PHI208 Week 5 Final Paper (Please ahere to Instructions thoroughly)

profileSupplyGuy2711
Week1ASSIGNMENT.doc

Running head: DESIGNER BABIES 1

DESIGNER BABIES 4

Designer Babies

Marshakie Applewhite

PHI 208: Ethics and Moral Reasoning

Mr. Daniel Wagner

August 13, 2018

Designer Babies

Part One: Ethical Question

Should parents be permitted to select the gender and other preferred traits of their children if medical technology allows them?

Part Two: Introduction

Technology has become inseparable from humans where more feats are projected to be attained shortly. One of them is the possibility that parents will be able to select the gender among other traits of their children commonly referred to as, “designer babies.” Preferred characteristics such as color, athleticism, and height among others will be selected. Additionally, the technology will enable parents to have children that are free of chronic diseases and deformities. The technology is seen as a significant way through which genetic diseases and conditions can be addressed in the future. However, it is imperative to note that stakeholders are yet to reach a consensus. For instance, the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American Society for Reproductive Medicine have varying views and attitudes regarding when, how, and why the technology should be permitted (Meisenberg, 2008). The society is yet to come to terms with the technology and perceive it as a major development that will generally impact the lives of people positively.

On the other hand, it is imperative that one notes that the procedure will be expensive meaning that low-income earners will not be able to afford it. This has been the bone of contention as it is seen as a major way through which the gap between the haves and have-nots will be stretched further. The wealthy will be enabled to have children with desired traits while the poor will have children without any selected traits. Mainly, technology aims at improving the quality of human life explaining why the majority of technological feats have already been endorsed in the society. However, the “designer babies” technology is yet to be supported due to ethical issues associated with the expensive technology. There have been recommendations that if permitted, it should be affordable and accessible to all regardless of their social or economic status.

Part Three: Position Statement

The medical technology might be expensive; but parents should be allowed to choose the preferred traits of their children such as gender, athleticism, color, and height among others.

Part Four: Reasons in Support of the Position

First, already parents have natural methods for choosing preferred traits in the children. For instance, a parent can choose to have a child that is mixed-race. It means that the technology will provide better and improved avenues for selecting the traits of the children. Second, it was earlier ascertained that the technology will enable parents to have children free from chronic diseases and deformities. The country spends billions on treating such conditions hence addressing them before birth can save a lot of money. More so, the society will continually be able to get rid of health conditions that deprive it of valuable labor.

Part Five: Opposing Position Statement

The technological feat will further widen the gap between the poor.

Part Six: Reasons for Opposing Position Statement

It was earlier highlighted that the technology is projected to be very expensive meaning that low-income earners will not afford it. The rich and wealthy will be able to have children with preferred traits while the poor will not be able to do so. This will create further divisions in the society not based on physical wealth such as houses and cars but based on physical health and appearance. Further, when the rich can have children free from severe chronic and genetic diseases that means that enough focus and investment in the treatment of the conditions may not be put in place.

Reference

Meisenberg, G. (2008). Designer babies on tap? Medical students' attitudes to pre-implantation genetic screening . Public Understanding of Science Journal 18(2), 149-166.