PARENTS TO GENETICALLY ENGINEER THEIR CHILDREN 1. BACKGROUND Picture yourself sitting in a doctors ofce !ile "eing infor#ed t!at you and your s$ecial so#eone is $regnant. %our #ind is racing it! t!oug!ts on !o you ill lo&e t!is c!ild no #atter !at' no #atter !at t!is "a"y loo(s li(e or t!e $ersonality t!is "a"y !as. No $icture t!e doctor telling you t!at if you ould li(e) you can c!ange your "a"ies loo(s and $ersonality. %ou can c!oose t!e se*) t!e !air color) eye color) frec(les or no frec(les) +,) and e&en $esonality traits. -ould you do it. +#agine a orld free of genetic diseases) !ere $arents control all a"out t!eir o/s$ring. 0!e science #ay "e closer t!an you t!in(. if t!e science could "e $erfected) is it #orally rong. -ould t!is c!ange #ean e#$oering $arents to gi&e t!eir c!ildren t!e "est start $ossi"le. 1. D23+N+0+ON Genetically engineer "a"ies is t!e a"ility to $ic( a$art an e#"ryo) c!oose s$eci4c traits) and ad5ust t!e# to for# t!e c!ild in accordance it! t!e is!es of $arents. we should justify parents to genetically engineer their children in England if they do that to make their children to be a good person and appropriate with their want 6. ARGU72N0 A. GO82RN72N0 Gender selectin !ill "re#ent incidents $ in$%nticide Some cultures place great importance on having at least one child of a particular gender. We can help realise this aim. We can prevent the trauma and stress of not having a child of a particular gender, which can have negative cultural connotations. If a state's population became seriously imbalanced, one might have to rethink but given that most countries, including all in the West, have balanced populations, and given that many families in most countries will choose to have roughly as many of the other se!, this should not stop this proposal being put into effect 1 in many countries. Even in England, the problem is largely due to the "one#child" policy which has been rela!ed in many areas since the mid#$%%&s. 'ver time, a scarcity of one gender will in any case produce new pressures to rebalance the population, for e!ample the paying of dowries may change, and women will achieve higher status. It is for the individuals to decide whether this treatment is worth the e!pense. (he anecdotal evidence from parents who have gone through the process suggests that pre#selecting the se! of their children was not a )frivolous purpose*. +sked whether her three boys had not been enough, Sharla +llen replied )(hey are. (hey*re totally everything I could ever want,but why not have two daughters that will be just as wonderful as they are-* $. .o#one is harmed in this process, the parents know the risks beforehand and it should be their prerogative to have the treatment. It is hardly shattering the mystery of childbirth, given how common ultrasound scans are. Sharla /iller, who went through gender selection, refutes the suggesting it is like playing 0od, arguing 'it's just like every other procedure the medical field can do for you. When our eldest child had spina bifida, they fi!ed that. Were they playing 0od-' $. /oreover, knowing what gender a child will be is tremendously helpful for parents in planning for the future 1picking clothes, colour schemes, toys, names etc.2. Why not e!tend that ability to plan- /oreover, in many countries and cultures gender selection happens already, usually by selective abortion or abandonment of unwanted babies. Everyone can agree that this is a terrible waste of life and potentially very dangerous for the mother concerned, and of course many people object strongly to abortion on moral grounds. (he use of new technologies to allow gender selection at the start of pregnancy will reduce and hopefully eventually end the use of selective abortion. P%rents s&'ld &%#e $reed( $ c&ice 3eople should have freedom of choice. /any believe genetically modifying a baby should be legal because it is up to the parents what they want for their children. Why shouldn*t would#be parents be able to do this, given that no harm is done to others by their decision- +rticle $4 1$2 of the 5niversal 6eclaration of 7uman 8ights states that "/en and women of full age, have the right to marry and to found a family" and this right should be understood to cover the right to make decisions over how that family should be formed $. When a family have a large number of boys or girls, why should they be deprived of the opportunity to have a child of a different gender if the technology e!ists- +s the 6irector of the 9ertility Institute notes, )these are grown#up people e!pressing their reproductive choices,1they2 are really happy when they get what they want* 6 3arents have every right, if the technology is present, to choose the gender make#up of their family. 0uaranteeing 1or improving the chances of2 a child being of the gender they want means that the child is more likely to fit into the family's dreams. 7e or she is, bluntly, more likely to be loved. (alk of designer babies is scaremongering nonsense. '+ll babies are, to some e!tent, designed. Individuals do not procreate randomly they choose their partners, and often choose the time of conception according to their own age and prosperity' $. 3arents give so much to children. (hey invest years of their lives and a large amount of their earnings in their upbringing. Isn't it fair that in return, they get to decide something like this if they want to- (his is an e!tension of reproductive rights. Se)*s"eci+c, ,eneric dise%ses c%n -e %#ided One of t!e #ost "ene4cial as$ects of genetic engineering is genetic testing. By identifying !ic! genes cause s$eci4c diseases) it !as "eco#e #uc! easier to #a(e a diagnosis for #any genetic conditions. 0!is testing su$$lies t!e a"ility to test $re9sy#$to#atic indi&iduals) at9ris( indi&iduals) and carriers to deter#ine !et!er t!ey ill de&elo$ a s$eci4c condition. 0!is testing is $articularly useful to $eo$le !o are intending on re$roducing) and ant to ensure t!ey ill not $ass t!eir genetic condition to t!eir o/s$ring. Current ad&ances include $rei#$lantation genetic diagnosis) !ic! allos for e#"ryos to "e created in &itro) and only t!ose e#"ryos t!at are not a/ected "y a s$eci4c genetic disorder ill "e i#$lanted in t!e o#ans uterus. liputan4.com +ugust :&$; <ritain will be the first country in the world that offers a controversial program , the fertility treatment to genetically modify babies for families who intend to avoid inheritance of severe illness in their children . <ritain could become the first country in the world where opportunities could legali=e modification or genetic engineering . (he move involves an intervention in the process of fertili=ation by removing the mitochondrial 6.+ that can pass a number of serious illnesses such as heart , brain disorders , blindness , heart disease and muscle disease . (he method is designed to help families who have severe disease and can not be cured through the mother so as not to decrease compared with the incidence of one in 4,>&& children worldwide . /itochondria act as little energy that is turned on by small battery inside the cell , Sunday : 1 ;&?&4?:&$; 2 . <ritish medical ethics panel is reviewing a potential treatment for mitochondrial disease , last year decided that it was appropriate and ethical steps can be continued throughout the study shows that the action is safe and effective . Since the 5@ is leading the way in research , ethical issues , political decisions and scientific progress noted by the whole world # especially the 5nited States that scientists also conduct research e!change 6.+ . 0!e #a5ority of genetic disorders are cause "y single $oint #utations in t!e DNA. By so#atic cell t!era$y) t!ese diseases can "e easily cured. Additionally) t!e i#$le#entation of ger#line cell t!era$y can not only cure #any ot!er genetic diseases) "ut can also $re&ent t!e $assing of t!e disease to t!e ne*t generation. ;cientists !a&e disco&ered #any diseases suc! as Don syndro#e) s$inal #uscular atro$!y) cystic 4"rosis) fa#ilial !y$erc!olesterole#ia) rare "lood disorders suc! as Dia#ond9Blac(fan ane#ia) and #any #ore are !eredity and t!at t!ere is a ay to decrease t!e c!ances of in!eriting t!is trait <=>Designer Ba"ies> 2t!ical.>?. Doctors dissect an e#"ryo to ta(e t!e traits) !ic! cause disease) out. Altering an e#"ryo to decrease t!e c!ances of an un!ealt!y "a"y sounds good) "ut !ere do e dra t!e line. Doctors (no !o to c!ange al#ost any trait of an e#"ryo) fro# loo(s to $ersonality. Professor @ulian ;a&ulescu "elie&es $arents s!ould "e gi&en t!e o$tion to c!ange any trait of t!eir e#"ryo) !ic! ill "eco#e t!eir future "a"y. Ae furt!er e*$lains t!at !a&ing t!is o$tion to design a "a"y can "e considered a #oral o"ligation as it #a(es t!e# gro u$ into et!ically "etter c!ildren <@a"aro&?. Some parents are carriers of known se!#specific diseases. It is obviously in the child's interests that they don't have such a condition. 6etermining its gender can ensure that. /any families have predispositions towards certain common conditions that are more likely in one gender in another, and these can be avoided too. .early all neurodevelopmental diseases are either more common in one gender or more severe among one gender. +rthritis, heart disease and even lung cancer also seem to be influenced by a person's gender. /ales disproportionately suffer from A chromosome problems because their body has no copy to fall back on $ (hese range in nature from baldness and colour blindness to muscular dystrophy and haemophilia. Women are disproportionately affected by diseases of the immune system :. 0enetic modification is not the only technology B available. (he /icroSort techniBue uses a 'sperm#sifting' machine to detect the minute difference between y and double ! chromosome#carrying sperm no genetic harm results from its use. 'ver $:&& babies have been born using the technology $otential ad&antages of !u#an en!ance#ents. Au#ans &alue intelligence) "eauty) strengt!) endurance) and certain $ersonality c!aracteristics and "e!a&ioral tendencies. +f t!ese traits ere found to "e due to a genetic co#$onent) !u#ans could "e i#$ro&ed to o"tain t!ose traits. 7any $eo$le try to i#$ro&e t!e#sel&es already t!roug! diet) e*ercise) education) cos#etics) and $lastic surgery. Au#ans try to do t!ese t!ings for t!e#sel&es and $arents try to $ro&ide t!ese t!ings for t!eir c!ildren. 2*ercising to i#$ro&e strengt!) de*terity) and 4tness is a ort!!ile goal. Pursuing education to increase #ental ca$a"ilities is considered a $raiseort!y act. Acco#$lis!ing t!ese goals t!roug! genetics could "e #ore efcient and co#$letely ort!!ile (o 8eproduce Individuals of 0reat 0enius, (alent, or <eauty 0enetically Engineer would allow families or society to reproduce individuals of great genius, talent, or beauty, where these traits are presumed to be based on the individuals' desirable or superior genetic makeups. 9or e!ample, some admirers of great athletes, musicians, or mathematicians, believing that the admired attributes are the result of a superior genetic endowment, might want to clone these distinguished individuals. (hose who defend 0enetically Engineer children on the grounds of human freedom make two kinds of arguments. (he first is that because individuals in pluralistic societies have different definitions of the good life and of right and wrong, society must protect individual freedom to choose against the possible tyranny of the majority. (his means securing and even e!panding the rights of individuals to make choices so long as their choices do not directly infringe on the rights 1and especially the physical safety2 of other rights#bearing citi=ens. In Eisenstadt v. <aird 1$%C:2, the 5nited States Supreme Dourt enunciated what has been called a principle of reproductive freedom "If the right to privacy means anything, it is the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so affecting a person as a decision whether to bear or beget a child."> 6efenders of 0enetically Engineer children argue that, in the event that the physical risks to mother and future child were shown to be ethically C acceptable, the use of this new reproductive technology would fall under the protective umbrella of reproductive freedom. + second defense of genetically engineer on the grounds of freedom is the claim that human e!istence is by its very nature "open#ended," "indeterminate," and "unpredictable." 7uman beings are always remaking themselves, their values, and their ways of interacting with one another. .ew technologies are central to this open#ended idea of human life, and to shut down such technologies simply because they change the "traditional" ways of doing things is unjustifiable. +s constitutional scholar Eaurence (ribe has argued in reference to genetically engineer "+ society that bans acts of human creation that reflect unconventional se! roles or parenting models 1surrogate motherhood, in vitro fertili=ation, artificial insemination, and the like2 for no better reason than that such acts dare to defy 'nature' and tradition 1and to risk adding to life's comple!ity2 is a society that risks cutting itself off from vital e!perimentation and risks sterili=ing a significant part of its capacity to grow." Some people argue more broadly that an e!isting generation has a responsibility to ensure, to the e!tent possible, the genetic Buality and fitness of the ne!t generation. 0enetically engineer children, they argue, offers a new method for human control and self#improvement, by allowing families to have children free of specific genetic diseases or society to reproduce children with superior genetic endowments. It also provides a new means for gaining knowledge about the age# old Buestion of nature versus nurture in contributing to human achievement and human flourishing, and to see how great geniuses measure up against the "originals." B. OPPO;+0+ON 0enetically modifying babies does not affect ethics of a child. I believe an embryo should take the natural path and should not be genetically modified because it is ethically wrong . /orality is not heredity, but rather created by a person*s environment and surroundings . If two murderers give their baby up for adoption, and the child grows up in a stable strong moral family, the baby is more likely to be a stable child rather then become a murderer. 6issecting the embryo of this child will not change the desire to be a murderer, but rather the environment and surroundings. Dhanging any embryo is not a moral obligation because it is not possible to change ethics or morals of an unborn child. there will be many side effects and can cause many future problems D In the future, if modifying an embryo becomes legal and a parent is allowed to adjust certain traits to the embryo, there will be many side effects. (his can be seen when species of plants or animals are genetically modified in a laboratory, forcing a species 6.+ into another, which is very similar to what a doctor would do to an embryo of a human being. 8esearch behind genetically modified food has taught us that a lot of une!pected problems can appear once we begin tinkering with genetics. 9armers will use genetically#modified seeds so that their crops will be able to withstand to!ic herbicides or to manufacture their own insecticide. /any people try to get genetically modified foods out of the marketplace and out of our diet because it is believed that genetically modified foods contribute to the development of many common health disorders, such as premature aging, reproductive disorders, immune imbalance, gastrointestinal problems, organ damage, and cancer 10ates2. If problems are occurring in our foods because of genetically modifying the 6.+ we should not risk problems of such damage to future human beings. Anot!er $otential long ter# $ro"le# of designing "a"ies lies in societies in !ic! one gender or ot!er i#$ortant c!aracteristic is fa&ored o&er t!e ot!er. +n countries suc! as C!ina and +ndia !ere "oys are fa&ored o&er girls) t!is tec!nology could "e used so t!at e&ery set of $arents t!at ants a "a"y "oy ill get one. Aoe&er) t!at is not e&olutionarily fa&ora"le <Agar?. +f a generation of only "oys ere to "e #ade) t!e !u#an race ould die out. 0!at is) ne&ert!eless) difcult to e*$lain to an entire country) !ere fa#ily $ride is "ased on t!e nu#"er of sons one !as. 0!e tec!nology ould continue to "e a"used. Dreating a generation of genetically modified humans could mess with evolution in unpredictable ways. (he premise of evolution is simply this as environments change, the individuals in a species best suited to the new environment are selected for. Without diversity in the species, adaptation to the new environment is more difficult without a wide range of individuals to choose from. (he evolution of humans has spanned about : million years and has resulted in the types of people we see today people who have imperfections and people who are very different from one another. + large scale of organisms in a particular species is necessary for that species to continue to be E competitive with other species and be successful. <y creating a generation of genetically similar people, the human species loses its ability to adapt to changing environments. )3arents choose to abort female foetuses not because they do not want or love their daughters, but because they feel they must have sons* 1usually for social reasons2 $. Even in western countries some minority groups' gender preferences may result in serious imbalances in some communities. (hese imbalances are socially harmful because in time many young men will be unable to find a partnerF in England this is already linked to a rise in se!ual violence, kidnapping and forced marriage, and prostitution. Se!#specific, generic diseases are only avoided a majority of the time, the process is not near $&&G accurate and therefore the medical benefits cannot be used without considering of the medical costs. 3re#implantation genetic diagnosis involves the development of embryos outside the womb, which are then tested for gender. 'ne or two of the desired gender are then implanted in the womb. (hose that are not of the desired gender, or are surplus to reBuirements are destroyed 1typically, over a do=en embryos are used to select a single one to be implanted2. + human life has been created with the e!press purpose of being destroyed. (his is another form of abortion H only the conception is deliberate. 5ltimately, it will be these technologies and not /icroSort that is used, since whilst the latter has a %;G accuracy rate if a girl is desired 1itself a lower result than genetic diagnosis2, its accuracy falls to I:G for boys, and the vast majority of selections will inevitably be for males $ . (hus, given that they are so keen to have a child of a particular gender and so unwilling to risk having one of the other gender, parents will not risk using /icroSort. Even if they do choose it, whilst there have not been overt problems thus far, scientific e!perts like Eord Winston e!press the fear that the process damages sperm, making genetic mutation much more likely. <oth techniBues are therefore to be condemned. the .ational +cademy reported reproductive genetically engineer of humans would pose a high risk to the health of both fetus or infant and mother and lead to associated psychological risks for the mother as a conseBuence of late spontaneous abortions or the birth of a stillborn child or a child with severe health problems. (he reason is clear e!periments to develop new reproductive technologies such as genetically engineer are necessarily intergenerational, undertaken to serve the reproductive desires of prospective parents but practiced also and always upon prospective children. +ny such e!periment unavoidably involves risks to the child#to#be, a being who is both the product and also the most vulnerable human subject of the research. E!posed to risk during the e!tremely sensitive life#shaping processes of his or her embryological development, any child#to#be is a singularly F vulnerable creature, one ma!imally deserving of protection against risk of e!perimental 1and other2 harm. If e!periments to learn how to clone a child are ever to be ethical, the degree of risk to that child#to#be would have to be e!tremely low, arguably no greater than for children#to#be who are conceived from union of egg and sperm. It is e!tremely unlikely that this moral burden can be met, not for decades if at all. genetically modified baby might suffer socially .0enetically modified children will become an outcast and one that feels rejected because of the thought of the parents changing them, instead of the parents accepting them for who they are. (hink about the competiveness of having the perfect child in the first place. /any parents want their kids to be the best. <eing able to genetically modify a child will bring this competiveness to an unhealthy level. .ot everyone would look e!actly the sameF some parents may want their baby to have brown eyes, as opposed to blue. <ut as a whole, many people would be pretty, healthy, and intelligent. What parent wouldn*t want these basic traits in their child- 3arents should not be able to play 0od when it comes to designing their baby. 3arents have been teaching kid*s ethics, helping their children succeed, making sure they know they are always loved no matter what they look like, and truly accepting them for who they are, without modifying any 6.+, successfully. Eet us not take the easy route, especially because we don*t know where it will take us in the future. 0!e c!oosing of e#"ryos "rings to t!e forefront a large #oral issue it! designer "a"ies. 7any e#"ryos are created) and not as #any are i#$lanted into t!e #ot!er. 0!e e#"ryos t!at do not 4t t!e s$eci4cations set "y t!e $arents ill get t!ron aay. Aad t!ese e#"ryos !a&e "een alloed to gro) t!ey could !a&e !ad long and ful4lled li&es) !oe&er t!e ones t!at are t!ron aay lose t!at $otential life. 7any $eo$le) es$ecially t!ose !o are $ro9life) &ie t!is as$ect as a !uge $ro"le# in t!e creation of designer "a"ies. +f #any e#"ryos are going to "e t!ron aay) t!ey s!ould not "e created. 3urt!er#ore) on #oral grounds) !et!er it is "elie&ed t!at !u#ans e&ol&ed or ere created "y God) it is rong to try to $erfect so#et!ing t!at !as "een $erfected o&er a large s$an of ti#e or #ade "y God. S W&%t D We T&in./ 1G 9reedom of choice is an important principle generally, but it should not be granted at the e!pense of unconditional love for one*s children. (he pre#selection of gender )is a threat to the core value of parenthood that is usually e!pressed by the commitment to unconditional love*, according to a 0eorgetown professor $. Dhildren should not be loved because of who they are, not because they are e!actly what we wanted of them. +s 7arvard professor /ichael Sandel notes, )consider the father who wants a boy in hope of having as a son the athlete he had never been. Suppose the son isn*t interested in sports,what sorts of e!pectations will burden a child who has designed with certain purposes in mind-* $. 9or that reason, parents should not be permitted freedom of choice in this regard, but encouraged to love their child eBually, regardless of gender. Dhildren are not toys. (hey are not meant to be designed to specifications most convenient to the )owner*. )It runs the risk of turning procreation and parenting into an e!tension of the consumer society* argues 7arvard philosopher /ichael Sandel $. If we allow parents to choose gender, soon some will want to choose eye colour, or hair colour. (hat is only the beginning. We are, in allowing this, encouraging false ideas of )perfection* H damning those that don*t look a certain way. 9urthermore, since of course there*s no justification for allowing such indulgence at public e!pense, the divide will grow ever#larger between rich and poor, as the rich tailor not only their clothes and belongings to reflect their wealth, but also the bodies of their children. If a "gay gene" is discovered, would parents be permitted to weed out embryos with it, using the technology this proposal would condone- We really should be encouraging the idea that when it comes to children, you get what you are given H otherwise, people be more and more likely to reject their own child when they don*t get e!actly what they want, Dould lead to the rise of Jgenetic castesK 0!is cost ill #ean t!at not e&eryone ill "e a"le to $ay to design t!eir "a"y) and suddenly $eo$le ill encounter $re5udice) not for t!eir race) "ut for t!eir inferior genetic #a(eu$. +t creates a ne class syste# #ade u$ of genetically designed $eo$le and naturally #ade $eo$le. 0!e $eo$le !o ere not genetically engineered ould e*$erience a loss of o$$ortunity "ased on a c!ance t!at t!eir defecti&e genes ill "e e*$ressed. +n t!is ne society) $eo$le it! a BGH c!ance of cancer ould get $assed o&er for a 5o" in fa&or of t!e $erson it! .G1H c!ance of cancer. 0!at (ind of social strati4cation can "e frig!tening. 2&en if $ri&acy las t!e ay t!ey are no stay in $lace 11 and $eo$les genetic infor#ation is not s!ared) it could "e o"&ious !ic! c!ildren ere designed and !ic! ere not) creating t!e sa#e strati4cation
How Content Analysis May Complement and Extend The Insights of Discourse Analysis An Example of Research On Constructions of Abortion in South African Newspapers 1978 2005 PDF