We had a discussion about gene selection the other day in my senior English class. You know, “designer babies”, hiring a bevy of scientists to screen your baby’s genes much in the way the Latin ex-cons of “Pimp My Ride” would throw spinning rims onto your tires or slapping Egyptian cotton onto your seats. My teacher asked the class if it would be morally wrong to be able to choose whether a baby would have green eyes or be prone to having attractive physique once they reach they’re adolescent stages. The majority of my class said “No”, myself included. The teacher then asked if it would be moral to be able to be able to eliminate possibility of a certain disease in the baby. The class almost instantaneously resounded with a “NO!”. This time I did not concur.

Now, I don’t know how the answers would differ in the presence of a group of intellectually competent individuals but why would eliminating a disease before birth be any different than eliminating it after birth? Would you not spend the time and money in correcting a disease in your child after he was born? The only difference is you’re eliminating it before you have to deal with it. Still somehow people argue against this point. I do however mildly disagree with the thought of genetically engineering your baby to have certain physical traits and exorbitant IQ’s, that is just unnatural and scary. That however is probably inevitable.

What are you thoughts and ideas?

-Chris

Advertisements