“But when the sun was setting, all those who had people sick with various diseases brought them to him. By laying his hands on each one of them, he cured them” (Luke 4:20). Could genetic engineering be the cure they are looking for today? Genetic engineering is “the deliberate modification of the characteristics of an organism by manipulating its genetic material.” (Google) The most common genetic disorders are Down Syndrome, Huntington’s Disease, Sickle Cell Disease, and Hemophilia. Modifying genes can help eliminate the disorders as well as resulting in a potential to live longer and healthier. But, is it right? Is it ethical? Can people go ‘too far’? Although genetic engineering has some benefits, the risks are even higher. Genetic Engineering
…show more content…
Take for example, the topic of abortion. Parents who discover their child will have some type of genetic disorder prenatally, have a tough decision to make. Do they want to take care of a child with special needs or consider abortion. The CDC (Centers for Disease Control) states, “... Abortion after prenatal diagnosis has reduced the population of individuals living with DS in the U.S. by approximately 30%.” (https://lozierinstitute.org) In result, there would be numerous healthy babies who got a chance to live another day. If modifying babies’s DNA could save hundreds of lives, isn’t it a good thing to do? Well, designing DNA goes against people’s religious and moral beliefs. One organization announced something about the issue. They stated, “Religious conservatives were among the most vocal early opponents of human cloning, stem cell research, and related procedures, and many liberals and progressives reflexively assumed that the enlightened position was therefore to embrace these technologies.” (http://go.galegroup.com) Numerous organizations in Christianity are against genetic engineering. Furthermore, genetic engineering can be endangering to people's beliefs. On the opposing side, genetic engineering may result in a decrease in the amount of bullying. According to one website, 28% of people are bullied in the U.S. “The National Autistic Society reports that 40 percent of children with autism …show more content…
In result, only the rich will be able to afford the high cost of engineering, and not all people will be able to prenatally eliminate the genetic disorder. The cost of genetic engineering may be unaffordable to a large group of people. “A major threshold was crossed in 2013, when Swedish scientists announced the birth of the first true "designer baby," that is, a child able to pass its modified genes to its own children. Although ostensibly developed to prevent congenital disease, within four years the procedure was being offered commercially for a wide range of aesthetic, cognitive, and performance enhancements. The cost of a designer baby was high (about US $235,000), but affluent couples flocked to the new "better baby" clinics to ensure that their children had the best genes money could buy” (http://www.worldwatch.org). The average income for an American is $51,939. Not only do they have to pay taxes, but also rent, mortgage, or debt. It would be burdensome to have to save a substantial amount of money in time to proceed with the engineering. In effect, there would become a bigger gap between classes due to the high cost of the procedure. “If germ-line engineering becomes part of medical practice, it could lead to transformative changes in human well-being, with consequences to people’s life span, identity, and economic output. But it would create ethical dilemmas and social challenges. What if these improvements were
Take for example, the topic of abortion. Parents who discover their child will have some type of genetic disorder prenatally, have a tough decision to make. Do they want to take care of a child with special needs or consider abortion. The CDC (Centers for Disease Control) states, “... Abortion after prenatal diagnosis has reduced the population of individuals living with DS in the U.S. by approximately 30%.” (https://lozierinstitute.org) In result, there would be numerous healthy babies who got a chance to live another day. If modifying babies’s DNA could save hundreds of lives, isn’t it a good thing to do? Well, designing DNA goes against people’s religious and moral beliefs. One organization announced something about the issue. They stated, “Religious conservatives were among the most vocal early opponents of human cloning, stem cell research, and related procedures, and many liberals and progressives reflexively assumed that the enlightened position was therefore to embrace these technologies.” (http://go.galegroup.com) Numerous organizations in Christianity are against genetic engineering. Furthermore, genetic engineering can be endangering to people's beliefs. On the opposing side, genetic engineering may result in a decrease in the amount of bullying. According to one website, 28% of people are bullied in the U.S. “The National Autistic Society reports that 40 percent of children with autism …show more content…
In result, only the rich will be able to afford the high cost of engineering, and not all people will be able to prenatally eliminate the genetic disorder. The cost of genetic engineering may be unaffordable to a large group of people. “A major threshold was crossed in 2013, when Swedish scientists announced the birth of the first true "designer baby," that is, a child able to pass its modified genes to its own children. Although ostensibly developed to prevent congenital disease, within four years the procedure was being offered commercially for a wide range of aesthetic, cognitive, and performance enhancements. The cost of a designer baby was high (about US $235,000), but affluent couples flocked to the new "better baby" clinics to ensure that their children had the best genes money could buy” (http://www.worldwatch.org). The average income for an American is $51,939. Not only do they have to pay taxes, but also rent, mortgage, or debt. It would be burdensome to have to save a substantial amount of money in time to proceed with the engineering. In effect, there would become a bigger gap between classes due to the high cost of the procedure. “If germ-line engineering becomes part of medical practice, it could lead to transformative changes in human well-being, with consequences to people’s life span, identity, and economic output. But it would create ethical dilemmas and social challenges. What if these improvements were