Germline Engineering Argument

Germline engineering is a version of genetic engineering that involves the alteration of genes of the parental gametes, or very early developed embryo to either cure or prevent disease it can also be used to enhance genes for more favorable traits. Controversy has surrounded the concept of nonmedical germline engineering since its introduction. In recent years, Julian Savulescu has been a prominent figure siding with the nonmedical germline engineering during this essay I will explain his argument in defense of the usage of germline engineering to enhance human beings and evaluate his argument with accurate responses from Michael J. Sandel along with my own educated view on disputing the

Furthermore, Savulescu goes on to say that omitting the opportunity to enhance our children makes us morally responsible for the hardships and shortcomings they may face during their lives that were preventable. With all this in mind, Savulescu's argument is nothing short of imploring us to go all in with germline engineering.

Contrary to Savulescu’s argument, Michael Sandel presents an argument that views nonmedical Germline engineering as immoral and toxic for the human condition. Sandel claims that Germline engineering takes away from the virtues that make us human such as humility, and appreciation of life. This is in complete contrast of Savulescu who sees Germline engineering as demonstrating the essence of human ingenuity and rationality; boasting that humans have developed ways to further their mastery over nature throughout history. As mentioned previously Savulescu believes that Germline engineering contributes to human flourishing as the creatures we are today, while Sandel takes the stance that Germline engineering would alter our lifestyle in a negative fashion, leading us toward

I will not participate in Germline engineering. Personally, I find something heinous about artificially enhancing a child before their life begins, changing who the person is before they even have a chance to develop into the human being they were conceived to become. Instead, having their future autonomy violated even before they possess their own thoughts, let alone a choice between if they want to become a lifelong experiment for their parents. Another problem I find myself mulling over is mentioned in Sandel’s argument where he likens the purpose of Germline engineering akin to past examples of eugenics. In the end, regardless of sanctions and guidelines, the goal is to artificially develop the flawless child. Due to lack of rulings on ideal children, this brings about another issue of who decides what traits constitute a child that will develop into a person without equal. If we could gather every trait a person could ever inherit we would see that people would agree on favorable traits but you would be hard pressed to find individuals who chose the exact same traits to mold the perfect person. Along with this issue the parents if making the rational decision as Sevulescu calls it would have to take into account socio-economic factors which unless drastic changes in the near future are made to