Bio-Ethicist Says Creating Designer Babies Is A Moral Obligation
| Genetically screening our offspring to make them better people is just ‘responsible parenting’, claims an eminent Oxford academic, The Telegraph reports. Professor Julian Savulescu said that creating so-called designer babies could be considered a “moral obligation” as it makes them grow up into “ethically better children”. |
, people no longer struggle with the ethics of designer babies. Now genetically screening our offspring to make them better people is just ‘responsible parenting’, claims an eminent Oxford academic, The Telegraph reports.
Professor Julian Savulescu said that creating so-called designer babies could be considered a “moral obligation” as it makes them grow up into “ethically better children”.
Savulescu, the director of the Uehiro Center For Practical Ethics at Oxford University, claimed in a recent issue of Reader's Digest that by "screening out personality flaws, such as potential alcoholism, psychopathy and disposition to violence" in fetuses, society would be a better place. Parents, he argues, have a responsibility to society to select for "ethically better children," likening these screening for the ones already in place for Down's syndrome and cystic fibrosis.
He said that science is increasingly discovering that genes have a significant influence on personality – with certain genetic markers in embryo suggesting future characteristics.
In the end, he said that "rational design" would help lead to a better, more intelligent and less violent society in the future.
"Surely trying to ensure that your children have the best, or a good enough, opportunity for a great life is responsible parenting?" wrote Prof Savulescu, the Uehiro Professor in practical ethics.So where genetic selection aims to bring out a trait that clearly benefits an individual and society, we should allow parents the choice.
"To do otherwise is to consign those who come after us to the ball and chain of our squeamishness and irrationality.
"Indeed, when it comes to screening out personality flaws, such as potential alcoholism, psychopathy and disposition to violence, you could argue that people have a moral obligation to select ethically better children.
"They are, after all, less likely to harm themselves and others."
"If we have the power to intervene in the nature of our offspring — rather than consigning them to the natural lottery — then we should."
Savulescu is no stranger to controversial comments. He recently argued in the New York Times that doping should be allowed in the Olympics because the ban makes illegal drugs more unsafe.
What do you think? Do we owe it to humanity to make more ethical babies?
Why stop with the babies? I want to be a better person too, as should everyone.
ReplyDeleteWith all due respect, Mr. Professor Julian Savulescu is NOT God. I would ask him "Who is Good?"
ReplyDeleteWell obviously if genetically screening your children will potentially help them mentally and physically you should.
DeleteYou would be foolish and irresponsible not to. You are being ridiculous and ignorant if you believe genetic screening is "playing god."
The problem with eugenics is that in practice it is generally promoted by people who overemphasize biology and neglect the social. We are a profoundly social species. Alcoholism, psychopathy and violence may very well be a sign of a diseased society, and not a diseased body. In fact, by putting a heavy emphasis on genetics, social antagonisms inherent in our economy and the institutions that support it are obscured. Eugenics becomes just another piece of propaganda to support social systems that are literally driving people mad. It is far from implausible to suggest that there is something political about pathologizing desperate unhappiness, distress, anger, and escapism. Remember ice pick lobotomies? They made people so much "better".
ReplyDeleteWhich is exactly why we no longer do lobotomies. In a perfect world when Christ returns there will be no sadness or sorrow, no alcohol or drug problems. But until then we still have a group of people desiring to reduce the world population to 500,000,000. What do they intend to so to get to this magic number. Hmmmmm. Nazi Germany did much research on genetis. Is the professor a nazi?
DeleteNo. Researching genetics does not make someone a Nazi.
DeleteThat said, I'm not really in agreement with Savulesco, but I do think his thoughts are interesting.
Those things have always been apart of the human species, alcoholism being part of humanities and many animals need to alter our consciousness. They are a product of our animal nature and are built into our genetics. Genetic alteration is not eugenics, please control your knee jerk responses and consider things with the rational portion of your mind first.
Deletesnip from James (They are a product of our animal nature and are built into our genetics.) I am not an animal nor ever was or plan on being. If anything else you could say this points to a creator making us all have hearts, lungs and so on. Because in the end whom do you thank for having a life for being made out of slim? No one. It's empty and alone. You could say that evolution does not have a leg to stand on but will be the first to criticize others looking down at them per the remark. (control your knee jerk responses) Unfortunately this is a religion as you believe in and have faith in Mr. James. There is NO guarantee on perfect children as we are not perfect ourselves. You can try, but the end result is still the same..playing God. What if this designer baby has something wrong with it? Is that to big to fail?
ReplyDeleteI liken this to be a part of... if it sounds to good to be true, it probably is. No one is good... no not one.
There are many things religious people get to say and believe, ridiculous things that have no basis in reality. But when you say you don't think evolution is true and the Earth is 10,000 years old and all that you are just wrong. The evidence is overwhelmingly in support of the theory of evolution. You can believe in whatever religion you may like, I mean there are so many religion out there to believe in. Some still believe in the Olympian and Norse gods. But when you say or believe things like the theory evolution or blatantly contradict established science you are just plain wrong, believe them to your hearts content but your wrong. Also perfection by its very nature isn't possible, biology and especially humans as complex and chaotic beings are the opposite of perfection. What genetic screening and modification are doing is simply improving upon the job done by nature, which as amazing as it is, is full of flaws and weaknesses, as the article talks about. If you don't want to play god, you should have been complaining the moment you were born and shouldn't have stopped since about the fact that you weren't possibly starving every winter or not at risk of being snatched up by predators, or that you weren't a cut and infection away from succumbing to a painful death. Face it we've been "playing god" since we developed the ability to manipulate the world around us with our bodies and minds. You honestly think this is the Issue where playing god comes into effect?
Delete