The Case Against Perfection : Ethics And The Problems That Arise From It

The author is the associate editor of The New Atlantis: A Journal of Technology and Society. In which, is the area of the news site that cover all technological advances and controversies on new sciences. The article cover the opinions of conservatives and progressives alike on the use engineering a child before or after birth. Although, the possibilities are endless and the benefits to humanity are countless such as, curing diseases, inherited genetics; they are filled with risks. Numerous scientists, ethicists, and other important members are present at this meeting, but exclude members with strong moral standards to have a less biased opinions. Nevertheless, ethics are not unconsidered, which is why there is such a strong force that holds

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.

Picture a young couple in a waiting room looking through a catalogue together. This catalogue is a little different from what you might expect. In this catalogue, specific traits for babies are being sold to couples to help them create the "perfect baby." This may seem like a bizarre scenario, but it may not be too far off in the future. Designing babies using genetic enhancement is an issue that is gaining more and more attention in the news. This controversial issue, once thought to be only possible in the realm of science-fiction, is causing people to discuss the moral issues surrounding genetic enhancement and germ line engineering. Though genetic research can prove beneficial to learning how to prevent hereditary

Eugenics is defined, in some way or the other, as the process of reshaping the human race by determining the kinds of people who will be born. As such, there is much debate in the field of eugenics, with authors, like Philip Kitcher, who support laissez-faire or a minimalist approach of eugenics in which eugenic decision-making should be limited only to avoid neurological illnesses and in which parental free choice is valued. Gregory Stock’s essay, The Enhanced and Un-Enhanced, presents otherwise by supporting the position of maximalist eugenics, allowing individuals the full extent in the selection of genes. On the other hand, the film, Gattaca, raises major ethical problems by illustrating a dystopian society resulted by extensive

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.

The escalating supremacy and receptiveness of genetic technology to engineer and "design babies," now gives parents the option to modify their unborn children, consecutively to prevent their offspring's from receiving genetic disorders such as: "sickle cell diseases, cystic fibrosis and down syndrome ," or conceivably, make them blue eye coloured, intelligent or else blessed with enviable qualities. Would this mean there will be an increase in the superiority among the rich, both physically and mentally, or will this modification be available for all to exploit, or would we be evidencing engineered babies facing unexpected genetic predicament? The highly contentious issue of designing unborn children to be a perfect "epitome" is thoroughly investigated and examined in the article of, lead author of

After perusing the suggested articles, I decided on this article for my journal review because of the many facets of its colorful history in addition to its fascinating, and vastly growing, advancements in the area of eugenics. The imminent debates resulting from the conflicting moral and ethical implications arising from the inception, development and evolution of eugenics past and present are of interest.

According to author Michael J. Sandel in his piece, “The Case Against Perfection,” the main ethical problem with genetic enhancement does not have anything to do with human autonomy. Rather, Sandel believes that the “deepest moral objection to genetic enhancement lies less the perfection it seeks than in the human disposition it expresses and promotes” (Timmons, 505). In other words, genetic enhancement is morally questionable because of how it affects our attitudes toward human beings. He claims that each case began as an attempt to treat

The science of eugenics was widely used during the 20th century in the United States to strategically eliminate the reproductive rights of women who were deemed inferior on the social ladder (“What is Eugenics?”). Some women of color, women with disabilities, and women from lower financial classes were sterilized for permanent birth control, and sometimes without their consent or knowledge (“What is Eugenics?”). The eugenics movement was aimed to promote selective human features in order to increase those with intelligence, good health, physical characteristics, and class. Currently, the recent controversy of human genetic engineering has scientist concerned that it will become the new eugenics. Sterilizing women as a precaution to prevent the overpopulation of unfavorable offspring would go against Jonathan Swift’s equal treatment of all humans, Benjamin Franklin’s hopes for men to understand the value of humanity, and be a direct violation to the natural born rights of all humans. Therefore, the controversial practice of genetic modification to restrict reproduction rights only to people of desirable traits is unethical because it promotes racial cleansing.

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

While the previous ethical dilemma is more cut and dry, Sandel also grapples with the morality of futuristic technology that can engineer children to be a product of their parents’ will. Sandel mentions the Gattaca scenario, of a society that can remove any malignant gene from an embryo, creating perfectly healthy children with greater potential physically and mentally. Gattaca focuses on ethical issues such as the polarization of society between the genetically enhanced and the naturally normal, and the value of human individuality; however, Sandel chooses to focus on the morality of engineered progeny in terms of personal relationships (Philosophical Films, 1997). Sandel suggests that parent creating children exactly how they want them to be is immoral because it turns children into an object of man’s will, rather than a gift of life. If a child turned out exactly how a parent wanted it to, the experience of raising a child would be irrevocably altered. Normally parents have children with inevitable shortcomings, but this is good for two reasons; it teaches the parents humility and unconditional love for their child no matter what shortcomings they have, and it emphasizes the talents the child may have, allowing parents to appreciate the natural gifts and talents that the child is endowed with. If a parent engineers the perfect child, they never develop empathy for their child and unconditional love in undermined. If the child is perfect in all aspects,

The chance of a baby receiving every trait and gene that their parent’s desire is like winning the lottery. Yet that dream has become a reality with the new scientific breakthrough of genetic engineering. Now parents are actually able to prevent their child from inheriting a disease as well as choosing eye color, gender, and eventually intelligence and athleticism. Genetic engineering is the process of extracting embryos from the mother that are then examined by a doctor. The doctor is able to identify the traits of each embryo and the parents choose one to insert back into the mother. This gives the parent’s the power to make their perfect baby and not the baby they would have gotten. Unless being used to prevent disease,

Eugenics is a topic that puzzled people’s consciousness for decades. Placing worth on a human, an idea that many people find unsettling yet confirms beneficial by evolving our race into an improved species. Today, eugenics appears on a new face with emerging technologies, creating possibilities for scientists to modify people’s DNA. The goal of these methods lies in creating an advanced form of eugenics, with probabilities like modifications to fix health problems and wanted traits, and to create designer babies. Furthermore, scientists started testing this idea of genetic modification, but ended up with mixed results. In a few cases, they accomplished their goal, but others concluded in unexpected problems. Thus, the recent technologies relating

Imagine a world where wheel chairs do not exist or the illnesses that cause the mandatory use of wheel chairs are wiped out. The advancement in science that is being used to explore the possibilities to prevent or cure human disease is called gene therapy. The purpose of gene therapy is to remove or reverse the mutation of the cells in an embryo or a child, thus eliminating the disease from the child and the existence of the disease. With this advancement in science, children who are diagnosed with an inherited death sentence or an illness that will cause suffering within their life span are given a second chance. The support of gene therapy would give hope to parents who suffer from the horrifying decision of “pulling the plug” on their young children who suffer from inherited illnesses. In addition, instead of allowing ourselves to endure the guilty conscious of knowing our children have a high chance of contracting a genetic illness, it’s time for legislation around the world to fund the eradication of illnesses from embryos. Critics claim that the future of gene therapy will result in unborn children being treated as products when the parent imposes on their children’s natural life skills and physical features (“Human Enhancement: The New Eugenics.”). Also, ethicists worry that the process of successfully tinkering with an embryo opens doors to strive for perfect humans. Although there is the potential for the reemergence of eugenics and the creation of “designer

Should parent be allowed to genetically engineer their children? : The ethical dilemma of designer babies.