Is it morally justifiable to design your child’s genes with future advances in genetic engineering?

The question of manipulating a child’s genes with advances in genetic engineering is morally controversial, with opposing views arising from the need to respect a child’s right to choose and autonomy. While parental involvement can have a positive impact on a child’s life, genetically modifying a child’s genes can raise issues that violate their autonomy.

 

“Should we genetically engineer our children?” is a question that seems a bit far-fetched now, but one that may arise in the future if genetic engineering becomes sufficiently advanced. Some people are in favor of it, and some are against it. The opposition is mainly based on moral grounds. Those in favor point to the excessive early education that is currently given to children and argue that it doesn’t matter because there is no difference between the excessive parental involvement in children today and what would happen with genetic engineering. However, I disagree with this argument.
There is a very big difference between this and the current state of private education. It’s the lack of parental choice. In the case of private or early education, parents can make other choices if their child refuses. However, the same cannot be said for genetic manipulation, as the child’s wishes cannot be taken into account at all.
One question arises when we say that we oppose genetic modification in order to respect the child’s right to choose. No one chooses their environment when they are born. There is nothing that can be chosen in the fetal state. That’s why fetuses don’t have agency, or autonomy, in the first place. The birth of a child is a product of chance. Even though the fetus does not have a choice, the genes that are determined by chance are not the same as those that are determined by someone’s intervention. Imagine a child who wants to be an athlete but is at a disadvantage because of his or her physical condition. If this child was born without genetic modification, he or she would be unhappy with his or her condition and would try to overcome it. However, if the child was genetically modified, the situation would be very different. They might resent their parents a lot, and this could lead to a great deal of discord between them and their parents.
Currently, young children are often forced to follow their parents’ wishes, such as attending a lot of schools, learning English from an early age, and so on. Parental interventions such as early education, private education, etc. still exist for young children and are not necessarily a problem with genetic manipulation. However, these acquired interventions are not the same as congenital interventions. As I mentioned earlier, acquired interventions can be modified through the child’s input, while inborn interventions are blocked, so they cannot be compared on the same level.
Parental involvement isn’t necessarily a bad thing, so it might be okay to allow genetic manipulation. The argument is that parents will genetically modify their children because they want them to be good, so it shouldn’t be seen as a bad thing. There is no parent in the world who wants their child to go wrong, so it’s probably okay to allow it. However, parental intervention is not necessarily for the good of the child. Parental intervention doesn’t necessarily lead to good outcomes because parents can make bad choices based on their own desires. It’s a choice for the child, but it’s a consequence of the parent’s choice. It’s a choice for the child, but the child doesn’t have a choice. It’s like forcing the child to accept the outcome that you have decided for them. If we don’t view our children as our property and respect their right to choose, then genetic modification should not be allowed.
Excessive parental involvement is problematic because it can infringe on a child’s autonomy. The same goes for excessive private or early education. Parental intervention is often done in the belief that it will benefit the child’s future, but it can have the opposite effect of undermining the child’s autonomy. It’s important to respect your child’s inclinations and abilities and allow them to choose their own path. The same goes for genetic modification. The impact of parental intervention on a child’s life can be profound, which is why these important decisions need to be made with great care. Parents who respect their child’s right to choose should avoid predetermining their child’s life through genetic modification.
The answer to the question, “Should I allow my child to be genetically modified?” will depend on one’s values. My position on genetic modification of children is that it should not be allowed because it completely disregards the autonomy of the child. You might say that it doesn’t make sense to oppose genetic modification because it’s an accident that we are born, so we don’t have autonomy or agency in the first place. However, the product of chance and the result of someone’s intervention are not the same thing, and a clear distinction needs to be made. Furthermore, parents who respect their children’s right to choose will refrain from genetic modifications that give their children only the results they choose.
We don’t know how genetic engineering will develop in the future, but the question we need to ask ourselves now is how much we value our children’s agency and autonomy. The role of a parent is to allow their child to find their own path and give them the support they need along the way. Genetic modification is a way for parents to pre-plan their children’s lives and force them to live according to that plan. It’s a dangerous idea that makes children feel like they belong to their parents. We should respect our children’s right to choose and give them the opportunity to shape their own lives. That’s why genetic modification should not be allowed.