Genetically Engineered Babies Argumentative Analysis

The goal of gene editing is to make modifications to specific areas of the genome. A topic that has been argued on in a big debate held by moderator John Donavan an author and correspondent for ABC News. Genetic engineering should not be accepted because of the many risks it can cause, the amount of money it would take to make these changes, and also it would not be fair to the parents who cannot afford it. Therefore, I do not believe it should be accepted in the United States or nowhere around the world.
In the debate “Prohibit Genetically Engineered Babies” conducted on February 13, 2013, stated that citizens should imagine a world where parents could control their offspring‘s height, eye color, and intelligence. Our genes interact in ways no one will fully be able to understand and making changes to them can cause us to be in danger. What if this new technology can be perfected, would it still be wrong to society? Sheldon Krimsky, a professor at Tufts University along with Lord Robert Winston a professor of Science and Society at Imperial College argued for genetically engineered babies believing this to be acceptable. Meanwhile Nita Farahany a professor of Law and Philosophy at Duke University and Lee Silver, a professor at Princeton University …show more content…
While it may seem fair to the parent it may not be fair to the child. A mother may want her child to be tall, with big muscles but when that child grows up with a fully developed body by the age of 12 they might not be okay with that which can lead to self-esteem issues. Also because genetic engineering is taking place in other countries outside of the USA, it will be unfair for a parent who cannot have a healthy baby and cannot travel to make this happen. I do not believe it should be accepted based on religious beliefs either. If God wants a mother to have a healthy baby he would allow that to happen. This new technology is not evil but it will surely be