Introduction
The resilient progresses in genetics have led to the current states of genetic manipulation. Such genetic manipulations might be used to design the features of future babies. In fact, whichever the genetic anarchy, the medical practitioners as well as the parentage are capable of screening embryos heritably through instigating IVF also called In Vitro Fertilization.
The IVF practice incorporates all aspects of test-tube sperm egg fertilization. However, medical experts perform the action outside the mothers’ wombs to allow for the screening of the embryos. Certain genes attached to a number of incurable ill health and genetic imperfections may be eradicated through genetic manipulation (Mori, 1999).
Furthermore, before inserting the embryos free from syndromes into the foster mother’s womb, a pre implantation procedure that is an avant-garde practice is used alongside tissue typing to screen the genetic disorders in the embryos. The process is also used in cosmetic grounds apart from screening the hereditary and genetic mayhems (Santos & Ferraro, 2006).
Thus, through PDG also known as the pre implantation genetic diagnosis, parents can choose particular characteristics for their offspring. These features might encompass color of the hair, skin, eye, and gender of the progeny.
In addition, parents can decide the baby’s mental ill-health liberty; stop the obesity tendencies, physique, beauty, and intellect. However, many think that genetic manipulation has both benefits and limitations.
The cases for genetic manipulation
At the outset, genetic manipulation might be important to many parents as it trims down the prospects of grave infections in the newborn babies. Indeed, genetic manipulation can reduce chances of cystic fibrosis, atrophy of spinal muscles, and Down syndrome (Marks, 2002). Additionally, genetic manipulation eradicates Diamond-Black fan anemia that is an infrequent blood anarchy as well as ancestral hypercholesterolemia.
In order to stop the future generation from possessing genes with diseases, parents aspire for the designer babies. Actually, this is applicable to the generations having hereditary medicinal situations such as Alzheimer’s syndrome, hypothyroidism, arthritis, cancer, thalassemia, and Parkinson’s illness (Brown, 2001). Therefore, parents become rest assured that their children will have good physical shape in their subsequent generation.
On the other hand, genetic manipulation is important given that the implantation of the screened genes bearing virus from healthy persons in the womb is possible. The parents will thus be certain that their future offspring will be relieved from similar diseases they are facing together with their present progenies (Morales, 2009).
Similarly, certain parents are not capable of getting children for fear that they will pass away at infancy stage due to the accruing genetic disorders. As a result, this genetic makeup technology will allow such parents to bear children.
In fact, every child will be free from anguish while the parents will have little emotional stress as they invest minimally in striving to take care of their ailing young ones. Provided the parents go for genetic manipulation, they stand a chance of bearing a healthy offspring who will later assist and boost the existence of his/her sisters and brothers (Glover, 2006).
The cases against genetic manipulation
A number of parents often go to doctors to generate designer babies who in turn act as a source of donating organs to their elder siblings. Interestingly, many questions arise on how such children would feel if they realize that they were merely born to support their brothers and sisters. Instead of appreciating children for whatever they can do to the others, they should be cherished and loved for their personality (King, 1999).
Conversely, the technique of genetic engineering is too much pricey for parents to opt for in most cases. The obliteration of the hereditary disorders by the rich parents creates inequities amid the underprivileged and the wealthy individuals.
In the present day, intolerance is evident in persons who are born with disabilities since genetic manipulation breeds extraordinary beings thus degrading those who fall short of inherited enrichments (Suvalescu, 2001). Indeed, parents should avoid this practice as it augments discrimination towards the disabled.
Despite the fact that we can screen to get rid of bad genes in the embryos, it becomes unethical to take away or append fresh artificial genes to human embryos. The mutilations caused by genetic engineering in a solitary cell of a child are permanent and will be passed on from one generation to the other (Harris, 1992).
Thus, there is a possibility of weird reaction by the children as well as the grandchildren regarding the genetic characteristics and changes chosen to them as the best by their parents. Genetic manipulation is capricious and may affect the personality of children owing to the resultant physical mutilations.
Some groups fear that the reclamation of stem cells in genetic manipulation will lead to the creation of offspring possessing inhuman actions. Hence, parents tend to abort or seek surrogacy to get designer babies just for stem cells and thereafter dump them for adoption (Sandel, 2004).
Conclusion
The disadvantages of parents going for genetic manipulation seem to outweigh the advantages. The use of this technique to hoard life is no longer criticized. However, using designer babies’ stem cells for the idea of cosmetics is viciously immoral. The diverse beliefs that genetic manipulation can cause harm to the future human life and transform life beyond expectation is actually true.
Besides, the techniques will diminish the liberty of children to choose and lead to discrimination in regard to particular mannerisms. Genetic engineering should therefore not be used to decide on the children’s characteristics since it encourages parental pessimistic brunt in the society (Fukuyama, 2003).
Finally, the manipulations of genes lead to the worldwide gender discrimination owing to the baby’s gender fortitude or sex given that some parts of the world are male subjugated.
References
Brown, JS 2001, “Genetic manipulation in humans as a matter of Rawlsian justice,” Social theory and practice, vol.27 no.1, p. 83.
Fukuyama, F 2003, Our post-human future: consequences of the biotechnology revolution, Profile, London, pp. 148-177.
Glover, J 2006, “Choosing children: the ethical dilemmas of genetic intervention,” Philosophical Books, vol. 49 no.1, pp.76-81.
Harris, J 1992, Wonder woman and superman: the ethics of human biotechnology, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
King, D 1999, “Pre implantation genetic diagnosis and the ‘new’ eugenics,” Journal of Medical Ethics, vol.25 no.2, pp.176-182.
Marks, SP 2002, “Tying Prometheus down: the international law of human genetic manipulation,” Chicago journal of international law, vol.3 no.1, p.115.
Morales, NM 2009, “Psychological aspects of human cloning and genetic manipulation: the identity and uniqueness of human beings,” Reproductive BioMedicine Online, vol.19 no.2, pp. 43 – 50.
Mori, M 1999, “The morality of assisted reproduction and genetic manipulation,” Journal of Reproduction, vol.15 no. 1, pp. 65 – S72.
Sandel, M 2004, “The case against perfection: What’s wrong with designer children, bionic athletes, and genetic engineering,” Atlantic Monthly, 1 April, pp. 51-62.
Santos, A & Ferraro, V 2006, “The life human being and its new paradigms: the genetic manipulation and the implications in the sphere of the civil liability,” Scientia Luris, vol.10, n.2, pp. 39 – 57.
Suvalescu, J 2001, “Procreative beneficence: why we should select the best children,” Bioethics, vol.15 no.4, pp.413-426.