Gabby's con view of designer babies
I disagree with the process of designer babies. Children are a gift from God and are created uniquely and equally in his eyes. Allowing a baby to be created using a petri dish and allowing parents and scientists to choose the traits and features are "playing" God. God has the authority to choose how his creations will look and function as a human beings. Who has the authority to decide what's beautiful and what's ugly? Shouldn't parents love their children no matter what they come out to look like and function in life? The process of designer babies is costly and only the rich would be able to do it. Discrimination would increase against rich and poor and designer baby and not designer baby. The traits of designer babies would most likely be beautiful, athletic, and intelligent. Designer babies would consider themselves as "superior" human beings and outcast anyone who's not. Science always has it's faults, so the process isn't 100% accurate. A mistake could be made easily along the way. A scientist could accidentally alter the wrong chromosome and the child may come out with brown hair instead of blonde. What would happen then? Parents would be angry and may no longer want the baby. Could this lead to higher abortion rates? Designer babies could be used to detect genetic diseases, but many parents would use it to their greedy advantage. Besides Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD) is used to screen embryos for genetic diseases. Who wouldn't want the perfect 5-star athlete or Victoria Secret model? The process would get out of control and be used for the aesthetic reasons.
I chose an article that shows a geneticist disagreeing with the idea of
designer babies. I chose this article because I agree with the geneticts
point of view. He believes that the process shouldn't be used to select
non-medical traits, like looks and abilities. He could be making millions
of dollars to do the process, but he knows that it is morally and
ethically wrong. It connects to my stance because I'm against designer
babies and the reason it is mainly being used for.
"William Kearns, a medical geneticist and director of the Shady Grove Center for Preimplantation Genetics in Rockville, Md., says he has made headway in cracking the problem. In a presentation made at a November meeting of the American Society of Human Genetics in Philadelphia, he described how he had managed to amplify the DNA available from a single embryonic cell to identify complex diseases and also certain physical traits.
Of 42 embryos tested, Dr. Kearns said he had enough data to identify SNPs that relate to northern European skin, hair and eye pigmentation in 80% of the samples. (A patent for Dr. Kearn's technique is pending; the test data are unpublished and have yet to be reviewed by other scientists.)
Dr. Kearns' talk attracted the attention of Dr. Steinberg, the head of Fertility Institutes, which already offers PGD for gender selection. The clinic had hoped to collaborate with Dr. Kearns to offer trait selection as well. In December, the clinic's Web site announced that couples who signed up for embryo screening would soon be able to make "a pre-selected choice of gender, eye color, hair color and complexion, along with screening for potentially lethal diseases."
Dr. Kearns says he is firmly against the idea of using PGD to select non-medical traits. He plans to offer his PGD amplification technique to fertility clinics for medical purposes such as screening for complex disorders, but won't let it be used for physical trait selection. "I'm not going to do designer babies," says Dr. Kearns. "I won't sell my soul for a dollar."
I chose an article that shows a geneticist disagreeing with the idea of
designer babies. I chose this article because I agree with the geneticts
point of view. He believes that the process shouldn't be used to select
non-medical traits, like looks and abilities. He could be making millions
of dollars to do the process, but he knows that it is morally and
ethically wrong. It connects to my stance because I'm against designer
babies and the reason it is mainly being used for.
"William Kearns, a medical geneticist and director of the Shady Grove Center for Preimplantation Genetics in Rockville, Md., says he has made headway in cracking the problem. In a presentation made at a November meeting of the American Society of Human Genetics in Philadelphia, he described how he had managed to amplify the DNA available from a single embryonic cell to identify complex diseases and also certain physical traits.
Of 42 embryos tested, Dr. Kearns said he had enough data to identify SNPs that relate to northern European skin, hair and eye pigmentation in 80% of the samples. (A patent for Dr. Kearn's technique is pending; the test data are unpublished and have yet to be reviewed by other scientists.)
Dr. Kearns' talk attracted the attention of Dr. Steinberg, the head of Fertility Institutes, which already offers PGD for gender selection. The clinic had hoped to collaborate with Dr. Kearns to offer trait selection as well. In December, the clinic's Web site announced that couples who signed up for embryo screening would soon be able to make "a pre-selected choice of gender, eye color, hair color and complexion, along with screening for potentially lethal diseases."
Dr. Kearns says he is firmly against the idea of using PGD to select non-medical traits. He plans to offer his PGD amplification technique to fertility clinics for medical purposes such as screening for complex disorders, but won't let it be used for physical trait selection. "I'm not going to do designer babies," says Dr. Kearns. "I won't sell my soul for a dollar."
Future Clinic?
![Picture](/uploads/1/2/3/3/12334219/1837620.jpg)
How do you like that one?! This image shows the greediness of designer babies. It shows how most parents will choose the "best" for their created child. The designer baby process would get out of control and parents would use it to their advantage. Sure, you want your child be healthy, look beautiful, and be smart, but deep down the child will be living a destined life chosen by their parents. Technically it's not even their own life!
Agar, Nicholas. (2006, April). Designer babies: Ethical considerations. Retrieved from http://www.actionbioscience.org/biotech/agar.html
BBC News. (n.d.). Designer babies?. Retrieved from http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/End of the World/Genetics Nightmare/designer_babies.html
Designer babies. (2005). Retrieved from http://www.futureforall.org/bioengineering/designer-babies.html
Joey(2009, June 10). Facts and ethical issues of designer babies. Retrieved from http://designerbabies-jtcc.blogspot.com/2009/06/what-is-designer-baby-you-may-ask-it-is.html
Nik, Gautam. (2009, February 12). A baby, please. blond, freckles-hold the colic. . Retrieved from http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123439771603075099.html
Ren, Yin. (2005). Designer babies. Retrieved from http://web.mit.edu/murj/www/v12/v12-Features/v12-f4.pdf
BBC News. (n.d.). Designer babies?. Retrieved from http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/End of the World/Genetics Nightmare/designer_babies.html
Designer babies. (2005). Retrieved from http://www.futureforall.org/bioengineering/designer-babies.html
Joey(2009, June 10). Facts and ethical issues of designer babies. Retrieved from http://designerbabies-jtcc.blogspot.com/2009/06/what-is-designer-baby-you-may-ask-it-is.html
Nik, Gautam. (2009, February 12). A baby, please. blond, freckles-hold the colic. . Retrieved from http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123439771603075099.html
Ren, Yin. (2005). Designer babies. Retrieved from http://web.mit.edu/murj/www/v12/v12-Features/v12-f4.pdf