In recent years, genetic engineering has gone through a long way. What was created as an understanding project is currently very powerful. The article by Michael Riys helped me get some knowledge of the ethical dilemma confronted by the field of genetic engineering. Let's say you and your partner realize that you are a carrier of a genetic defect called cystic fibrosis and that you and you are both pregnant. In genetic screening, prenatal diagnosis can be used to determine if a baby has cystic fibrosis (Reiss).
Human beings in genetic engineering will be considered "not human". The moral principle is that human origin does not affect their "personality". This is a way to treat eugenics as a shameful legacy. The correct response to prejudice is not to verify it as a moral reason not to do something, but to expose it to the essence by using reason and evidence to confront it. People made by genetic engineering can be used for spare parts and organs. The US Constitution strongly suggests that once a human fetus lives outside the womb, it has autonomous body rights. Regardless of production form and existence state. Without their consent, we can not even use the deceased's organs.
Some people think that genetic engineering is generally beneficial, but many think that genetic engineering is unnatural and morally wrong. Also, as this technique is hardly understood, it is not possible to understand the long-term impact of placing old genes in new genes. Genetic engineering triggers moral urgency in society, leading the projection of this new science in dim light. Anti-technical experts, political extremists, and many of society believe that genetic engineering is not natural and violates the order of things. Many religious organizations think that genetic engineering should not be considered for some reason. Pastor Robert A. A. Martin said, "From the beginning God reserved the right to create a living soul for him" (Epstein 2). This is somewhat similar to the problem of abortion, whether or not it is morally correct.