Designer Babies and the Concept of Children as Property - Assignment Example

On Designer Babies and the Concept of Children as Property Are children the property of their parents What things are we forbidden to do with/to ourchildren, which we are permitted to do to our property The notion of children being the property of their parents provides grounds for parents who prostitute their children, compel them into forced labor, or deprive them of quality basic education. It is a notion that cannot be supported by the society that we live in today, whose principles follow the idea of democracy, individualism, and free will. Can children be the property of their parents In a warped-up society that does not espouse respect for individual life and liberty, indeed, children could be relegated as mere property. The notion of children as property, however, cannot thrive in a democratic society such as ours. The relationship between parents and children are very different between the relationship between owner and property. Whereas the owner of a property generally has real right over it, in that he can do anything he wishes to do with it, the same cannot be said in regards to children. We cannot legally dispose of them or any part of their body, either by selling them for adoption or by forcing him to undergo unnecessary surgery. Even when the parent himself is at the brink of death, the child cannot be compelled to donate his organ so as to ensure the success of any organ transplant that would save his father or mother. The child cannot be used as a means to benefit his family, his parents, or even society in general, if the act required of the child will be to his disadvantage. Even when the act required is to the child's advantage, if it is not essential and basic to his survival as a person, he cannot be forced into it. You cannot force a child to take a nap if he does not want to. You can beg him, as is often the case, but this would still entail voluntary assent on his part. Unlike property, a child has a mind and a will of his own, and is awarded specific rights as children and as individuals. Children enjoy a dual role, that of being their parents' child and that of being a separate individual. I think that it is the existence of this dual role that draws the line between what parents can and cannot do with their child. As your child, he can be scolded for not eating his green peas. As an individual, he cannot be forced to eat the green peas. All the rights of an individual are enjoyed by the child, and these are tempered only by your rights as a parent looking after the good of your ward. You are allowed certain privileges that are not enjoyed by people not his parents, but these privileges do not supersede the basic human rights that extend to all individuals. These "privileges", also, are awarded with the presumption that they will be used with the child's welfare in mind. If this presumption is violated, parental rights can be withdrawn by the state such as when children are withdrawn from the custody of their parents. With property, on the other hand, the owner can do whatever he wishes to do with his property for as long as his acts do not endanger the rights of other individuals. This basically means, that if you could place your house in such a location that setting fire to it would not involve the risk of harming other people and their property, then you are quite free to go ahead and burn your house. The relatively new development of "designer babies" places a unique strain on the principle of children as not being the property of their parents. Whereas we would be quick to object if a parent sets his daughter for an involuntary appointment with a plastic surgeon, we are a bit lost when the alterations are made while the child is not yet born. It's a difficult dilemma because it forces us to specify the point when a child already enjoys his rights as an individual person. Coming from a time when abortion of the fetus is generally legalized, then we could not help but say that the object that is being exposed to genetic engineering at that point does not as yet enjoy the rights of children. The genes being altered may be seen as the property of the parents. Generally speaking then, genetic alteration for the purpose of conceiving "designer babies" does not directly violate the principle that a child is not the property of his parent. Although it does not directly violate that principle, however, I do tend to believe that it risks encouraging the re-emergence of the notion of children being perceived as the property of their parents. The use of genetic alteration to create designer babies who are "healthy, disease-free, bright, attractive and alert," as so aptly described by Law, strengthens the notion that children can be bought, or to be more precise, better children can be bought at a better price. This emerging connection between monetary capacity and the ability to get a better child thins the line which place children as distinct and different from one's property. In the same way that designer clothes, cars and houses are employed as status symbols, designer babies could become objectified into the next status symbol for the affluent. It sounds like a far-fetched notion, but I do not believe that this fear is completely baseless. While I do agree with Law that parents cannot be condemned when they go through significant efforts to increase the chances of their child's success, the concept of designer babies has nothing to do with parental effort at all. It's a healthy child for a healthy fee, without having to make them eat vegetables. That's what differentiates genetic altering and being an eager parent. With genetic alteration, you don't need to be a good parent at all, you just need to have the money to get a trouble-free healthy baby. Read More