Genetic Engineering: Designer Babies
What if the world were free of genetic diseases, or if it was a place where parents could control their offspring’s height, hair color and intelligence? The science may be closer to being available then some people think. Genes sometimes interact in ways that human may never completely understand, so we never know what might happen. Society could become a place with designer babies, unforeseen genetic problems and a genetically enhanced society where only the rich benefit. So even though human genetic engineering has potential benefits the interference in a person’s genetic makeup is too risky, moral debates arise, and it could throw off the sociological balance of our world.
The world’s first designer baby was born in 2000, a test tube baby named Adam Nash. He was altered by the use of a technique called the Pre-Implantation Process. He was born to save his older sister’s life, because she suffered from a low blood count disorder and was in dire need of a bone marrow transplant. The Nash family sparked the ethical debate over the alteration and the use of a baby’s genes, a debate that has since grown in argumentative evidence for and against the development of a possible worldwide lawful altering of baby’s genes. Consequently, there are many issues with the ideas put forth. The eradication of genetic diseases is a very exciting; it poses a great socioeconomic balance of out world. For example, for the disabled who have been the way they are since birth, may be put even lower on the ladder of society. By being given a choice of changing one’s baby to be healthy, what opportunities are left for a disabled person, since they would not be able to match the new and improved human race? For a child whose parents decide against genetic engineering, living with a disease or disability, such as lateral sclerosis or ALS, there is a very good chance that society will look at them as useless, unable to contribute to the world as intellectual humans.
It greatly reminds me of Steven Hawking. Although his ALS developed very slowly, and didn’t fully activate until his twenties, Hawking’s retained this disease within his DNA all of his life. If he were born in a world of advanced intellectual and physical humans, would he have been able to contribute as much as he has even with a ’disability’? Plus by the use of genetic screening in order to depict which embryos carry diseases, Hawking’s parents could’ve gotten rid of him and he wouldn’t exist today. Therefore, genetic modification, while exciting and useful in several ways, can be considered a science in need of restrictions to prevent dramatic inequalities to arise between the disabled and the advanced.
IVF in itself is a very, highly expensive procedure as it is. If it were to be developed into a science to customize babies, it is clear the lower and middle classes wouldn’t have the same opportunity to ‘choose’ their children to the extent that the rich and famous would get to have. Especially because in America there is already a great enough divided between the rich and the poor and using IVF to design children wouldn’t help make it any better. I would imagine that some traits would be deemed more precious then others, therefore most likely far more expensive than others providing a new type of social divide between human. With the media as out of control as it is already in present time, our society has already set up the “rules” of beauty and a desirable lifestyle. Realistically, humans cant and don’t live up to our standards for perfection, because a perfect human doesn’t actually exist. With this already a problem, IVF becoming too strong and useful will lead to humans greedily and carelessly looking for perfection. Certain traits will be deemed more precious, therefore more expensive than others. The beautiful, rare characteristic will rise to the top of the social hierarchies, and those with less desired traits will be oppressed to the bottom of the pyramid. And like mentioned earlier, humans cant be perfect even though we as a whole have accepted that concept. Those with good genes are lucky in that they are immediately ‘better than everyone else’ by natural means, while others are lesser creatures. If this is influenced or enhanced any further, the concept of beauty will get completely out of hand and divide humans even more. Plus we could just undermined people who have great potential to contribute greatly to society. The concept of manipulating genes for these reasons need to stick to saving lives of children, not to be an alternative way to separate the great from the lesser and average. Finally, what about the child’s welfare? Where do we draw the line between what a parent wants and what a child needs? For instance like mentioned earlier, a mother can use these practices while pregnant, so their child can be used for the benefit of someone else. Again it’s just like Adam Nash, he was born to be a genetic match for his sister who was dying from Leukemia. He was born so his bone marrow could be used in a transfusion to save his sister at a critical stage. Really there was no guarantee his sister would survive the cancer and be free of it completely afterwards. This means that the donor child, Adam, may be subjected to a life of constant blood donations and regular visits to the hospital. This is not the right way for anyone to live their life, to place someone on the expectation that they will always be at hand when their sibling needs anything, from the very beginning of their oppressed life. A child isn’t to born just to ensure the life of another human being, especially because it seems as if the donor’s life will always be put behind the other siblings. I would imagine the donor and parent would also have a jeopardized relationship, since the parent is controlling the child’s life before they can even know what they want for themselves. The child then becomes less of an actual human and more like a tool that is used and manipulated, their rights greatly abused. Their path of life is being made for them, which isn’t right because people deserve to make their own choices and should be able to live the life they desire. This case comes down to basically moral rights and wrongs. I believe it is completely acceptable to select embryos free of genetic diseases to protect the lives of children, but to engineer humans and characteristics is not acceptable. Human kind is separated enough as it is and not having enough restrictions will result in a greater separation of mankind, both by physical traits and intelligence. We don’t need to encourage a greater gap between humans socioeconomically either. It’s incredibly unfair to those who are naturally born, because of the cost or because their parents choose not to manipulate genes, because these people will be undermined by society and treated like lesser people. We have struggles greatly with discrimination throughout the past and to prevent repeating history it’s better not to give people a new reason to discriminate. So even though human genetic engineering has potential benefits the moral unjust and selfish nature behind it outweigh the some what good reasons for genetic engineering.

Works Cited
Goodnough, David. The Debate over Human Cloning. Berkeley Heights: Enslow, 2003. Print.
Hayes, Richard. "New Genetic Engineering Technology Needs to Be Regulated." Genetic Engineering. Ed. Noël Merino. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2013. Opposing Viewpoints. Rpt. from "Is There an Emerging International Consensus on the Proper Uses of the New Human Genetic Technologies?" Vol. 8. 2008. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 23 Apr. 2015.
Obama, Barack. "Stem Cell Research Should Be Allowed, but Not Reproductive Cloning." Genetic Engineering. Ed. Noël Merino. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2013. Opposing Viewpoints. Rpt. from "Remarks of President Barack Obama—As Prepared for Delivery Signing of Stem Cell Executive Order and Scientific Integrity Presidential Memorandum." 2009. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 23 Apr. 2015.
"Public opinion on whether genetic technology is the next step in human evolution, by demographic characteristics, 2004." Genetics and Genetic Engineering. Barbara Wexler. Detroit: Gale, 2007. Information Plus Reference Series. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 23 Apr. 2015.
Siedler, Maurya. The Ethics of Genetic Engineering. Farmington Hills: Greenhaven, 2005. Print.