Parents can now pick a kids sex and screen for genetic illness. Will
they someday select brains and beauty too?
In the ever- advancing technological world, scientists discover new and efficient ways to advance society each and every single day. Imagine being able to choose your childs body type, or personality, or IQ. It is not as far fetched as it sounds. Its a process called Gene Therapy, and is being perfected right now. This process rules out any unknowns in childbirth. It will not only allow us to determine the childs sex, but also his future.
In natural child conception, the mother provides the the two X chromosomes and the father provides the X and Y chromosomes. The balance of genetic make up is determined by the father since he is the only one that has the diversity of genes. With all this, the genetic combinations are completely random, allowing much room for fault. With science controlling the joining of such chromosomes, many of the fatal or physically impairing infant diseases will disappear. Scientist say they can pick out disease causing genes in the pre-natal stage before they grow.
Controlling infant disease is only one aspect of the new technology.
Determining a childs sex is also under discussion. As a very controversial topic, determining a childs sex will also reflect on societys views of gender rolls in the world today. Many societies value men over women immensely, so will this reflect on the diversity of sex in future generations?A society predominately male populated will soon overlook the need for women, and with the technology advancements in the past years, women may truthful become obsolete (child bearing wise). Babies manufactured in test tubes would eliminate the need for women, and since most countrys do indeed favor men over women, the world may very well be run by males.
Who is to say it is right to deprive a child of its natural existence?
The child, born and created through genetic manipulation, will still be human, but will live in a synthetically altered reality. A human, born or unborn, has the right to have his/her own identity, naturally created by a mother or father, not a scientist.
What right do we (science) have assuming that we can step in and
takeover mother nature and the natural process? If something is natural, that is the it is supposed to be, the way it has always been.
Complications thus far in the natural human life, consist of infant
disease and death. It seems the humane thing to do to try to save these children from this unpleasant fate, but that is reality. If we alter reality we are altering our world, and who we are.
In Aldous Huxleys 1932 novel Brave New World, childbirth is
controlled by science and the government.The book relates the idea of reproduction for the sake of social efficiency, to the natural way of birth. Creating babies from test tubes, and deciding ones existence on the basis of the betterment of their society, is the controversial topic of the millennium.
The idea is a sticky one because genetic transfers present reasonable
arguments for both opposing it and advocating it. Ethical dilemmas prevent most people from accepting this new scientific revolution, but when talking ethical, isnt it ethical to try to better the world, or save a childs life? Who would try to stop parents from ensuring that their child doesnt have hemophilia? Ethically it would be the right thing to do. Also, what would be wrong about creating a child for a infertile mother? No one could deny a human the right to mother a child. These dilemmas can be looked at in a positive way, but how about creating a child who is smarter, taller, more athletically inclined then ordinary children? Is it right to alter a childs being for the benefit of society in the future?
Undoubtedly, there new scientific breakthroughs are very costly, thus
limiting the chance to partake in genetically altering process, to the wealth and rich. The children who are already receiving the better education, better quality of life, better environment, are now receiving better health and a better chance for achievement then those of the lower class. A chance for a better life should not be determined on superficial wealth, when everyone has the same right to achieve greatness as one another.
Creating an individual for the welfare of society is expressing an
utilitarianism point of view. The individual recognition must be
sacrificed for the societys success to be realized. The individual in this case, doesnt mean anything, its just the work that he performs that is taken recognition. This is also an existentialist idea, because the individual life is meaningless in the whole overview of things.