Designer Babies Genes
Would you changed the way your unique child looks or acts? There has been a debate on how scientist should use gene editing. I myself, mostly disagree with the idea of designer babies, but I agree with editing diseases out of humans cells. intelligence, homosexualality & prettiness is mostly determined through confidence, and who you want to be, but also through genes.
Changing your child's hair color, eye color, personality, and sexuality can change, and alter our world, by making everyone look and act the same. People who have more money will take advantage of what their offspring will inherit. But what people don't realize is that you shouldn't change the way a baby looks because you expect it to be “ugly”, stupid, or homosexual. …show more content…
You should think your child is beautiful no matter what, according to the article “How much can we decide about baby’s genes?” by Joseph Brownstein and ABC news medical unit, some people would clip “diseases” that some don't even consider conditions. The author claims that, “testing may move to conditions like shyness, obesity, and homosexaulity, which some may find undesurable. But many people, If not most, would find it repugnant to treat those as diseases.” This treatment may help end family diseases, but what if you don't hate the disease; and this “horrible” “dreadful” disease makes you, you. Joy Larsen Haidle, president of the National Society of Genetic Counselors, explained “If we do allow germline editing, some worry that it could lead to the creation of ‘designer babies’ whose DNA has been carefully selected to enhance their appearance, intelligence, or other traits that are not medically necessary.”This shows that Gene editing in off-springs to make children look “perfect” are unnecessary, and are not need to improve our world.” This quote shows that that using this “cure” would be unnecessary, and would just hurt our society.
Cancer, Alzheimer's, and other serious diseases will never be vanished, it will always be some where and affecting someone.
No matter what, these diseases will still spread until there is a cure, most likely not even then. Is this really a bad thing? This child went from an 40 to 80% chance that it was going to have breast cancer to… Only 12%, Stated in how much can we decide about babies genes?. This is great, but after all of the pain and stress you have over this procedure being done, and CRISPR possibly clipping one of your genes ( can lead to even worse diseases; cystic fiber and risk of different cancer) You STILL have a 12% chance. 12% is not much of a percentage vs. 40%, but it is still a 12%, meaning that out of 12% of people still would have breast cancer after the gene clipping, you may not think it would happen to you, but the thing is that the same 12% of people who got breast cancer from genes as well as people who got cancer through environmental factors, thought, I most likely won't get breast cancer now, but they get it . The most scariest thing is that scientist don't know how or why there would still be a 12% chance, so where is it coming from? Joy Larsen Haidle, president of the National Society of Genetic Counselors said “ it also caused a number of unintended, "off-target" effects on some parts of the genome. These changes could lead to other genetic complications, some of which could be fatal.” This quote includes an example of how side-effects of CRISPR can be more harmful than the disease you are
clipping.
Some people would say that this treatment, prevents genetic diseases such as Down Syndrome, Alzheimer’s, Huntington’s Disease, Spinal Muscular Atrophy, and many others. But would this “Cure” even help, would these diseases weirdly appear again in the family tree, would this hurt our society and world population, would this kill us humans? We don't know, that is why Gene editing Is to dangerous for our world. However, this treatment could possibly help millions of people survive harsh diseases, and end carried on diseases. This could potentially make our world smarter and stronger.
Conclusion (restate and paraphrase what you said before in your claim without repeating)
Changing your child's hair color, eye color, personality, and sexuality can change, and alter our world, by making everyone look and act the same. People who have more money will take advantage of what their offspring will inherit. But what people don't realize is that you shouldn't change the way a baby looks because you expect it to be “ugly”, stupid, or homosexual. …show more content…
You should think your child is beautiful no matter what, according to the article “How much can we decide about baby’s genes?” by Joseph Brownstein and ABC news medical unit, some people would clip “diseases” that some don't even consider conditions. The author claims that, “testing may move to conditions like shyness, obesity, and homosexaulity, which some may find undesurable. But many people, If not most, would find it repugnant to treat those as diseases.” This treatment may help end family diseases, but what if you don't hate the disease; and this “horrible” “dreadful” disease makes you, you. Joy Larsen Haidle, president of the National Society of Genetic Counselors, explained “If we do allow germline editing, some worry that it could lead to the creation of ‘designer babies’ whose DNA has been carefully selected to enhance their appearance, intelligence, or other traits that are not medically necessary.”This shows that Gene editing in off-springs to make children look “perfect” are unnecessary, and are not need to improve our world.” This quote shows that that using this “cure” would be unnecessary, and would just hurt our society.
Cancer, Alzheimer's, and other serious diseases will never be vanished, it will always be some where and affecting someone.
No matter what, these diseases will still spread until there is a cure, most likely not even then. Is this really a bad thing? This child went from an 40 to 80% chance that it was going to have breast cancer to… Only 12%, Stated in how much can we decide about babies genes?. This is great, but after all of the pain and stress you have over this procedure being done, and CRISPR possibly clipping one of your genes ( can lead to even worse diseases; cystic fiber and risk of different cancer) You STILL have a 12% chance. 12% is not much of a percentage vs. 40%, but it is still a 12%, meaning that out of 12% of people still would have breast cancer after the gene clipping, you may not think it would happen to you, but the thing is that the same 12% of people who got breast cancer from genes as well as people who got cancer through environmental factors, thought, I most likely won't get breast cancer now, but they get it . The most scariest thing is that scientist don't know how or why there would still be a 12% chance, so where is it coming from? Joy Larsen Haidle, president of the National Society of Genetic Counselors said “ it also caused a number of unintended, "off-target" effects on some parts of the genome. These changes could lead to other genetic complications, some of which could be fatal.” This quote includes an example of how side-effects of CRISPR can be more harmful than the disease you are
clipping.
Some people would say that this treatment, prevents genetic diseases such as Down Syndrome, Alzheimer’s, Huntington’s Disease, Spinal Muscular Atrophy, and many others. But would this “Cure” even help, would these diseases weirdly appear again in the family tree, would this hurt our society and world population, would this kill us humans? We don't know, that is why Gene editing Is to dangerous for our world. However, this treatment could possibly help millions of people survive harsh diseases, and end carried on diseases. This could potentially make our world smarter and stronger.
Conclusion (restate and paraphrase what you said before in your claim without repeating)