Designer Babies - a Right to Choose - Book Report/Review Example

Designer Babies - a Right to Choose? Lemonick’s article is of the opinion that designer babies are not an ethical problem that people should be worried about, so it could be placed in the category of articles which support the issue. In this case, the support is rather through omission: the author points out frequently that human cloning would be the main issue to actually worry about in terms of implementation, and also argues that designer babies are relatively impossible. “Gene therapy in embryos is at least a few years away. And the gene or combination of genes responsible for most of our physical and mental attributes hasn't even been identified yet, making moot the idea of engineering genes in or out of a fetus.” (Lemonick 1). This article is very careful about not coming down too much on the pro or con side of designer babies, so it is hard to categorize it fully in terms of support or dissent. The author seems to relish the details of the process, though, and generally there is nothing explicitly against the practice in this article. The opinion that cloning should be permitted and that people should have a right to clone themselves is loosely supported in this argument, but designer babies is more of a gray area because the author keeps pointing out its impossibility. More concerns can be made for the means by which a process practiced on animals is not being applied to humans. One of the considerations has always been the means by which humans are separated from animals through our genetic and intellectual makeup. The question has always been whether biology and science further humanity’s development in that direction, and in the case of designer babies, the yes argument states that this is clearly the case. There is ultimate concern regarding natural evolution and the development of science. Keim’s article is actually the transcription of an interview. Some articles give a general idea of how the interview went through a narrative, and others present transcripts. The interviewee in this article is rather strident in their support of designer babies, emphasizing the freedom of choice that should be enjoyed by couples or individuals. “If I've got a dozen embryos I could implant, and the ones I want to implant are the green-eyed ones, or the blond-haired ones, that's an extension of choices we think are perfectly acceptable — and restricting them a violation of our procreative autonomy” (Keim 1). The ultimate reality in this case is not going to be examined and utilized for survival purposes and for the benefits of humanity, but according to the Constitution and American ideals of freedom of choice. And under this guiding argument, this article supporting designer babies on this side of the argument for this hypothetical case finds that couples are protected to choose their reproductive rights with privacy and autonomy. This is the basic Constitutional argument of the yes side of this argument about designer babies, which Keim’s interviewee keeps coming back to. From this perspective, the idea of choosing designer babies is a reproductive rights and privacy issue, and Keim’s interviewee states that the government should not interfere in these rights. Another side of the argument may say that designer babies may suffer from psychological or physical problems being increased in terms of risk. But Keim’s article’s position counter-argues that while this may be the case, this is also the case with many accepted forms of reproductive choice such as having twins and triplets and deciding to adopt. And the government has not come in and banned adoption or the having of twins as a result. Keim’s interviewee also points out that any government’s reasons for banning designer babies are merely speculative and not based on rational decision making. Lee’s article looks at the problematic nature of designer babies from the perspective of ethics as well, stating that ethics tends to get left behind, for example, as science makes great leaps forward. This is contended by the author in terms “of the invention of in vitro fertilisation techniques (IVF) in the first place, and the fact that there have been further innovations since, this debate was bound to happen. Science, it is often said, is running ahead of ethics and regulation” (Lee 1). Since Lee’s sponsoring of the text of this document is a pro-choice forum, one would expect that generally this would be a political presentation in many ways, and would focus more on the pros than the cons. This was a surprising resource, however, because many of the points made are very cautionary and reactionary against designer babies. There is the assumption of a relatively activist based position for similar reasons, and represents a liberal political view that seeks change rather than stasis in the society at large. In terms of my personal comment on the yes argument, I think that it makes sense, and that people should be allowed what they want to do, but I also think that there isn’t much caution shown in the yes side of the argument about what the scientific community has to say, concerning the possible health risks that clones may face with current technology. With Lee’s article, these health risks come to the forefront. From this consideration, designer babies should be a separate issue entirely from reproductive rights. Under these considerations, Lee’s side of the argument finds that there is really no production to qualify making a designer baby oneself as a fundamental right, because there is a rational basis for banning the practice of designer babies. It is argued that it is very difficult to prove or believe that it is reasonable for people to essentially take over the role of creator and decider for the human race. In the “Hitler-style designer babies come under fire” article from World Net Daily, there is a clear argument against the practice of making designer babies, as the title of the article would perhaps suggest. The author quotes a doctor and established member of a medical committee as coming out very strong against the practice, stating that the designer baby scheme “crosses ethical and moral boundaries by turning babies into commodities. By stressing the educational level of sperm and egg donors, this center is preying on parents who have fallen victim to the false notion that babies are a status symbol” (“Hitler-style” 1). Thus there is an argument that can oppose designer babies, on the grounds that it is unnatural and dangerous, but at the same time this opinion cannot avoid the inevitability of its occurrence and its reliance on by science. The argument here however is that genetic cloning of humans is inevitable, but it is degrading and unnatural and represents crass consumerism, and a ban on it should be effected in terms of issues of reproductive rights. However, as mentioned, those against the practice tend to see designer babies as a different issue than the debate on whether to use contraceptives or have an abortion, because essentially these issues are not similar at all; they are very different from the practice of cloning. The argument against designer babies admits precedent, but adds that there is established precedent of the right against government interference in all private decisions involving reproduction. The reason behind this general argument is that this side sees cloning oneself not as reproduction at all, but rather as an entirely separate process of replication, which does not fall under any sort of tradition or precedent of rights. This argument points out that there is a wide gulf between the decision to have an abortion and the decision to go through designer baby manipulation. REFERENCE Keim, B. “Designer babies: A right to choose?” Wired. Retrieved 2009 from http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/03/designerdebate.html Lee, L. “Debating designer babies.” Retrieved 2009 from http://www.prochoiceforum.org.uk/ocrreliss7.asp Lemonick, M. “Designer Babies.” Time. Retrieved 2009 from http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,989987,00.html “Hitler-style designer babies coming under fire.” Retrieved 2009 from http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53680 Read More