Pro-Genetic Engineering

No one can deny the joy that comes with the birth of a healthy, beautiful baby.
Their innocent faces bring lightheartedness into the families to whom they’re born. So
why any couple is denied this joy of a perfect child because of disease and defects if they
can be prevented? Genetic engineering improves quality of life for all of those who
partake in it: parents, doctors, and children.
Genetic engineering faces much criticism in society because of its advantages,
which is counter-productive to both sides. The idea is that parents will choose only the
best genes for their children and the world will be unbalanced. This is silly aspect, as the
world is already unbalanced. After all, as of now, only the most affluent couples can
afford genetic engineered (“designer”) babies (Source A). It’s argued that even without
designing perfect baby, children of rich parents already have an “unfair” advantage in life
because of the best medicine, education, etc. So how much different is it if these babies
are born perfect? Everything in society is based off the best of anything, and rich parents
will pay big money to make sure their kids can be rich too. Who would deny their kids
that right? It’s inevitable that these kids will have better lives anyway, so why not make
sure they’re not taking the amount of cash wasted on them for empty brains? On the other
hand, “bad genes” can be engineered into a baby as well. A woman named Sharon
Duchesneau genetically engineered a baby with her life partner so they could have a
family (another positive outcome of designer babies). The odd thing is that they did
everything they could to make sure this child would be born deaf (Source D). Deafness is
usually considered a handicap in society, but these women wanted their son to be like
them, something many parents appreciate about pro-creation. These women wanted their
baby to be born with a “defect”. In a popular sample, this would balance the “good” and
“bad” traits in the world; to each his own.
Many people against genetic engineering argue that parents will only go through
this process to make their babies beautiful, like Hitler’s Aryan race (Source D) of pale
skin, light hair, light eyes. It’s true; this race is based on looks only. But not only is this
point weak, as no one would under go this invasive procedure (source B) only so their
child would be gorgeous, but genetic engineering is for preventing (or in the case of the
deaf baby, enforcing) genetic defects. And if the baby ends up beautiful, that’s a nice
bonus. How is it any different than plastic surgery or even dying hair, both practices
which more and more become socially acceptable?
Eric Cohen wisely wrote, “Human desire for perfect control and perfect happiness
is insatiable” (Source B). The argument of ethics for genetic engineering will never end,
and I sincerely think people enjoy arguing over it. But it has, in spite of interferences and
unnecessary judgment, helped people. Infertile couples benefit greatly by it, ensuring
their babies will be a part of their family even though they weren’t conceived in the
family. It’s a biological, Darwinist process, really. The process of natural selection is
used in finding a mate, only when selecting a baby it becomes a conscious action. If a
person has found an infertile mate, they shouldn’t have to live with the consequence of
natural selection breaking down on them.
People always think about government involvement with these controversies.
With genetic engineering, people want the government to make sure poorer people
should be able to use the same technology (Source A). The issue really is that the
government doesn’t see an issue. It’s the government that has funded the research for
genetic engineering and even the research of the genes themselves. Thanks to this
research people can ensure that their babies have a happiness gene or a humility gene,
things we all desperately need. If the government doesn’t let people with money USE this
technology, the research was a waste of time and money. What’s the point of having the
technology if no one is going to use it?
A local Wisconsin comedian once joked that she never wanted kids, but if she
ever got kidney disease, “Sign me up for the spare parts, right?” While this is an
extremely light-hearted way to think about a human life, people need to be more flexible
about the idea. After all, the research is conducted to protect “well-being, liberty, and
rights of… donors as well as research participants” (Source E). If there exists respect of
all these things, genetically engineered parents and children are taken care of and it is
truly no business of an outside authority. Don’t like gay marriage? Don’t do it. Don’t like
abortion? Don’t have one. Don’t like families of perfect, happy, healthy people? Don’t
have one. And don’t infringe on the right of anyone else to have one either.