Should humans be rectifying the mistakes in Darwins theory of evolution?…
Should humans be rectifying the mistakes in Darwins theory of evolution?
CONS: genetically modifying babies results in the destruction of the embryo carrying the faulty gene. pro life campaigners would argue an embryo is life and the minute you change that embryo you are being unethical and changing a baby when it is their choice and not yours. Pro life campaigners don't believe anyone else should have power over anyone else's decisions bar their own.
PROS : the option of choice is highly important. Philosopher John Harris argued that an embryo has no moral status since it cannot value its own existence therefore the option of choice and genetically modifying a embryo is in no way unethical.
PROS: having the choice of what sex your child is could be highly beneficial to populations. In areas such as China there have been records of a multitude of babies newly born in china being left on the streets, in rivers, or dumped near land fill sites to die due to the lack of desire for females in china. This action of choice is highly important to prevent so many children from being abandoned
PROS: Many people find that the weight of having a handicapped child can be too much. Not because of the fact their child is disabled but due to the heaviness of the disease and the time consuming nature of many diseases such as down syndrome. Given the choice to terminate when its acknowledged that your'e child is suffering from this disease, is important for many as it can change not only their life but the entire family's life around them. Another reason why this choice is highly important is due to the pain and often inevitable early death/terminal illness many diseases carry with them. Many would rather their child wasn't born than to be born and live a life in agony and many bioethicists deem it to be reasonable for parents to choose a child who would have the highest well-being. It is also ethically correct to give the mother the choice to choose weather or not she would like to have her child screened and the choices from there on are also within her ethical rights.
CONS: The discrimination of disabled people or handicapped people. These people bring a multitude of benefits to society. A fine example is Steven Hawkings, a man who battled amyotrophic lateral sclerosis but managed to come up with some theories otherwise unimaginable.
PROS: Those who are genetically engineered will have advantages and will be free from being terminally ill/handicapped which they would have been without the choice to change pre birth. There are over 11 million people with disabilities in the UK., This option for the parents to choose is key and can save some peoples lives from being extremely difficult ie. having 24 hour care for those born with down-syndrome. The option of choice is important in society and every person is entitled to choice. Despite the problems caused by genetically modified children, the philosopher John Harris argues that it is not ethically incorrect and will not cause a form of segregation of any advantage over those who aren't genetically modified for desired appearances due to the fact each individual has their own desires and no one views the same appearance as " a nice appearance" or " desirable traits" therefore it will not be an unjust form of modification.
CONS: Having genetically engineered children ( 'designer babies') will cause an intense and harsh form of segregation in society. Those who are genetically engineered to be " smarter" or to look a certain way and to have certain talents/traits such as " sportiness" or " good looks" will in many ways have advantage over those who aren't genetically modified. This raises questions such as: should they have separate areas for education? This rise in genetically modified children will result in an outrage in society between those who don't have these advantages and this form of segregation is ethically incorrect but in society is not fair.
CONS: Although choice is a key aspect in life, this decision will result in a large ethical debate as when the embryo exists many pro life protestants would argue that terminating an embryo due to its sex is murder and purely selfish to decide you don't want a child due to its sex.
CONS: we should not interfere with nature it is unethical to try and change and interfere with the organisms god made. Everything on our planet in nature, including diseases and other 'impurities' work to other areas of natures advantage or to their disadvantage however either way they all work together in a system to keep our planet going and this is how god chose it to be and therefore shouldn't be interfered with. Christians believe genetically engineering things is destroying what god created in the beginning and is ungrateful of what he produced and gave us.
PROS : being able to genetically modify things is essential in the health sector, it allows doctors and the health care industry of our planet to advance and eradicate disease which in many cases would kill thousands
CONS : defective genes are being replaced by functional genes; this process is completely destroying all human diversity. In a planet with genetically engineered humans we will have humans with identical genomes, and this will result in our population being liable to virus' and diseases.
CONS: human genes are now being implanted into food such as green peppers- this raises the ethical question are vegetarians also cannibals in many ways. How can vegetarians avoid eating meat? what percentage of food in the current day and age are implanted with human genes?
CONS: GMO's have a potential to be bad. There are theories and practices that have been carried out suggesting if GMO crops mix with traditional crops they could potentially create unwanted and damaging products.
PROS: GMO ( genetically modified organisms) are all around us and dominate our planets food production today. Humans have been genetically selecting plants and crops which grow the best, look the best and have in general the best traits (genomes). We breed the best with the best creating a natural form of genetic modification. So to use GMO created in a lab is in many ways the same but is viewed as chemical and 'fake food' which is deemed to be bad for humans.After more than 30 years of testing and research carried out on GMO, scientists have come to the conclusion that GMO's have the same risks as non- GMO's. GMO's is ideal in that pesticides don't have to be used to destroy an array of ecosystems and we as humans can select exactly what traits we want in food.
PROS: people are given the choice as to what they want in their child and what they want to do with their child if they are flagged up with something who could potentially be life threatening
CONS : Giving people the choice as to what to do leads to bad decisions being made. This option to have a choice will be fatal for our planet and will destroy all values of the human brain, appearance and talents. There will be an overwhelming amount of parents choosing things such as their child having blue eyes. This form of choice should be illegal due to the fact no aspects of the human body will have any special value any longer because almost every kid will be genetically engineered. Our planet will end up having a mass section of our planet with the same genomes and appearances.