Argumentative Synthesis: Gene Altering And Human Genome Modifications (Essay Sample)

Professors name:
Course code:
Students name:
Date:
Summary
Argumentative Synthesis
The allure of genetically modified humanly perfected children is slowly yet surely taking over the world. The scientific processes of gene altering and human genome modifications have become the talk of the scientific fields associated with genetics. The arguments proposed for this process of gene alteration span from the benefits of ridding the human race of chromosome-associated medical problems to the beneficial aspects of human enhancement, especially as relates to the physical and intelligence-related human capabilities. However, the propositions against this argument feature concrete suggestions based on the ethicist appeals towards the vanity of the gene selection processes. These arguments suggest the fallible and vane nature of human parentage suggesting that any such process that would somehow involve the selection of certain attributes of a human would be acting as God and per say encouraging the attribute-based perfect babies. Consequently, the possibility of a creation of genetically superior beings, the preferable side of the proponents, creates an unnecessary class division what with gene selection processes being a reserve of the wealthy even in the foreseeable future. The scientific creation of designer babies through gene selection processes is a risky undertaking that would result in an unnecessary class struggle, inconsiderate parenting techniques and a subversion of natural creation based processes.
Synthesis
The prospect of the creation of designer babies is a factor of controversy within scientific and social fields. The fact that scientists have been known to carry out gene identification and to use the same to determine the origin of certain medical conditions seems to be a consistently supported by many in the same field. However, the issue of the creation of designer babies draws differing reactions from different doctors, all of whom, regardless of their fields of operation are accustomed to the apparent benefits of the process. For instance, in the movie “Who’s Afraid of Designer Babies” the narrator speaks of a doctor Jeffrey who is concerned about the impact of Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis, a service that he previously offered but which he considers a risk especially as relates to the future applications (Who's Afraid of Designer Babies? 1). This doctor is worried that the applications of this system could be misinterpreted and used for futuristic yet harmful occurrences such as selfish selections of traits for children. These views are shared by the movie “Designer Baby and Gene Robbery” in which the narrator is afraid of the failures of these procedures of gene alteration (“Designer Babies and Gene Robbery.” 1). While recognizing that the human Genome project of 2003 was a success towards the fields of medical improvements and healings, the narrator records a reservation with the risks of entering into a world where humans are products since the prospects of an unending wish to update humans would eventually become uncontrollable. The same views are also shared by Hayes in his article “Genetically modified Humans? No Thanks” who suggests that there is no limit to what humans would do should the chance be offered for them to select attributes of their children. Therefore, the prospect of human gene alteration and the creation of designer babies is one which creates controversy the world over.
The benefits of designer babies and the processes around the same appear as both as a prospect for a bright future and as a recipe for disaster. For example, while the movie “Who’s Afraid of Designer Babies” presents the possible applications of genetically modified babies towards medical miracles and solutions, the movie “Designer Babies and Gene Robbery” argues against these applications and the processes leading to the same. Both films accept the fact that designer babies, and in extension the processes of gene selection and genetic engineering are processes that can change the scientific world. However, the narrator in “Designer Babies and Gene Robbery” argues that the process of harvesting genetic material from the blood of endangered societies as well as the ideals of selecting certain attributes of a person to keep while discarding of others is unnatural and to some extent divisive to a society already divided (“Designer Babies and Gene Robbery.”1). This position is supported by Hayes who argues that the use of scientific processes associated with gene alteration and the creation of genetically altered humans is inconsequential and risky especially when considered in the larger scale. Green in his article “Building Baby from Genes Up” however, suggests that the benefits of gene alteration and ultimately designer babies are a matter of certainty, one which should be accepted in a society headed in the same direction regardless (Green, 1). Therefore, regardless of the benefits of designing babies, the applicability, process and ethical portions of the idea cause controversy, with opinions favoring either side of the argument.
The ideals of parental choice as it relates to the eventual outcome of genetic modifications and child outcomes is an issue for consistent debate. While Leanne and Stephen in “Who’s Afraid of Designer Babies” are projected as parents without an ethical doubt about the process they intend to carry out so as to save B.J, Hayes argues that parental preference in choosing their children’s attributes would lead to catastrophic rushes and competitive gene alterations (Who's Afraid of Designer Babies? 1). This position is supported by the Movie “Designer Babies and Gene Robbery” in which the narrator argues that the emotional balance or the fulfilment of the designed babies would be at the behest of the parents, an implement to them to decide the life of another human who would eventually live an unsatisfied life (“Designer Babies and Gene Robbery.” 1). Eventually, only Green and the movie “Who’s Afraid of Designer Babies” retain the position that parental choice, in the process of gene selection and preimplantation Genetic diagnosis, is the only consideration a factor argued against by the other two articles.
The concept of scientifically creating designer babies is an unnecessary step towards selfish satisfaction of vane human interest. Regardless of the scientific aspect of gene identification and the medical applications of the same, the idea that parents should be able to select certain physical and intelligence-related aspects of their children becomes unnecessary. The proponents of this process argue that such attributes are necessarily improvements on humanity as it is today. They suggest that while such alterations may alter the lives of children, ultimately the bettering of the human race should become the central focus for a better future. However, this argument is inconsequential especially when we consider that there are no boundaries as to what can be done and when to stop (Hayes 1). Since parents would be forced to keep up with their counterparts, the chance that certain class divisions would easily create superior humans becomes an apparent issue. This situation would then create a further separation of humanity, a factor which confirms that designer babies and genetic selection is unnecessary and is bound to create an appetite for selfish yet useless competition.
The urge to create designer babies is a factor of unnatural subversion, one which will only lead to disaster. As noted, the gene selection processes and the designing of...