Although scientists and other supporters paint a pretty picture of how ideal our lives would be with so many genetic choices within reach, genetic engineering undermines rather than enhances the promise of humanity because we fail to see the big picture of the responsibilities and consequences of possessing such a God-like ability. "Profound change quickly seems prosaic, because we measure it against the world we imagined instead of the world we truly have. Our technological advancesincluding those that require overriding existing moral boundariesquickly seem insufficient, because the human desire for perfect control and perfect happiness is insatiable (Cohen)." The author makes a valid point that with our eyes always set towards our dreams of perfection it's possible that we might not see the affect of the capabilities and discoveries we have now. Without shackling the most ambitious with regulations, things could spiral out of control very easily. Humans have a special duty both to develop the natural worldhence the use of technologybut also to take care of itwhich limits our activities. "Scientists and philosophers have been debating the morality of new reproductive technologies that may allow us to design "perfect" human beings. Advocates dream of eliminating conditions such as spina bifida
but what of prospective parents who deliberately engineer a genetic defect into their offspring? (McElroy)." The author refers to a couple who did everything they could to ensure their child would be deaf because they thought he would benefit from the handicap. Their decision created such an uproar that it incited many people to wish for laws against genetic tampering. But how can you draw a line when it might keep someone from saving their child from hemophilia? At what point is it okay to abort a severely retarded child just because you can turn around and grow a perfectly healthy one to replace it? Adey's cartoon shows the irony in normal views on genetic...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document