Blog 13

The thought of genetically engineering your child seems quite far-fetched and unnatural; however with modern technology we are close to making this a new option in reproducing. Since this practice is becoming increasingly close to being a reality, it must be addressed among all people despite religion and views the integrity of an embryo. In Christian Response to Designer Babies, Sarah and Theol explain that the concept of designer babies is an “advanced reproductive technology that allows medical doctors to screen embryos for genetic disorders and select healthy embryos.” If used correctly, I believe this process is ethical and a huge stride in the medical industry. These screenings could be helpful to future generations and can essentially weed out detrimental and enviable genes that cause pain, suffering, and even death to millions of people.

However, I want to discuss the immorality of this technology that was lightly touched on in this article.  Fear of such technology stems in using it to select embryos that have cosmetic features or intellect that are deemed desirable and superior by society. This is an extremely possible outcome if such technology is approved and used in common practice that I believe if was discussed further in the articles would have strengthen the immorality of abusing such process. Although it is nice to have faith in humanity and believe that medical practitioners would not offer such an option, which is an irrational belief. Sorry to be cynical but everyone has a price tag, and with the right amount of money a doctor would practice such procedures. Since the families will have to fund the screening, only those with adequate amount of income will be able to design the child that they want. This creates unequal opportunities for the people to modify their children which overtime may create and immense divide in socioeconomic status between genetically chosen humans and those who were not genetically chosen. This gap would continually widen between the superior and inferior until there would be a great divide of opportunity in the populations. Also, regarding cosmetology, there is no one desirable phenotype trait among each culture in the world, therefore who can determine the most desirable traits. Cosmetology also has nothing to do with intellect, personality, or what type of person you truly are so it is illogical to say that one phenotype is better than the other. This can also create a rift and division among populations that can afford to genetically alter their children as viewing them as superior to those who can’t. Another serious and real issue is gendercide. We now live a world where in several countries mothers commonly practice infanticide on baby girls because a boy is more valuable, powerful, and desired. If mothers are ruthlessly murdering their children now, giving them access to screen for gender can create huge problems in gender distribution in these countries, which are already seeing noticeable differences. I believe abusing can truly stunt all the good that can come from it and harm it can prevent, however these real life scenarios are extremely possible if these screenings are passed and need to be investigated in further detail. Sarah and Theol could have used these examples to strengthen their positions on the immorality of the abuse of such technology.