Designer Babies: Ethical or Unethical Designer babies are one of the most controversial issues in modern medicine. It can be seen as it being ethical by eliminating diseases and lead to an improved quality of life and longevity but also sees it as being unethical because it could possibly lead to the parent controlling the physical and or psychological features of a child.

There are a couple of reasons why creating a designer baby can be beneficial health wise that some people may see it as being ethical but others sees it as unethical because couples are looking into designing their baby for physical traits more than health reason. Technology now a day’s make it possible to detect genetic disorders such as Down syndrome and Turner’s syndrome or many more. If the embryo is positive for a disorder the parents have the option to abort it. Another benefit by using this research it can get rid of all genetically transferred diseases leading to a future healthier population.
Choosing donor physical and psychological traits essentially means that hopeful parents can buy a baby of their choice, picking everything from hair and eye color to skin color, height, and race. The so-called designer babies that come from such deliberate selection could in the future be created in a laboratory, as scientists understand enough about the human genetic code to possibly alter embryonic DNA for parents who want their babies to look and possibly act a certain way. The ethics of designer babies is questionable for several reasons. On the one hand, by removing random selection from the reproductive process the parents-to-become dangerously close to practicing eugenics: a form of "demographic control" usually associated with racism. On the other hand, the ability to create designer babies could be used to reduce instances of disease in the general population or to otherwise improve quality of life for some individuals. Therefore, the issue of designer babies will become one of the most controversial issues in modern medicine. In the ethical aspect of creating a designer baby people may side with the concept of this option because it can eliminate any disorders that maybe inherited. If there is a cancer cell gene in a family, the couple can do pre-implantation genetic diagnosis or PGD. PGD is procedures that are performed on embryos prior to implantation, sometime even on oocytes prior to fertilization screening for prenatal diagnosis for any diseases or disorders. If a gene with a disease is detected during PGD then the parents have the option not to implants that particular embryo and implants the embryo that is disorder free, a healthy embryo. In 2000 the world’s first true designer baby was born, Adam Nash is also commonly known as the "saviour sibling", as he was selected for his human leukocyte antigen complex in order to save the life of his older sister who had a blood disorder. His embryo was chosen as it had the exact type of cells which would be compatible with Molly’s. If Molly’s parents didn’t choose to do PGD and create Adam then Molly wouldn’t have survived. Some people are on the side of designer’s babies for the benefit like the Nash’s case.
Greater control over the embryo or donor selection process could prevent some genetic diseases from manifesting, too. Some might argue that designer babies would create a more perfect society through the eventual elimination of disease, deformity, and disability: much of which is genetically-carried. Improving the quality of life of children and their parents could be construed as a moral obligation rather than an immoral act. Thus, supporters of designer baby creation argue that so long as the practice is used to improve public health, increase quality of life, and reduce instances of illness or disease, then no moral law is being broken.

The unethical aspect of a designer baby can be that some people may see it as playing God. Parents have the options of creating their child in the way of its gender, physical stature, athletic abilities and or academic advancement. Who is to say is it better to be red-headed than it is to be brown-haired? Is it better to have freckles or not? The unethical side also argues that by this procedure it’s going to play a role in the economy. If a designer baby and a non designer baby are applying for the same job it’s more than likely the designer baby will get the offer because it will be more superior leaving the non designer baby in a situation where they would have to get a low paying job. Another unethical reason can be seen in the case of Adam Nash, as he was brought into this world with the purpose of saving his older sister, and not because the couple really wanted another child. Another controversial issue that has been voiced by people is the aspect of playing God. By choosing the characteristics of their baby, parents are taking the place of nature. Imagine wondering who you would really be if you had been born with the traits you were meant to have naturally. Also, societies who are against designer babies have debated that with this procedure it’s giving people the control of population.
Interestingly, the same arguments used in favor of designer babies are being used against them. For example, advocates of designer babies note that by breeding out genetic illnesses or disabilities society will be less burdened and quality of life for all individuals including the baby and its parents will improve. By the same argument, opponents of designer babies claim that crafting society would not improve quality of life. Instead quality of life would decrease especially because individuals with ideal genes would be considered superior to those with some defects.

In conclusion, people that are siding that it is not right and has negative effects and just because we have the means to do that doesn’t mean we should. And the people siding for it because of the health benefits and having their preference feel that it is ok and should be an option. The arguments that designer babies might benefit society rest on the assumption that eliminating disease would lead to improved quality of life. They also rest on the assumption that being able to control the physical or psychological features of a child would help families.