Designingbabieswherescientistscanchangethetraitsofanembryotofitspecific needsaparentislookingforhasmajorconflictingarguments.Therearemanythingsthat designingachildcanbeusedfor:changedhaircolor,eyecolor,height,weight,gender,etc.As technologyandsocietalviewsevolve,designerchildrenbecomeanongoingargumentboiling downtoethics. Technologyisacontinuousadvancementwithasimilarcomparisontotheevolutionof socialviews.Theaugusttruthofsocietyisembeddedwithinthetwothingsmentionedabove: technologyandsocialviews.Thesetwothingsprovideabaseforourunderstandingonwhether ornotdesigningbabiesshouldbeanoptionforthepeoplewhoarewealthyenoughtoaffordit. Designingbabiesistheprocessinwhichdoctorsorscientistsgeneticallyalteranembryoto changethingslike:gettingridofgeneticdiseases(i.e.Autism,AIDS,etc.)orchange appearance.Thecostispricy,andonlythewealthiestcouldaffordittheprice,atthispoint,is unsure,howeveritisapparentthatthecostishigh.Thoughthecostishigh,itdoespayofffor thealterationandimplantationofanembryointoafemale.

Thefirstpubliclydisplayeduseof designinganembryocamein1996inCaliforniawhereafamilywantedtoconceiveagirlchild sincetheirfirsttwochildrenwereboysandtheywantedadaughterinthefamily.(Agar,2013) Thiswasthefirstcasewhereafamilywantedtodesignachildtochangethethegenderofthe embryotoconceiveadaughter.Thiswashighlycontroversialbecauseofseveraldifferent reasons:theuncertaintyoftheethnicityoftheprocessandalsobecausethiswasthefirsttime somebodywantedtochangeanembryotofitacertainrequirementtheywantedtochangethe gender.Oneargumentonthiscasewas:Isthisethical?Accordingtoastatementreleasedby TheCouncilonEthicalandJudicialAffairs,thiscaseshouldbedeemedunethicalbecauseof theparentswantedtochangetheembryotobenigncertaincharacteristics.Manycompelling argumentshavebeenprovided,mostofwhicharebeingpointedoutinFigure1. Designerchildrenhavesparkeddiscussionbetweenmanygroupsofpeopleachance tochange,orachancetogiveanewgenerationachance.Designerchildrenhavebeenavery questionabletopicbecauseofseveralarguments.Peoplehavearguedthatdesignerchildrenare moreofalabexperimentthanabenefittosociety(Kraemer,2013).Kraemerbackedupher assertionwiththesefacts:Iftheprocessisnotdonecorrectly,theembryocouldaccidentallybe killed.Furthermore,itisnt100%completeyet,anditisonlyintheexperimentalstagesyetso therearestillsomerisks.Also,thiscouldcreateagapinsociety.Thisgapisanargumentthat canbebackedupwiththeSciFimovie,Gattaca.Inthismovie,peoplewithimperfectgenetic codewerediscriminatedagainst,andpeoplewhoweregeneticallyalteredinordertohave perfectgenesautomaticallyreceivedbetterjobs.Thisisonethingthatcouldhappenifgenetic designingofembryosisallowed.However,therearesomebenefitsbroughtupbyKraemer.She mentionedthatifwegeneticallyalterhumangenes,wecanincreasethelifespanofthedesigner childby30years.Furthermore,achildcanhaveahealthylifeifitwaspredictedtohavesome sortofgeneticdisorder.However,oneofKraemersargumentsfordesignerbabieswas EnhancementofChildrenwhichtellsofpeoplewhoarentabletotoaffordadesignerchild wouldautomaticallybeatadisadvantagefortheywouldnthavethesamegeneticskillsetasthe otherchildren.However,noneoftheseargumentsmatteriftheycannotfollowtheethical

standards. Thoughmanyargumentshavebeenstated,theymustobeyethicalstandards.Hitler believedinthepurificationofthehumanrace,hencehisreasoningforstartingtheHolocaust.He believedthejewswereimperfectbeings,sohissolutionwastochangethemwhenthatfailed hekilledthem.WedeemedHitlersactionsentirelywrongontheethicscalebecauseofhis injusticesandhorrificactions.Withoutethics,humanswouldvebeenabletosaywhatHitlerdid wastherightthingtodo.However,sinceeverythinghasastandardthatmustbefollowed,we mustchoosewhatsrightforthehumans,notwhatsgoingtopossiblymakethingsbetter. (Philip,2010).ThingsliketheHolocaustmustbeprevented.Itsuptothepeopletodecidethe fateofthenextgeneration.Whetherthatbeallowthedesigningofchildren,orbanningit completely,whateverthepeopledecideiswhatthepeoplemaygoby. Advancementsintechnologyinspiredcompellingargumentswhichmustfollowthe ethicalstandard.Theadvancementintechnologyleadstoaworldofopportunities,butcanalso providealessdiversesociety.Also,argumentssuchascreatingagapinsocietyor enhancementofchildrenshowsthatchangingourchildrenwillresultinagreaterimbalancein oursociety.Furthermore,Hitlersplantochangethehumanswasunethical,sohowis enhancingourchildrentobegreaterthantheotherchildrenanybetter?Itjustcreatesan imbalanceinsocietywheretherichwhocanaffordthistechnologygainanunfairadvantageover thelessfortunate.LikethemovieGattaca,peoplewerediscriminatedagainstforpoorgene structureorabirthdefect.However,peoplewouldn'tbediscriminatedagainstiftheydidn'thave theoptiontomaketheirchildbetterbeforetheirbirth.

Thisshowsthatthenumberofpeopleforandagainstdesignerchildrenarealmost evenlysplit.ThisdatawastakenonstudentsandteachersfromWaukeshaSTEMMiddleSchool andWaukeshaNorthHighschool. Agar,NicholasandAnnas,George."TheEmbryoProjectEncyclopedia."EthicsofDesigner Babies.N.p.,25Sept.2013.Web.17Mar.2014.