Should Parents Use Genetic Technologies to Choose their Children´s Characteristics?

Although the technology to change the sex of a baby exists in the form of preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD), it is very expensive and most countries do not allow it to change the baby's gender (Such as New Zealand). One day if this technology can be used by parents to change the gender of their children, it is highly possible that male sex is more likely to have future problems than women. In the worst case, if only one generation of male is born, human beings die.

The expression "designer · baby" is used to describe the quality of use by parents of reproductive and genetic techniques to give parents choice to their children. However, this sentence is neither accurate nor derogatory. This is inaccurate, as the technical quality and ethical implications are very different, putting a series of genetic interventions under one headline. It is a derogatory because it sometimes represents a serious effort to prevent genetic diseases by choosing a derogatory fashion project and inheriting the genetics of our descendants

The assertion of autonomy for cloning is not convincing because it misdirectly suggests that children without genetic design children can choose their physical characteristics. However, we do not have the right to choose genetic inheritance. It is not an autonomous child but a child who is a target of a genetic lottery that will replace a cloned or genetically enhanced child. Some people think cloning is wrong (Kass and Wilson 1998) because cloning is different from the creation of natural and sexual pros. However, this objection does not touch the center of the problem. The morally disturbing aspect of reproductive cloning is that its main purpose is to make certain kinds of children. In this respect, it is similar to other forms of genetic engineering where parents seek to choose their child's character - gender, eye color, even their intellectual, motor skills and even musical ability.

At first glance, discussion of autonomy seems to capture the annoyance of human cloning and other forms of genetic engineering. It has no persuasive power for two reasons. First, it misrepresents that children can freely choose their own characteristics if they are not designed. But we did not choose his genetic inheritance. What is going to be a substitute for cloning and genetically improving children is those who are dominated by genetic lotteries, not in the future who are not tied to a specific talent.

The process of genetic manipulation itself is already an expression of excessive individualism. Parents have the right to genetically select characteristics for their children when manipulating human embryos. Human genetic engineering infringed the privacy of the embryo and further infringed it by the decision of parents. Parents are overly individualized when parents decide how to handle their embryos concretely. They think they are right and they announce their choice. Indeed, they transcended the limits of their personal freedom, and they strengthened the freedom of others.