In this blog post, we will examine whether it is morally justifiable to design a child’s future through genetic design.
Introduction
These days, parents “design” their children. Some may think that parents have been “designing” their children for centuries because of the great influence they have on their children. However, the new “design” method of the 21st century that I will be talking about in this article is different. It is genetic engineering through biotechnology, and the age has come when parents can have children as they wish. But before we embrace this technology, we need to think deeply about the changes that will occur as a result. Is genetic design the right thing to do?
To the point
In “The Case against Perfection,” author Michael J. Sandel strongly opposes genetically designing children. He says that life is a gift, and artificially designing a life to be born distorts the meaning of its birth. This is because accepting life as a gift allows humans to humbly accept their lives. He also says that distorting the meaning of birth can lead to conflict between parents and children. Parents should watch their children grow with an open mind, but in the case of a designed child, parents may have excessive expectations, which can eventually ruin the relationship, he argues.
However, Sandel’s argument has a contradiction. What if you are born with a fatal genetic disease? Even if the probability is slim, some babies may die as soon as they are born with a rare disease. Or they may have to endure genetic defects such as hair loss or color blindness for the rest of their lives. In this situation, can you consider the genetic defect you have received as a “gift”? Sandel’s argument that “accept life humbly” cannot be easily applied to everyone. Rather, his argument seems to be valid only for people who are relatively “well-born.”
So, is genetic design a solution that satisfies everyone? In terms of disease prevention, genetic design can provide great benefits to parents. Medical staff can screen for healthy sperm and eggs to prevent fatal genetic diseases, and parents can reduce their anxiety about their child being born with a disability or disease. In modern society, the possibility of having an unhealthy child is increasing due to the later age of childbirth, stress, and environmental factors. In this reality, preventing diseases through genetic design is an important issue. Having a healthy child is a true “gift,” and genetic design can have positive effects on both parents and children.
However, some may still have a moral aversion to the idea that life is a divine domain and that humans should not encroach on that domain. The reason why humans are dignified beings is because they are beings with human rights that are granted to them from birth. Therefore, even parents cannot do whatever they want to their children, and everyone has the right to decide their own life.
Of course, humans should be respected as subjects with human rights and have the right to shape their own destiny. However, it is necessary to raise the question of whether gene design infringes on these human rights. The aforementioned treatment of diseases is rather helping children enjoy a basic quality of life, which is a guarantee of their rights. The claim that life is an absolute realm that science cannot penetrate is nothing more than a religious belief. There is also a logical flaw in the concept of “the right to decide one’s own life.” No one can choose their genes before they are born; they are simply the result of being randomly selected from their parents’ gene pool. If we cannot choose our genes, it is absurd to criticize genetic design for making our uncertain fate safe.
While the logic behind the selection of genes before birth has been established to a certain extent, the issue of genetic enhancement remains. This is because genetic design can be used not only to prevent diseases but also to enhance a child’s appearance or abilities to meet the expectations of the parents. For example, parents can enhance the muscles of their child to raise them to be a baseball player or manipulate their appearance to make them a celebrity. However, this approach is to tailor a child’s life to the expectations of their parents, which can be considered an infringement on the child’s human rights.
There are two possible counterarguments to this claim. First, even if parents have decided on their child’s future and given them the right genetic traits, it is not certain that the child will choose that career. Having developed muscle genes does not necessarily mean that the child will become a baseball player. There is also a possibility that he will grow up to be a soccer player or a physically fit scholar. Acquired factors also have a great impact on life. Second, parents still have a great influence on their children’s future. If parents want their children to become gymnasts or entertainers, they will start training them from an early age. Even if you want a doctor or a lawyer, your child’s life will be different depending on the choice of their parents. Regardless of genetic design, parents’ expectations can have a significant impact on their children’s lives.
However, I agree with Sandel’s opinion that problems can arise when genetic enhancement is abused or misused. If everyone wants a healthier and prettier child, society may gradually move in a more competitive and unindividualized direction.
Conclusion
In this article, I have presented a position that is opposed to the view that Michael Sandel advocates, which is to “accept the life that has been given.” Giving birth to a healthy life by strengthening genes can be considered a true “gift.” If genetic design is used to prevent disease, it will benefit both parents and children. This is not an infringement of human rights, but can serve to protect human rights. However, institutional improvements are needed to prevent genetic enhancement from being abused. If genetic enhancement technology is reliably supported, it can become a technology that has a positive impact on children.
