The topic I intend to address is,
"whether or not we should have the option to choose which characteristics
our children carry?" The battle between benefits and ethics is what is
stopping us from genetic advancements.
This is a very important issue that needs to be addressed because of the
multiple benefits it can deliver. The
major benefit, having the ability to “get rid” of a gene carrying a disorder
that causes a less satisfactory life. For example, no one would consider a child
with Angelman syndrome to be a positive thing, with genetic modification this
could be avoided. It would not only benefit the child but also the parent’s
mental state and finances over time. Another benefit, many are excited to hear
about is the ability to choose our offspring’s sex. One of the downfalls is
people could also use this technology to “enhance” their child to a “superior
being”. These enhancements can be targeted towards a child’s height,
intelligence, strength and more (Holtug 1). Many argue that “we” as a society would
not be able to control ourselves over having the ability to enhance children.
Simon M. Outram said it best, “Evolution is a form of genetic engineering, but
evolution is “morally blind” to what it does.” We tend to abuse things, without
recognition. I believe possible outside
readers would include other peers interested in human genome. My position on
the topic is still undecided but I am leaning more towards it not being an
alright option for parents to have a say to which genetic genes their children
carry. My introduction will include my thesis statement along with some basic
knowledge on the topic that lead me to research the issue. I believe I will
continue my paper by discussing the benefits of genetic modification versus the
downside because that is where I am leaning towards and I think it will help
build into my conclusion. The thought of
the ratios between sexes becoming too uneven is concept that Sparrow addresses
in his article, “Human Enhancement And Sexual Dimorphism” and I think it would
help me support the downside of choosing ones characteristics. The controversy
between morals and justice is something I want to make a main point. I was
considering including all the different questions that arise from research and
peer reviews of the information. What would happen if ratios between sexes
became too uneven? How much power should one have in medical decisions? What
makes something a genetic treatment versus genetic enhancement? Who determines
such decisions? I would like to make some of these questions a main topic to
discuss. My research didn’t lead me to many solutions for the issues but I did
find one that sticks, adoption. Yes, it is amazing that technology has advanced
so far that we can remove a genetic disease before birth but people with
genetic diseases in their family history also have the chance for adoption. Not
only would this be less costly and beneficial to many suffering children
globally but it is also way less controversial and logically sound. I would
assume many would argue that a child not having a disability would live a
better life but I could refute it by saying a child with a disability’s life is
still worth living. I would also argue that considering how costly it is how
one would decide which disorders are considered “genetic therapy” vs “genetic
enhancements.
Work Cited
Baird,
Stephen L. "Designer Babies: Eugenics Repackaged Or Consumer
Options?(Cover
Story). Technology Teacher 66.7 (2007): 12-16. Academic Search
Premier. Web. 21 Apr. 2014.
Of Enhancing Ourselves." American Journal Of Bioethics 12.3 (2012): 43-45. Academic Search Premier. Web. 31 Mar. 2014.
SPARROW, ROB. "Human Enhancement And Sexual Dimorphism." Bioethics 26.9 (2012): 464-
475. Academic Search Premier. Web. 31 Mar. 2014.
Wasserman, David, and Adrienne Asch. "Selecting For Disability: Acceptable Lives, Acceptable Reasons." American Journal Of Bioethics 12.8 (2012): 30-31. Academic Search Premier. Web. 31 Mar. 2014.
No comments:
Post a Comment