Coming across a resolution that states “That the United States federal government should legalize the creation of “designer babies” brings out the controversial side in anyone. Designer babies are babies that are genetically altered to have specific characteristics that the parent of the child wants. There are pros and cons to this situation, but I definitely think that the pros outweigh the cons. I can most definitely understand the opposing side, but there are more positives than negatives. Morals can get in the way, but the consideration of health, majority, and support are important for a topic like this. Designing babies is mostly about health. Health is very important when it comes to the birth of a newborn baby. Almost every mother wishes for their child to come out healthy with no issues or diseases. According to Ms. Schiller, mothers who are over 35 have a risk of having babies with Trisomy 21, or down syndrome. Down syndrome is a condition where the body has an extra chromosome 21 causing changes in appearance …show more content…
As previously stated in the second paragraph, more American adults agreed to designing babies. So, should the law be passed? A lot of people also seem to want to design babies for the characteristics and looks portion. According to statnews, 83% of American adults want baby designing legalized so they can choose their baby’s characteristics, such as intelligence, body size and facial appearances. People often complain about this saying that people who wants designer babies have bad morals and so on, but that’s an opinion. We should be figuring out what will help the healthcare of the future generations. Americans say that it will change society as also according to statnews.com, 57% of American adults say that bringing designer babies into the world either won’t change society or will affect it only a little. So, in the case of “majority rules,” designer babies should be
It should not be used to prevent reproduction of people that were viewed as undesirable or be used to limit overpopulation. Those ideas could make birth control seem very desirable at the time to those who thought that some people were unfit for America.
With the overturning of Roe V. Wade in 2022, the talk about abortion has been on a rise - with various beliefs. Although the discussion of abortion has been a sensitive topic for years, the amount of forced pregnancies in recent years have been alarming. With being unable to provide services to women it not only puts the mother in risk of her own health but her life as well. The option to have an abortion should be legal in all states to encourage the protection of women's mental health, privacy, and freedom. Abortion should be legal to protect women from suffering from mental health caused by pregnancy.
Designer babies have been the debate for a few years now, placed upon a shaky moral platform. With human science pushing the boundaries of human genetics further and further, many are questioning if designer babies have finally crossed the line in science. The problem is that people view designer babies on a moral perspective rather than a medical one. Designer babies should be tolerated because they can help parents prevent their offspring from having certain diseases and disabilities.
This does not make sense, because the fetus does not have feelings or a life until they are outside the uterus. Society still insists that fetuses are superior to the mother, which is false. A bill has been revived that has banned abortion after the twentieth week of pregnancy, and most of Americans support it ("House Republicans"). This bill is still in effect and should be taken into consideration based off of the improvements in women’s rights and abortions. Another point is late-term abortion specifically is wrong because the fetus is more developed at the twentieth week, which is defined as late-term, and can be identified in sex and if there are any complications; therefore personifying the once small fetus.
I feel the strongest about designer babies. Based on my oversevation I fell that designer babies are good and bad. I believe that designer babies are bad for many reasons. I believe this because in the bible it says “God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.” The bible also says “This is the book of the generations of Adam.
People who want to protect the lives of infants say we should not practice embryonic stem research on embryos because they believe it is unethical and they care about the lives of children. Since their beliefs and values differ from those of the religious beliefs and philosophical thinkers, they tend to have different reasons, and they tend to cite different evidence in support of their claim. For example, in “embryonic stem cell debate brings politics ethics to bench” Charles Marwick argues a principal claim in stark contrast to the position held by Glick. Whereas Glick said, “embryonic stem cell is ethical,” Marwick replies, “that embryonic stem cell is unethical.” And Marwick further supports his her principal claim with reasons that reflect his values and beliefs.
The National Council of Disability forbids ART companies to deny parents their services because of a disability, whether it be mental or physical (NCD 2012). However, there are no laws or regulations to protect children with disabilities from being aborted. Furthermore, in the America, each state is able to make its own laws and regulations about ART. However, this type of action is unlikely: one, it complicates abortion rules and regulations, and two, the nationally industry in assisted reproductive technologies in huge, thereby hurting the economy and professional careers, plus any decision would cause an uproar (Macintosh 2011). America is choosing to cover its eyes.
Furthermore, sex-selection abortions would be impermissible at any given moment if a ban of the use of technology to determine the sex of an unborn child were to be placed; again, no possible alternatives would be available at this time(Vaughn 323). However, the problem of forcing sex-selection abortions to be impermissible is it forces people who may not be stable- financial or responsible- to bear a child. Consequently, the child quality of life would potentially be poor. As a result, another possible solution would be allowing sex-selection abortions
Pick a crowd, any crowd and one is bound to find it divided when it comes to the subject of abortion. Defined as the voluntary termination of a pregnancy, abortion is one of the most controversial and polarizing topics which is currently dominating the news cycle. Each side has its reasons and is very passionate about where its stand. On one hand, there is the extremely conservative pro-life side which believes that life is sacred and that abortion is not morally permissible under any circumstances. On the other hand, there is the liberal pro-choice side which opposes any interference with a woman’s right to choose.
Although many people are not happy with this decision, this is what the courts decided, so it is the reality of the situation. Due to factors such as cost, emotional consequences, and physical consequences, abortion should be the last case scenario. Following research, it can be concluded that adoption should be more readily available in America than abortion. “Adoption allows a birthparent to continue with her life, finish school and achieve other goals while knowing that her baby is being cared for. Adoptive children can grow up knowing they are in a stable home with a permanent family” (Brannagan n.p.).
Throughout history, people have sought after a way to better and further the evolution of mankind. Most methods proved to be controversial and practiced poorly. Eugenics, a science based on improving the human population and condition through selective reproduction, is one of those methods. Many issues, such as the infamous concentration camps of Nazi Germany, surfaced across the early to mid-twentieth century. Cases such as this serve as a reminder of the dangers of putting the task of bettering the human race into the wrong or ill-informed hands by showing that the science behind genetic improvement has the potential to be abused.
There are so many pros and cons to go over so let’s begin with the pros. The pros of having a designer baby are that the can reduce the risk of genetic diseases. This means that the baby will have a less chance of getting diseases more than others. Also they can reduce the risk of inherited medical conditions. So whatever the generation of the parents had the baby won’t have the parent choose the baby not to have.
Eugenics is the science of using artificial selection to improve genetic features of the population. It is thought that improvement of the human race can be seen through sterilization of people who exhibit undesirable traits and selective breeding. Often called Social Darwinism, the concept was widely accepted during the time of World War I. It quickly became a taboo after World War II when Nazi Germany used it as an excuse for genocide. The thought of improving the human race by manipulating who is allowed to breed can either be appalling or compelling.
In many countries, it is illegal to create a designer baby, but in the United States, there is no law against it (Knoepfler, The Ethical Dilemma of Designer Babies, TedTalk). In his TedTalk, “The Ethical Dilemma of Designer Babies,” stem cell and genetics researcher, Paul Knoepfler, states the long-term risks of designer babies, describing it as “a kinder, gentler, positive eugenics.” He also touches on government involvement in this researcher; “I also think it 's not that unlikely that governments might start taking an interest in genetic modification. So for example our imagined GM Jenna child who is healthier, if there 's a generation that looks like they have lower healthcare costs, it 's possible that governments may start trying to compel their citizens to go the GM route.” I agree with many points Knoepfler makes in his TedTalk.
Many questions arise when discussing such controversial issues (Jaenisch et al.). Some of these questions include "the central, apparently unresolvable issue of the moral status of the human embryo, which raises questions about which perspectives should govern appropriate pluralistic policy" (Jaenisch et al.). There are also questions as to how to weigh the "possible scientific breakthroughs" with the "less quantifiable values and perspectives" (Jaenisch et al.). While there are decent arguments on how the copying of a human being could be