Advances in genetic manipulation technology have allowed parents to design their children. While this has positive aspects, such as disease prevention, it also has the potential to distort the nature of life and violate a child’s human rights. The debate over whether genetic design is morally justified continues, and society needs to be prepared for the abuse of the technology.

Introduction

Parents “design” their children these days, and some might argue that parents have been “designing” children for centuries because of the influence they have on their children. However, the new way of designing in the 21st century is different. Genetic manipulation through biotechnology has made it possible for parents to create the children they want. But before we embrace this technology, we need to think deeply about the changes it will bring. Is genetic design the right thing to do?

The Case Against Perfection

In The Case against Perfection, author Michael J. Sandel makes a strong case against genetically designing children. He argues that life is a gift, and that artificially designing life distorts the meaning of birth. He also argues that distorting the meaning of birth can lead to conflict between parents and children, because by accepting life as a gift, humans can humbly accept their own lives. He argues that parents should watch their child grow up with an open mind, but in the case of a designed child, parents may have excessive expectations, which could eventually lead to a broken relationship.
But there’s a contradiction in Sandel’s argument. What if a child is born with a fatal genetic disease? Although the odds are slim, some babies are born with a rare disease that can kill them at birth, or they may have to live with a genetic defect like a hair loss gene or color blindness for the rest of their lives. In these situations, can you consider your genetic defect a “gift”? Sandel’s advice to “embrace life humbly” cannot be easily applied to everyone. Rather, his argument seems to be valid only for those who are relatively ‘well-born’.
So is genetic design a win-win solution? In terms of disease prevention, genetic design can be of great benefit to parents. By screening for healthy sperm and eggs, doctors can prevent fatal genetic diseases, and parents can reduce the anxiety of having a child born with a disability or disease. In the modern world, delayed childbearing, stress, and environmental factors are increasing the likelihood of unhealthy children. Preventing disease through genetic design is an important issue. The birth of a healthy child is a true “gift,” and genetic design can serve a positive function for both parents and children.
However, some may still have a moral objection that life is God’s domain and that humans should not intrude on it. The reason humans are dignified beings is that they are endowed with human rights from birth, so no parent can do as they please, and everyone has the right to make their own decisions about their lives.
Of course, human beings deserve to be respected as human beings with human rights, and they have the right to control their own destiny. However, we need to question whether genetic design violates these rights. Treating the aforementioned diseases would rather help the child enjoy a basic quality of life, which is a guarantee of their rights. The claim that life is an absolute domain beyond the reach of science is nothing more than a religious belief, and the concept of “the right to determine one’s own life” is also a logical fallacy. No one can choose their genes before they are born, they are just the result of chance selection from their parents’ gene pool. If you can’t choose your genes, then it makes no sense to blame genetic design for making an unsafe fate safe.
While the logic of pre-natal genetic selection is more or less settled, the question of genetic enhancement remains. Genetic design can be used not only to prevent disease, but also to enhance a child’s appearance or abilities to meet parental expectations. For example, a parent might enhance muscle genes to make a child a baseball player, or manipulate their appearance to make them an entertainer. However, this would be tailoring the child’s life to the expectations of the parents, which could be considered a violation of the child’s human rights.
There are two possible rebuttals to this argument. First, even if parents have determined their child’s future and endowed them with the right genetic traits, it’s not clear that the child will choose that career. Having developed muscle genes doesn’t necessarily make you a baseball player. It could be a soccer player or an athletic academic. Acquired factors also play a big role in life. Second, parents still have a huge influence on their children”s future. If they want their child to be a gymnast or entertainer, they”ll start training them from an early age. Even if they want a doctor or a lawyer, their choices will shape their child’s life. Regardless of genetic design, parental expectations can have a huge impact on a child’s life.
However, I agree with Sandel that genetic enhancement can be problematic when it’s abused or misused. If everyone wants a healthier, prettier child, society can become increasingly competitive and devoid of individuality.

Conclusion

In this article, I’ve argued against Michael Sandel’s “accept the life you’re given” viewpoint. Enhancing genes so that a healthy life is born can be considered a true “gift”. If genetic design is used to prevent disease, both parents and children benefit. It can serve to protect human rights, rather than violate them. However, institutional safeguards are needed to ensure that genetic enhancement is not abused. With the right support, genetic enhancement can be a positive technology for children.