New era comes releases new inventions in every field. And same goes for genetic engineering researcher are also working to create designer babies. The field is advancing in genetics and is trying to engineer human race. According to me the advancements are good unless they do not harm ethics and this advancement is unethical. This is against our Christian values. So, the scientist should avoid any genetic alteration for any reason (we should not play god), it is unethical in Christian values, it would promote further inequality and we don’t know what could happen.
According to bible we should worth ourselves the way we are. As quoted:
“But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body.”
Many countries in the world excluding United States are not in favor of engineering human genetics or DNA. Despite of the fact that there are many factors in us that we do not want to have, but still a human being could never be perfect.
As per my opinion, a perfect human is not a human because flaw is what makes a human worthy. It makes a human work over himself. It helps us to understand about others, their fears, their pain. According to postdoctoral scientist named Luhan Yang. A Harvard recruit from Beijing, she’d been a key player in developing a powerful new technology for editing DNA, called CRISPR-Cas9. With Church, Yang had founded a small biotechnology company to engineer the genomes of pigs and cattle, sliding in beneficial genes and editing away bad ones.
According to an interview taken by Antonio Regalado, yang said that the engineering performed on pigs and cattle can also be performed on human. She stated that yes, it is possible, and the Harvard laboratory had a project under way to determine how it could be achieved. This could help in curing lots of life risking diseases like Alzheimer’s, Down syndrome, HIV/AIDS, haemophilia, sickle-cell anemia, several forms of cancer and many other genetic disorders. The genetic changes created by germ-line engineering would be passed on and have and unpredictable effect on our future generation, and that’s what has made the idea seem so objectionable.
But many people are worried that an open objection about such a moral break could block a promising region of restorative advancement, to be specific rolling out hereditary improvements that can’t be acquired. It is seemed unethical and many of the countries have banned germ line engineering. Many discover the mitochondrial technique ethically sketchy in light of how close it appears to play God, or Nature, or Whoever you believe is responsible for making kids. As the New York Times described in a recent story:
In Britain, national law prohibits altering the germ line, but Parliament is very likely to vote later this year on whether to allow mitochondrial replacement to move forward. Likewise, this February, the F.D.A. held a meeting to examine the possibility of allowing clinical trials. If either gives the go-ahead, it will be the first time a government body expressly approves a medical procedure that combines genetic material of three people in a heritable way.
Not only the religion The European Union’s convention on human rights and biomedicine says messing with the quality pool would be a wrong doing against ‘human dignity’ and human rights. Every parent wants his child to have a beautiful life without any hardships, but this is not possible. As quoted:
Second Corinthians 12:10 “For the sake of Christ, then, I am content with weaknesses, insults, hardships, persecutions, and calamities. For when I am weak, then I am strong.”
Religious issue is one reason the other major issue is the sense on inequality. At the Aspen meeting, biotech expert Marcy Darnovsky said the more we imbue science into child making, the closer we get to turning into a Gattaca-like dystopia, in which a high class of hereditarily unrivaled creatures commands a tremendous underclass of ‘defective’ individuals whose guardians couldn’t bear the cost of the correct sorts of DNA tinkering.
Despite of all the above discussion the genetic engineering in humans also have some effects on human. Taking an example of the most emerging and dramatically expanding technique CRISPR. Let’s envision a circumstance in which its utilization in human incipient organisms would offer a restorative advantage over existing and creating techniques. It is hard to control precisely what number of cells are altered. Expanding the dosage of nuclease utilized would improve the probability that the changed quality will be rectified, yet additionally raise the danger of cuts being made somewhere else in the genome.
Pateint wellbeing is principal among the contentions against adjusting the human germ line (egg and sperm cells). On the off chance that a mosaic fetus is made, the developing life’s germ line could possibly convey the hereditary adjustment. In any case, the utilization of CRISPR/Cas9 in human incipient organisms absolutely makes ahead human germline adjustment a plausibility. Thoughtfully or morally reasonable applications for this innovation, should exist and are debatable until the point when it ends up conceivable to exhibit safe results and get reproducible information over various ages.
The perils of germline transmission of DNA alteration are not any more theoretical; the writing on transgenic creatures contains various precedents. For instance, germline presentation of an inappropriately managed ordinary quality into mice brought about descendants with no undeniable consequences for improvement, however upgraded tumor rate amid grown-up life. Such impacts may not be perceived for an age or more. As the sociologist Charis Thompson told Alexis Madrigal recently:
“You start out offering these prenatal screenings for certain conditions that everybody agrees are very severe. It is not particularly eugenic, but about alleviating the suffering of the child and the parents. But there is slippage. The more you can test for and screen out, the more people do. And the example this person gave was the high number of people who will abort a fetus that is found to have an extra digit.”
To conclude, genetic engineering resulting in birth of designer babies is harmful for society both in ethical perspective and with respect to the health. The changes in embryos for the development of designer babies is like playing to god and interfering in his work. It will also cause a discrimination of rich and poor. Anyone who is wealthy can design his baby according to his own desire. And the poor still cherish. Above all, genetic engineering in human is an unethical process and is against the Christian values.