When our eldest
child had spina bifida, they fi!ed that. Were they playing 0od-' $. /oreover, knowing what
gender a child will be is tremendously helpful for parents in planning for the future 1picking
clothes, colour schemes, toys, names etc.2. Why not e!tend that ability to plan- /oreover, in
many countries and cultures gender selection happens already, usually by selective abortion or
abandonment of unwanted babies. Everyone can agree that this is a terrible waste of life and
potentially very dangerous for the mother concerned, and of course many people object strongly
to abortion on moral grounds. (he use of new technologies to allow gender selection at the start
of pregnancy will reduce and hopefully eventually end the use of selective abortion.
P%rents s&'ld &%#e $reed( $ c&ice
3eople should have freedom of choice. /any believe genetically modifying a baby should be
legal because it is up to the parents what they want for their children. Why shouldn*t
would#be parents be able to do this, given that no harm is done to others by their decision- +rticle
$4 1$2 of the 5niversal 6eclaration of 7uman 8ights states that "/en and women of full age,
have the right to marry and to found a family" and this right should be understood to cover the
right to make decisions over how that family should be formed $. When a family have a large
number of boys or girls, why should they be deprived of the opportunity to have a child of a
different gender if the technology e!ists- +s the 6irector of the 9ertility Institute notes, )these are
grown#up people e!pressing their reproductive choices,1they2 are really happy when they get
what they want*
3arents have every right, if the technology is present, to choose the gender make#up of their
family. 0uaranteeing 1or improving the chances of2 a child being of the gender they want means
that the child is more likely to fit into the family's dreams. 7e or she is, bluntly, more likely to be
loved. (alk of designer babies is scaremongering nonsense. '+ll babies are, to some e!tent,
designed. Individuals do not procreate randomly they choose their partners, and often choose the
3
time of conception according to their own age and prosperity' $. 3arents give so much to children.
(hey invest years of their lives and a large amount of their earnings in their upbringing. Isn't it
fair that in return, they get to decide something like this if they want to- (his is an e!tension of
reproductive rights.
Se)*s"eci$ic, +eneric dise%ses c%n ,e %#ided
One of te "ost !eneficial as#ects of genetic engineering is genetic testing. By
identifying wic genes cause s#ecific diseases( it as !eco"e "uc easier to "a'e a
diagnosis for "any genetic conditions. .is testing su##lies te a!ility to test #re6
sy"#to"atic indi%iduals( at6ris' indi%iduals( and carriers to deter"ine weter tey will
de%elo# a s#ecific condition. .is testing is #articularly useful to #eo#le wo are
intending on re#roducing( and want to ensure tey will not #ass teir genetic condition to
teir offs#ring. Current ad%ances include #rei"#lantation genetic diagnosis( wic allows
for e"!ryos to !e created in %itro( and only tose e"!ryos tat are not affected !y a
s#ecific genetic disorder will !e i"#lanted in te wo"ans uterus.
liputan4.com +ugust :&$;
<ritain will be the first country in the world that offers a controversial program , the fertility
treatment to genetically modify babies for families who intend to avoid inheritance of severe
illness in their children .
<ritain could become the first country in the world where opportunities could legali=e
modification or genetic engineering .
(he move involves an intervention in the process of fertili=ation by removing the mitochondrial
6.+ that can pass a number of serious illnesses such as heart , brain disorders , blindness , heart
disease and muscle disease .
(he method is designed to help families who have severe disease and can not be cured through
the mother so as not to decrease compared with the incidence of one in 4,>&& children
worldwide .
/itochondria act as little energy that is turned on by small battery inside the cell , Sunday
1 ;&?&4?:&$; 2 .
<ritish medical ethics panel is reviewing a potential treatment for mitochondrial disease , last
year decided that it was appropriate and ethical steps can be continued throughout the study
shows that the action is safe and effective .
Since the 5@ is leading the way in research , ethical issues , political decisions and scientific
7
progress noted by the whole world # especially the 5nited States that scientists also conduct
research e!change 6.+ .
.e "a2ority of genetic disorders are cause !y single #oint "utations in te DNA. By
so"atic cell tera#y( tese diseases can !e easily cured. Additionally( te
i"#le"entation of ger"line cell tera#y can not only cure "any oter genetic diseases(
!ut can also #re%ent te #assing of te disease to te ne)t generation.
8cientists a%e disco%ered "any diseases suc as Down syndro"e( s#inal "uscular
atro#y( cystic fi!rosis( fa"ilial y#ercolesterole"ia( rare !lood disorders suc as
Dia"ond6Blac'fan ane"ia( and "any "ore are eredity and tat tere is a way to
decrease te cances of ineriting tis trait 9:;Designer Ba!ies; 0tical-;<. Doctors
dissect an e"!ryo to ta'e te traits( wic cause disease( out. Altering an e"!ryo to
decrease te cances of an unealty !a!y sounds good( !ut were do we draw te
line- Doctors 'now ow to cange al"ost any trait of an e"!ryo( fro" loo's to
#ersonality. Professor =ulian 8a%ulescu !elie%es #arents sould !e gi%en te o#tion to
cange any trait of teir e"!ryo( wic will !eco"e teir future !a!y. >e furter e)#lains
tat a%ing tis o#tion to design a !a!y can !e considered a "oral o!ligation as it
"a'es te" grow u# into etically !etter cildren 9=a!aro%<.
Some parents are carriers of known se!#specific diseases. It is obviously in the child's interests
that they don't have such a condition. 6etermining its gender can ensure that. /any families have
predispositions towards certain common conditions that are more likely in one gender in another,
and these can be avoided too. .early all neurodevelopmental diseases are either more common in
one gender or more severe among one gender. +rthritis, heart disease and even lung cancer also
seem to be influenced by a person's gender. /ales disproportionately suffer from A chromosome
problems because their body has no copy to fall back on $ (hese range in nature from baldness
and colour blindness to muscular dystrophy and haemophilia. Women are disproportionately
affected by diseases of the immune system :. 0enetic modification is not the only technology
available. (he /icroSort techniBue uses a 'sperm#sifting' machine to detect the minute difference
between y and double ! chromosome#carrying sperm no genetic harm results from its use. 'ver
$:&& babies have been born using the technology
#otential ad%antages of u"an enance"ents.
>u"ans %alue intelligence( !eauty( strengt( endurance( and certain #ersonality
caracteristics and !ea%ioral tendencies. *f tese traits were found to !e due to a
genetic co"#onent( u"ans could !e i"#ro%ed to o!tain tose traits. 4any #eo#le try to
?
i"#ro%e te"sel%es already troug diet( e)ercise( education( cos"etics( and #lastic
surgery. >u"ans try to do tese tings for te"sel%es and #arents try to #ro%ide tese
tings for teir cildren. 0)ercising to i"#ro%e strengt( de)terity( and fitness is a
wortwile goal. Pursuing education to increase "ental ca#a!ilities is considered a
#raiseworty act. Acco"#lising tese goals troug genetics could !e "ore efficient
and co"#letely wortwile
(o 8eproduce Individuals of 0reat 0enius, (alent, or <eauty
0enetically Engineer would allow families or society to reproduce individuals of great
genius, talent, or beauty, where these traits are presumed to be based on the individuals' desirable
or superior genetic makeups. 9or e!ample, some admirers of great athletes, musicians, or
mathematicians, believing that the admired attributes are the result of a superior genetic
endowment, might want to clone these distinguished individuals.
(hose who defend 0enetically Engineer children on the grounds of human freedom make
two kinds of arguments. (he first is that because individuals in pluralistic societies have different
definitions of the good life and of right and wrong, society must protect individual freedom to
choose against the possible tyranny of the majority. (his means securing and even e!panding the
rights of individuals to make choices so long as their choices do not directly infringe on the rights
1and especially the physical safety2 of other rights#bearing citi=ens. In Eisenstadt v. <aird 1$%C:2,
the 5nited States Supreme Dourt enunciated what has been called a principle of reproductive
freedom "If the right to privacy means anything, it is the right of the individual, married or
single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so affecting a person as a
decision whether to bear or beget a child."> 6efenders of 0enetically Engineer children argue
that, in the event that the physical risks to mother and future child were shown to be ethically
acceptable, the use of this new reproductive technology would fall under the protective umbrella
of reproductive freedom.
+ second defense of genetically engineer on the grounds of freedom is the claim that human
e!istence is by its very nature "open#ended," "indeterminate," and "unpredictable." 7uman beings
are always remaking themselves, their values, and their ways of interacting with one another.
.ew technologies are central to this open#ended idea of human life, and to shut down such
technologies simply because they change the "traditional" ways of doing things is unjustifiable.
+s constitutional scholar Eaurence (ribe has argued in reference to genetically engineer "+
society that bans acts of human creation that reflect unconventional se! roles or parenting models
1surrogate motherhood, in vitro fertili=ation, artificial insemination, and the like2 for no better
@
reason than that such acts dare to defy 'nature' and tradition 1and to risk adding to life's
comple!ity2 is a society that risks cutting itself off from vital e!perimentation and risks sterili=ing
a significant part of its capacity to grow."
Some people argue more broadly that an e!isting generation has a responsibility to ensure, to
the e!tent possible, the genetic Buality and fitness of the ne!t generation. 0enetically engineer
children, they argue, offers a new method for human control and self#improvement, by allowing
families to have children free of specific genetic diseases or society to reproduce children with
superior genetic endowments. It also provides a new means for gaining knowledge about the age#
old Buestion of nature versus nurture in contributing to human achievement and human
flourishing, and to see how great geniuses measure up against the "originals."
B. OPPO8*.*ON
0enetically modifying babies does not affect ethics of a child.
I believe an embryo should take the natural path and should not be genetically modified
because it is ethically wrong . /orality is not heredity, but rather created by a person*s
environment and surroundings . If two murderers give their baby up for adoption, and the
child grows up in a stable strong moral family, the baby is more likely to be a stable child
rather then become a murderer. 6issecting the embryo of this child will not change the
desire to be a murderer, but rather the environment and surroundings. Dhanging any
embryo is not a moral obligation because it is not possible to change ethics or morals of
an unborn child.
there will be many side effects and can cause many future problems
In the future, if modifying an embryo becomes legal and a parent is allowed to adjust
certain traits to the embryo, there will be many side effects. (his can be seen when
species of plants or animals are genetically modified in a laboratory, forcing a species
6.+ into another, which is very similar to what a doctor would do to an embryo of a
human being. 8esearch behind genetically modified food has taught us that a lot of
une!pected problems can appear once we begin tinkering with genetics. 9armers will use
genetically#modified seeds so that their crops will be able to withstand to!ic herbicides or
to manufacture their own insecticide. /any people try to get genetically modified foods
out of the marketplace and out of our diet because it is believed that genetically modified
A
foods contribute to the development of many common health disorders, such as
premature aging, reproductive disorders, immune imbalance, gastrointestinal problems,
organ damage, and cancer 10ates2. If problems are occurring in our foods because of
genetically modifying the 6.+ we should not risk problems of such damage to future
human beings.
Anoter #otential long ter" #ro!le" of designing !a!ies lies in societies in wic one
gender or oter i"#ortant caracteristic is fa%ored o%er te oter. *n countries suc as
Cina and *ndia were !oys are fa%ored o%er girls( tis tecnology could !e used so tat
e%ery set of #arents tat wants a !a!y !oy will get one. >owe%er( tat is not
e%olutionarily fa%ora!le 9Agar<. *f a generation of only !oys were to !e "ade( te u"an
race would die out. .at is( ne%erteless( difficult to e)#lain to an entire country( were
fa"ily #ride is !ased on te nu"!er of sons one as. .e tecnology would continue to
!e a!used.
Dreating a generation of genetically modified humans could mess with evolution in
unpredictable ways. (he premise of evolution is simply this as environments change, the
individuals in a species best suited to the new environment are selected for. Without
diversity in the species, adaptation to the new environment is more difficult without a
wide range of individuals to choose from. (he evolution of humans has spanned about :
million years and has resulted in the types of people we see today people who have
imperfections and people who are very different from one another. + large scale of
organisms in a particular species is necessary for that species to continue to be
competitive with other species and be successful. <y creating a generation of genetically
similar people, the human species loses its ability to adapt to changing environments.
)3arents choose to abort female foetuses not because they do not want or love their
daughters, but because they feel they must have sons* 1usually for social reasons2 $. Even in
western countries some minority groups' gender preferences may result in serious imbalances in
some communities. (hese imbalances are socially harmful because in time many young men will
be unable to find a partnerF in England this is already linked to a rise in se!ual violence,
kidnapping and forced marriage, and prostitution.
Se!#specific, generic diseases are only avoided a majority of the time, the process is not near
$&&G accurate and therefore the medical benefits cannot be used without considering of the
medical costs. 3re#implantation genetic diagnosis involves the development of embryos outside
the womb, which are then tested for gender. 'ne or two of the desired gender are then implanted
B
in the womb. (hose that are not of the desired gender, or are surplus to reBuirements are
destroyed 1typically, over a do=en embryos are used to select a single one to be implanted2. +
human life has been created with the e!press purpose of being destroyed. (his is another form of
abortion H only the conception is deliberate. 5ltimately, it will be these technologies and not
/icroSort that is used, since whilst the latter has a %;G accuracy rate if a girl is desired 1itself a
lower result than genetic diagnosis2, its accuracy falls to I:G for boys, and the vast majority of
selections will inevitably be for males $ . (hus, given that they are so keen to have a child of a
particular gender and so unwilling to risk having one of the other gender, parents will not risk
using /icroSort. Even if they do choose it, whilst there have not been overt problems thus far,
scientific e!perts like Eord Winston e!press the fear that the process damages sperm, making
genetic mutation much more likely. <oth techniBues are therefore to be condemned.
the .ational +cademy reported
reproductive genetically engineer of humans would pose a high risk to the health of both
fetus or infant and mother and lead to associated psychological risks for the mother as a
conseBuence of late spontaneous abortions or the birth of a stillborn child or a child with severe
health problems.
(he reason is clear e!periments to develop new reproductive technologies such as
genetically engineer are necessarily intergenerational, undertaken to serve the reproductive
desires of prospective parents but practiced also and always upon prospective children. +ny such
e!periment unavoidably involves risks to the child#to#be, a being who is both the product and also
the most vulnerable human subject of the research. E!posed to risk during the e!tremely sensitive
life#shaping processes of his or her embryological development, any child#to#be is a singularly
vulnerable creature, one ma!imally deserving of protection against risk of e!perimental 1and
other2 harm. If e!periments to learn how to clone a child are ever to be ethical, the degree of risk
to that child#to#be would have to be e!tremely low, arguably no greater than for children#to#be
who are conceived from union of egg and sperm. It is e!tremely unlikely that this moral burden
can be met, not for decades if at all.
genetically modified baby might suffer socially
.0enetically modified children will become an outcast and one that feels rejected because
of the thought of the parents changing them, instead of the parents accepting them for
who they are. (hink about the competiveness of having the perfect child in the first place.
/any parents want their kids to be the best. <eing able to genetically modify a child will
C
bring this competiveness to an unhealthy level. .ot everyone would look e!actly the
sameF some parents may want their baby to have brown eyes, as opposed to blue. <ut as a
whole, many people would be pretty, healthy, and intelligent. What parent wouldn*t want
these basic traits in their child- 3arents should not be able to play 0od when it comes to
designing their baby. 3arents have been teaching kid*s ethics, helping their children
succeed, making sure they know they are always loved no matter what they look like, and
truly accepting them for who they are, without modifying any 6.+, successfully. Eet us
not take the easy route, especially because we don*t know where it will take us in the
future.
.e coosing of e"!ryos !rings to te forefront a large "oral issue wit designer
!a!ies. 4any e"!ryos are created( and not as "any are i"#lanted into te "oter. .e
e"!ryos tat do not fit te s#ecifications set !y te #arents will get trown away. >ad
tese e"!ryos a%e !een allowed to grow( tey could a%e ad long and fulfilled li%es(
owe%er te ones tat are trown away lose tat #otential life. 4any #eo#le( es#ecially
tose wo are #ro6life( %iew tis as#ect as a uge #ro!le" in te creation of designer
!a!ies. *f "any e"!ryos are going to !e trown away( tey sould not !e created.
1urter"ore( on "oral grounds( weter it is !elie%ed tat u"ans e%ol%ed or were
created !y God( it is wrong to try to #erfect so"eting tat as !een #erfected o%er a
large s#an of ti"e or "ade !y God.
S W&%t D We T&in-.
9reedom of choice is an important principle generally, but it should not be granted at the
e!pense of unconditional love for one*s children. (he pre#selection of gender )is a threat to the
core value of parenthood that is usually e!pressed by the commitment to unconditional love*,
according to a 0eorgetown professor $. Dhildren should not be loved because of who they are,
not because they are e!actly what we wanted of them. +s 7arvard professor /ichael Sandel
notes, )consider the father who wants a boy in hope of having as a son the athlete he had never
been. Suppose the son isn*t interested in sports,what sorts of e!pectations will burden a child
who has designed with certain purposes in mind-* $. 9or that reason, parents should not be
permitted freedom of choice in this regard, but encouraged to love their child eBually, regardless
of gender.
Dhildren are not toys. (hey are not meant to be designed to specifications most convenient to
the )owner*. )It runs the risk of turning procreation and parenting into an e!tension of the
consumer society* argues 7arvard philosopher /ichael Sandel $. If we allow parents to choose
1D
gender, soon some will want to choose eye colour, or hair colour. (hat is only the beginning. We
are, in allowing this, encouraging false ideas of )perfection* H damning those that don*t look a
certain way. 9urthermore, since of course there*s no justification for allowing such indulgence at
public e!pense, the divide will grow ever#larger between rich and poor, as the rich tailor not only
their clothes and belongings to reflect their wealth, but also the bodies of their children. If a "gay
gene" is discovered, would parents be permitted to weed out embryos with it, using the
technology this proposal would condone- We really should be encouraging the idea that when it
comes to children, you get what you are given H otherwise, people be more and more likely to
reject their own child when they don*t get e!actly what they want,
Dould lead to the rise of Jgenetic castesK
.is cost will "ean tat not e%eryone will !e a!le to #ay to design teir !a!y( and
suddenly #eo#le will encounter #re2udice( not for teir race( !ut for teir inferior genetic
"a'eu#. *t creates a new class syste" "ade u# of genetically designed #eo#le and
naturally "ade #eo#le. .e #eo#le wo were not genetically engineered would
e)#erience a loss of o##ortunity !ased on a cance tat teir defecti%e genes will !e
e)#ressed. *n tis new society( #eo#le wit a ?DE cance of cancer would get #assed
o%er for a 2o! in fa%or of te #erson wit .D1E cance of cancer. .at 'ind of social
stratification can !e frigtening. 0%en if #ri%acy laws te way tey are now stay in #lace
and #eo#les genetic infor"ation is not sared( it could !e o!%ious wic cildren were
designed and wic were not( creating te sa"e stratification