Playing God?

Human engineering may be one of the most controversial issues of our generation. It is an issue that runs so deep, that it has erupted into something that even our legislation cannot ignore. On one end of the spectrum there are the religious folk who believe that making a child is the equivalent of cheating God. At the other end, we have the progressive, scientifical group who feel as though genetic engineering may very well be the greatest breakthrough of all time. Both parties hold valid points and share a strong passion for what they believe in, however this particular issue is not something that can be settled through pathos; it must be done through reason. Therefore, on the issue of human engineering, I hold the middle ground; I feel as though there is a place for genetic engineering in the world, but it must have limits in order to be beneficial for society.
At first glance, genetic engineering seems as though it were a gift from God himself. Not only is the act itself miraculous, but it also provides a new path for curing disease once and for all. No longer would children be born leukemia, or cancer, or heart defects. We could even remove mental retardation from the world, and save millions of people from being born into painful, torturous lives. On the contrary, not everyone sees genetic engineering, or “designer babies” in such a light. Others feel uneasy about ruling out fatal diseases all together, only because they believe that these illnesses have their own purpose in life. These same people say that without these diseases, and therefore without the deaths caused by them, the world would become over-populated. They say, that in time humans would live to unthinkable ages and eventually there wouldn’t be enough space, food, or energy left to provide everyone. Of course, this is a possibility, however not very likely. First of all, no matter how many diseases we are able to rid the world of, there is still the factor of human error to analyze. People will still continue to smoke, get into car accidents, and yes... even continue to die of old age. What I mean by this, is that even though people will no longer die of heart disease or cancer, people will still die no matter how hard society tries to prevent it. How could one not want to rid the world of such a monstrosity as disease or defect? One out of every three people have been touched by cancer either personally or through relations. So what if society could prevent you from loosing a grandmother, mom, dad, cousin or sister for such an outrageous reason? Wouldn’t you take the opportunity to save the ones you love?
Nancy Gibbs, author of “Wanted: Someone to Play God.” brings out another valid point that must be looked at when weighing the pros and cons of genetic engineering. She states, “I understand why no politician wants to get between a childless couple and the doctors who offer an answer to their prayers.” Unfortunately, even though a politician’s fears are undoubtedly understandable, it is their duty, I believe, to help solidify genetic engineering, as well as create the boundaries for which it must abide by. However, this task is obviously no walk in the park when they must face the other half of society who feels that to design a child is to refuse God. Once again, I must point out that the opposition has a valid point. For millions of years it has always been left up to nature to decide our fate and the fate of our children. And, with nature in charge, infants have been born into lives that no person deserves to live. Because of nature millions of people have endured mental, physical, as well as social defects, only for the mere reason that they could not control it. And what is to be said for the parents who just want their children to have healthy lives? Are we truly at liberty to deny them of this when we alone hold the power to grant them their dream? I think not. There is a reason why humans have been able to break through the wall of human genetics. Perhaps it was our hard work, or perhaps God wanted to give those women who so desperately wanted a healthy baby a break. On the contrary, I do believe that this “gene sorting” should have its limit. For instance, the difference between curing your unborn child of cancer and choosing whether or not they have blue or brown eyes is most obviously different. Once a “designer baby” is created based on intelligence, looks, and personality as they were in Brave New World, I believe that society will have crossed the line. Hopefully, between our government and the morality of society things will never reach this far.
On a more factual note, I feel inclined to bring up the rights of American citizens as a whole. In America, women have reproductive rights, meaning that their opportunity to have a child shall not be interfered with via the government. This also applies to genetic engineering through the use of frozen (stored) embryos. Many feel that storing embryos is morally wrong because they are humans… not just partial beings. Once again, I must bring up the fact that if we let government and legislation control which couples can become pregnant, I feel that our society will only go downhill from there. Who’s to say that the next law won’t prohibit families, or parents? Brave New World ring a bell? However, if World State is a society that we all feel will benefit us, we’ve not only let down millions of couples around the world, but our spirit as well.
As I had stated, I hold the middle ground. I feel no matter how hard society fights it, genetic engineering is here to stay. With this said, I believe society should embrace it so as to avoid being force fed this new way of thinking. Furthermore, I cannot stress enough how important it is that restrictions and clear boundaries be set in place, if genetic engineering was to become a larger part of society. In the end, we put our future in the hands of those who lead our country and create our legislature. Most importantly, we put our future and the future of our own children in the hands of the morality of society. Hopefully that alone will be enough.